Gravity and black holes
in [Math]
|
Prev: full solution manual for: Orbital Mechanics: For Engineering Students by Howard Curtis 2nd edition (includes matlab scripts)
Next: Row of urinals puzzle
From: Tom Roberts on 17 Jan 2010 17:00 xxein wrote: > There is one thing that Tom cannot explain and it > is fundemental to SR. MMX. He cannot explain the time of the > lightpaths without a physical length contraction. You spend too much time listening to yourself and other idiots, and not enough studying actual physics. In the MMX, the time light takes to traverse the different light paths (from source to eyeball) is equal because: A) the apparatus is at rest in an inertial frame; this is really an approximation, but its effects are VASTLY smaller than the experimental resolutions B) those light paths have equal lengths in the inertial frame of the apparatus C) in an inertial frame, light propagates isotropically with speed c in vacuum, and with speed c/n in a co-moving medium with index of refraction n, such as the air in the MMX. (flight times being equal implies no fringe shift, which is really what is measured, not flight times.) Nowhere is there any sort of "physical length contraction". Such a "physical contraction" would be nonsensical -- multiple observers could measure a given object simultaneously, so if "contraction" was physical the object would have to have multiple different "physical contractions" simultaneously, which is absurd. Relativity models this as a geometric projection, and there is no problem at all in projecting a given object simultaneously onto multiple coordinate systems (and getting multiple results). glird wrote: > After a Minkowski affine rotation ensures that their axes either > coincide or are parallel, if "Neither object nor observer are > 'changed' in any way due to different inertial motions" then how come > an STR "observer's MEASUREMENTS of an object {WILL} vary with relative > velocity of the object being measured"? As I said, neither object nor observer is "changed", but their RELATIONSHIP is changed, and it is this change in RELATIONSHIP the gives rise to different measurements. > How come that doesn't hold good in Cartesian systems? IT DOES. Take a rod about half a meter long, and a meterstick which we will call the x axis. Align the rod along the x axis and measure its length. Then align it at some angle in the x-y plane and re-measure its length by projecting its endpoints to the x axis (meterstick) along lines perpendicular to the x axis. The second measurement CLEARLY obtains a smaller value for its "length along x"; note that NEITHER the rod NOR the meterstick "changed", yet the measurement gets a different value. Exercise for glird: what did change? Hint: can you say "their relationship"? That was clearly a circular rotation in the x-y plane. In relativity, relative motion along the x axis is a hyperbolic rotation in the x-t plane. Like the above example the PROJECTION onto the x axis varies with the rotation (relative velocity). Yet neither object nor meterstick (coordinates) changed. For the rod-meterstick example, one must measure along x via projection perpendicular to x. For a relatively moving object, that means marking the endpoints of the moving object SIMULTANEOUSLY. That simultaneous marking is in this case the essence of geometrical projection in spacetime perpendicular to the x axis. It should be clear that when measuring the length of a moving object by marking its endpoints and then measuring the distance between marks, if you don't mark the endpoints simultaneously then the distance between marks cannot be considered to represent the object's length in your frame. Tom Roberts
From: glird on 18 Jan 2010 17:45 On Jan 17, 5:00 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > <n the MMX, the time light takes to traverse the different light paths (from source to eyeball) is equal because: A) the apparatus is at rest in an inertial frame; this is really an approximation, but its effects are VASTLY smaller than the experimental resolutions B) those light paths have equal lengths in the inertial frame of the apparatus C) {as measured} in an {esynched} inertial frame, light propagates isotropically with speed c in vacuum, and with speed c/n in a co- moving medium with index of refraction n, such as the air in the MMX. (flight times being equal {as measured in an esynched "inertial" frame} implies no fringe shift, which is really what is measured, not flight times.) Nowhere is there any sort of "physical length contraction".> You spend too much time listening to yourself and other idiots, and not enough studying the physics in the landmark papers by Lorentz, Poincare', Einstein and Minkowski; written between early 1904 and late September, 1908. >< Such a "physical contraction" would be nonsensical -- multiple observers could measure a given object simultaneously, so if "contraction" was physical the object would have to have multiple different "physical contractions" simultaneously, which is absurd.> Perhaps you never heard of Einstein's method of setting clocks of a given system, and then using those clocks as measuring tools to find the length of a differently moving rod. If you did, you might try to understand how those methods of MEASURING such lengths would AND DO yield multiple different values, depending on who's looking. >< Relativity models this as a geometric projection, and there is no problem at all in projecting a given object simultaneously onto multiple coordinate systems (and getting multiple results). > How would Wheeler explain the experimental fact the "time" of differently moving clocks depends on their state of motion? > glird wrote: > >< After a Minkowski affine rotation ensures that their axes either coincide or are parallel, if "Neither object nor observer are 'changed' in any way due to different inertial motions" then how come an STR "observer's MEASUREMENTS of an object {WILL} vary with relative velocity of the object being measured"? > >< As I said, neither object nor observer is "changed", but their RELATIONSHIP is changed, and it is this change in RELATIONSHIP that gives rise to different measurements. > If you understood Minkowski's 1908 paper compared to Wheeler's 1980 "rotations" perhaps you might understand and ANSWER my question; which began with "AFTER a Minkowski affine rotation ensures that their axes either coincide or are parallel". That rules out Wheeler's "rotations"; which -- for no reason whatsoever other than it allows the same results as the LTE -- are by an amount that depends on the relative speed per body; thus is itself a function of v. >< Take a rod about half a meter long, and a meter stick which we will call the x axis. Align the rod along the x axis and measure its length. Then align it at some angle in the x-y plane and re-measure its length by projecting its endpoints to the x axis (meter stick) along lines perpendicular to the x axis. The second measurement CLEARLY obtains a smaller value for its "length along x"; note that NEITHER the rod NOR the meterstick "changed", yet the measurement gets a different value. Exercise for glird: what did change? Hint: can you say "their relationship"? > YOU changed the angle between the moving rod (the x' axis) and the x axis. It is VERY easy to understand how that WOULD yield a false PROJECTED value. But how do you or the rod know exactly how much to rotate the moving rod so that its projected value is the same as that obtained by measuring a non-rotated Lorentz-deformed rod using esynched clocks? > That was clearly a circular rotation in the > x-y plane. Really? How about the x-z plane and/or the yz plane? >< In relativity, relative motion along the x axis is a hyperbolic rotation in the x-t plane. > That's what Wheeler said, circa the 1970s. In Einstein and Minkowski's relativity, if the x axis IS rotated in any plane at all, it is to be subjected to .. hold on a sec and i will quote it for you... hmmnn -- seems that minkowski DID set forth rotations and projectiins as his modus vivendi. But after a few pages he said WHY he did that; "Now the impulse and true motive for assuming the group G-c came from the fact that the differential equation" STOP!! That explains many things, specially why physicists misunderstand STR. But that's another story. I have to look up my decades-ago critique of Minkowski's paper. i will report back after i do that. >< It should be clear that when measuring the length of a moving object by marking its endpoints and then measuring the distance between marks, if you don't mark the endpoints simultaneously then the distance between marks cannot be considered to represent the object's length in your frame. > Meanwhile, Tom et al, please look up Einstein's meaning of "simultaneously" and try to understand WHY he defined it that way. glird
From: spudnik on 20 Jan 2010 00:58 several have posted references to the non-null results of the Michelson-Morely Xprmnt; Cahill (?) sites a paper that gives a l o v e l y graphical comparison of the "nulls" of M&M and successors (D.C.Miller e.g.); read it and freak. > The Earth would be a very dark place, and no biological systems could > exist. Please know that I've totally disproved SR and GR (beyond the > latter being a very close ANALOGY). Read some of the following links thus: cool; would some one provide a tutorial? > > the number of self-conjugate partitions of N is the same as the number of > > partitions of N into distinct odd parts. Is there a way to determine the > > number S(N;n) of self-conjugate paritions of N given that they all > > must contain a largest element n? > It seems to me that S(N; n) = S(N - 2 n + 1). thus: I agree with the above pundits; all you have to do is actually create such a proof, or you can just "work-through" any that were done, such as Fermat's -- http://wlym.com -- the creator of the modern theory of numbers, of which Godel was a rather crude arithmetical usage -- totally elementary, but rather laborious -- I think. in particular, Fermat's "reconstruction" of Euclid's "porisms" is supposed to be exmplary, for a cannonical geometrical proof. > Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth thus: first of all, did anyone point out that the Archimedean valuation of "irony" is perhaps a definition of some other (English) word?... I invite others to supply a better word to his putative de-finite-ion! I would, again -- at the risk of contributing to any royalties that AP gets for any one attending to his **** -- like, to refer to Ore's _Number Theory and Its History_ for a de-finite-ive account of Stevin's revolution of _The Decimals_, and the reference to it in Munk's treatise (published by a "vanity press," as he had used during the Great Depression to publish the first "layman's" account of aerodynamics.) [am I recalling correctly, taht this caused the Plutonium One to issue a threat upon my life -- very scarey ?-] > You really should read the articles you quote from. --l'OEuvre! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jan 2010 13:47 On Jan 20, 12:58 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: The disproof (or seeming understanding/non- understanding) of M-M doesn't require complicated math. It only requires logic! The first point of logic is: IF ether has... DRAG, then all light would eventually be stopped in passing through the ether. The second point of logic is: Light in transit isn't connected to the M-M apparatus. Therefore, such apparatus will continue to MOVE (due to the motion of the Earth at the location and time in question) while the light travels from the source to the target. Because I'm an architect and visualize spatial things easily, I realized that light rays will have a lateral component away from the designed centerline of the apparatus that directly correlates to the velocity of the Earth and the orientation of the apparatus at any particular time. Armed with that knowledge, I was able to REASON, in about one hour's time, that the lateral motion of BOTH light courses is identical. Such is because both have one 45 degree mirror (the beamsplitter) in each light course and one perpendicular mirror. That SYMMETRY means that both light courses speed-up or slow-down IDENTICALLY. Without a CONTROL, or unchanging light course, there can be NO interference! That is WHY M-M had nil (not null) results. All of the Lorentz transformation nonsense was never needed! To confirm my 'reasoning invalidation' of the M-M experiment, I also did relatively simple mathematical calculations, correct to 9 decimal places, which prove that the TIME of travel of light rays in both light courses never changes regardless of the velocity of the Earth or the orientation of the M-M apparatus. Finally, I designed my X, Y, and Z interferometer which places the unchanging CONTROL light course on the Z axis about which the apparatus is rotated. Such design easily detects hundreds of fringe shifts in 360 degrees of apparatus rotation. Note: But due to the small size (3/8") of the bulls eye, the accurate counting of the fringes isn't possible. An improved interferometer is a work-in-progress. NoEinstein > > several have posted references to the non-null results > of the Michelson-Morely Xprmnt; Cahill (?) sites a paper > that gives a l o v e l y graphical comparison > of the "nulls" of M&M and successors (D.C.Miller e.g.); > read it and freak. > > > The Earth would be a very dark place, and no biological systems could > > exist. Please know that I've totally disproved SR and GR (beyond the > > latter being a very close ANALOGY). Read some of the following links > > thus: > cool; would some one provide a tutorial? > > > > the number of self-conjugate partitions of N is the same as the number of > > > partitions of N into distinct odd parts. Is there a way to determine the > > > number S(N;n) of self-conjugate paritions of N given that they all > > > must contain a largest element n? > > It seems to me that S(N; n) = S(N - 2 n + 1). > > thus: > I agree with the above pundits; > all you have to do is actually create such a proof, or > you can just "work-through" any that were done, > such as Fermat's --http://wlym.com-- > the creator of the modern theory of numbers, > of which Godel was a rather crude arithmetical usage > -- totally elementary, but rather laborious -- > I think. in particular, > Fermat's "reconstruction" of Euclid's "porisms" is supposed > to be exmplary, for a cannonical geometrical proof. > > > Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > > tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth > > thus: > first of all, did anyone point out that the Archimedean valuation > of "irony" is perhaps a definition of some other (English) word?... > I invite others to supply a better word to his putative de-finite-ion! > I would, again -- at the risk of contributing to any royalties > that AP gets for any one attending to his **** -- like, > to refer to Ore's _Number Theory and Its History_ > for a de-finite-ive account of Stevin's revolution > of _The Decimals_, and the reference to it in Munk's treatise > (published by a "vanity press," as he had used > during the Great Depression to publish the first "layman's" account > of aerodynamics.) [am I recalling correctly, > taht this caused the Plutonium One to issue a threat > upon my life -- very scarey ?-] > > > You really should read the articles you quote from. > > --l'OEuvre!http://wlym.com
From: xxein on 25 Jan 2010 21:37
On Jan 19, 9:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 16, 11:07 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Dearxxein: The MMX was a successful design for measuring distances > and angles, but was totally wrongly designed to detect the time the of > travel of light. Why? M-M had TWO test courses of light but no > CONTROL, or unchanging point-of-reference. And... if the time of > travel of light had been, or could be, slowed by the flow of ether, > then, ether most have DRAG. And if ether has drag, then light > traveling through such would eventually be slowed to velocity zero. > The Earth would be a very dark place, and no biological systems could > exist. Please know that I've totally disproved SR and GR (beyond the > latter being a very close ANALOGY). Read some of the following links > to understand why. NoEinstein > xxein: Why must ether have a drag? Light passes through it at a constant speed. In the context of a SR-GR relativity, I almost hate to use the word 'realtivity'. But one exists. Just not the way it is popularly presented to us. Drag? Ether? Did you ever consider that the ether could move? There is absolutely nothing to prove that it doesn't. Now how does mass attract? My guess is that absorbs energy. Why does a moon of Jupiter not travel a straight line tangent away? My guess is that the moon follows the energy path. Where is this energy? If it were static, there is no curvature. There must be a movement of energy. Why does mass absorb energy? Because there is no internal perpetual energy to support it's sole existence. A mass cannot exist as a closed system. Energy is available from the outside, however. Think for a short minute. All of the NON-INERTIAL activity going on in a mass requires energy to proceed. Where does it get it from? Sure. The nuclei can decay and give off energy. But where does it go and why should it be contained within the mass when we see that such a radiation is transmitted outward and affects other distant masses? How about our Sun? It gives off tremendous radiation energy. But it still attracts. Why? Because its internal process requires more energy to exist than the energy that is expended over a certain time. Otherwise, zilch for an extended lifetime of this process. NOW, think about it. How did our Sun come into existense (as a mass) in the first place? It wasn't formed from an equlibrium of energy, was it? There was a deformity in the ideal equilibrium, wasn't there? Is an adiabatic process foreign to your thinking? Adiabatic processes cannot arise from an equilibrium. We don't know all about adiabatics except for recognizing certain thresholds that we can measure and put to some math. We don't really know the trigger mechanism. But it's there. It is hidden in the physic we DON'T know. Mass displaces ether??? That is less than there is a fire god. |