How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: Paul Stowe on 6 May 2010 21:30 On May 6, 10:16 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > > The only difference between Lorentz/Poincare's version and Einstein's > > is that there IS a aether that regulates and causes the existence and > > properties of both relativity and give light speed its > > characteristics. What Einstein took for 'granted' they simply > > understood was already quantified by the then existing aether model. > > Again, your personal ignorance and baggage cause you to make mistakes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... > A) this was not the "then existing aether model" -- that phrase could > only mean Maxwell's model (as used, e.g. by Michelson and Morley > in their paper). Lorentz introduced a completely new model with a > VERY different ether, and Poincaré did not even present a complete > model. NO! It means just what I said, your ingnorance and baggage not withstanding. Aether theory, regardless of the the variant has common basic elements and properties. One does NOT! lose the bacis elements of Big Bang theory whether one is discussing without inflation, with inflation, or Dark Energy. Also all 'assume' the basis properties of the model WITHOUT! having to reiterate or restating them! > B) Maxwell, Lorentz, and Poincaré all "took for granted" a Euclidean > geometry PLUS an aether (different aethers, but no matter). > Ultimately, well after 1905, physicists realized that the primary > difference between those earlier models and SR is that SR "takes > for granted" a DIFFERENT GEOMETRY -- Minkowski spacetime. So what? If Lorentz's model and SR are mathematically identical so is the inherent so-called geometry! Is your ignorance and baggage blinding you to this fact? > C) That is not "the only" difference. For instance, SR is generally > applicable but LET applies only to electromagnetism. SR can be > AND HAS BEEN generalized to other realms, including QED, the > standard model, and GR, but LET cannot. SR is a pillar of modern > science; LET is just an historical footnote, abandoned by all but > a few die-hards like yourself, whose general ignorance of physics > makes it impossible for them to convince anybody else of their > views -- people who DO understand the issues know why LET was > abandoned, and why it will never be resurrected. But a full > understanding requires a broad knowledge of physics.... So was SR when published. It is only YOUR ignorance and baggage that is keeping you from realizing that, like SR, what's can be applied to one is just are good for the other... > [And ACCURATE knowledge, not the erroneous notion of SR > you seem to have in your head.] > > > There IS! nothing essential to Einstein's version or > > profoundly difference. > > Again, your personal ignorance and baggage cause you to make mistakes. > > The difference between Euclidean space and Minkowski spacetime most definitely > _IS_ a profound difference. Again, if both are mathematically identical, so is the so-called geometry... You simply cannot claim a distinction or uniqueness. The REAL QUESTION, and one you will NEVER comprehend is, what causes the behavior? > > Lorentz in 1904 already showed that only the > > delta change in velocity was necessary to computations and that, by > > the way we define speed c would be measured as the same value and that > > this fact caused local observers to experience 'local time'. The > > length contraction was already well understood so NO! in any practical > > sense there is nothing essential or profound in Einstein's > > metaphysical interpretation. > > Again, your personal ignorance and baggage cause you to make mistakes. > > The difference between Euclidean space and Minkowski spacetime most definitely > _IS_ a profound difference. Then, simply, they could NOT! be mathematically indistiguishable. > > The fact that there is nothing mathematically different and that both > > Lorentz and Poincare had priority in publishing all the 'essential' > > elements of Relativity prior to Einstein and that Lorentz's definition > > of 'local frame' matches Einstein's definition of 'rest frame' suggest > > that there is NO! practical difference either. > > Hmmmm. Once Lorentz's 1904 error in charge density is corrected (which he > himself did), LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. So in that sense > there is no "practical difference". But in theoretical physics the difference is > both ENORMOUS and "practical" -- the underlying symmetry of SR has been > essential in developing all further fundamental theories of physics. LET lacks > this symmetry [#], and could not have fostered these theories. The historical > path of modern physics traces back through SR, not LET; the unifying thread is > based on SYMMETRIES, not unobservable aether, caloric, or phlogiston. Funny, Bell, Penrose, Puthoff and others seem to prefer Lorentzian relativity. It doesn't seem to hinder them, your ignorance and baggage not withstanding... > [#] The irony is that this symmetry is known as "Lorentz invariance". > > > So, again, what is 'profoundly' different? > > Since you refuse to study, you'll never be able to learn. I repeat: much of what > you think you know about SR is just plain wrong. Had you understood the ACTUAL > theory, and the ACTUAL results of both experimental and theoretical physics, you > would not be so confused, and would not make so many mistakes. Tom you 'assume' facts not in evidence. I've have studied, passed, course in modern physics including relativity. Just because one understands concepts do not mean one has to buy them. Me with SR, you with LR. To each his own. Paul Stowe
From: Tom Roberts on 7 May 2010 11:01 Paul Stowe wrote: > On May 6, 10:16 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> The difference between Euclidean space and Minkowski spacetime most definitely >> _IS_ a profound difference. > > Again, if both are mathematically identical, so is the so-called > geometry... Counterfactual if-s are irrrelevant -- Euclidean space and Minkowski spacetime are MOST DEFINITELY not "mathematically identical". LET is based on Euclidean geometry PLUS LORENTZ"S UNIQUE TYPE OF ETHER. LET is mathematically equivalent [#] to SR, but their underlying geometries are not. This is amazing! -- YOU forgot about Lorentz's ether when you made this statement. [#] In the sense that they share the same set of theorems. > The > REAL QUESTION, and one you will NEVER comprehend is, what causes the > behavior? I "comprehend" what you are trying to ask, and reject your implicit assumptions -- your use of "cause" here is inappropriate. We can MODEL nature's behavior, but never KNOW what it is that she does. Models do not need any sort of "cause" for things like measurements to "behave" in accordance with the underlying geometry. What is the "cause" for the sum of the lengths of two sides of a triangle being larger than the length of the third? What is the "cause" for the circumference of a circle being equal to pi times its diameter? (In Euclidean geometry.) >> The difference between Euclidean space and Minkowski spacetime most definitely >> _IS_ a profound difference. > > Then, simply, they could NOT! be mathematically indistiguishable. They aren't -- not even close! (Here your "they" obviously refers to the two geometries I mentioned.) You need to remember that LET uses an ether. SR and LET are mathematically equivalent [#], but their underlying geometries are not. >> I repeat: much of what >> you think you know about SR is just plain wrong. Had you understood the ACTUAL >> theory, and the ACTUAL results of both experimental and theoretical physics, you >> would not be so confused, and would not make so many mistakes. > > Tom you 'assume' facts not in evidence. I've have studied, passed, > course in modern physics including relativity. So? You do not UNDERSTAND relativity or modern physics, as your quest for "causes" of geometry clearly shows. [I do not "buy in" to the concepts of LET, but I do understand them.] Tom Roberts
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 7 May 2010 12:49 On May 6, 4:05 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> > aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" > and former reviewer ofhttp://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm > aka kk, > aka Kurt Kingston, > aka Dark Energy, > aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, > aka TymBuk2, > aka Cadwgan Gedrych, > aka 2ndPostulateDude, > aka SRdude, > aka Edward Travis, > aka Ron Aikas, > aka Roy Royce, > aka John Reid, > aka Martin Miller > aka Wings of Truth > aka delta-T > wrote in messagenews:86d34be7-c6ab-4c17-9ac6-d6c0b80c481a(a)j15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 4, 1:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > > >>> (Mere measurement with a ruler does not constitute proof > >>> because the ruler would also contract.) > >> You are confused. Such measurements are what we mean by > >> "identical length". You are attempting to apply some mystical > >> new meaning to "length" -- don't do that. "Length of an object" > >> means what it always did: the value obtained by holding a > >> ruler up to the object and measuring it (which implicitly means > >> the ruler is at rest relative to the object being measured). > >> After all, kids in kindergarten are taught not to move the ruler > >> when making a measurement; do you need to go back and learn that > >> lesson? > > > At least this is not word salad > > Shouldn't you find another hobby, Brian? > > Dirk Vdm Tom at least tried to tackle the problem. You're the one who needs another hobby, Dirk. Or are you having too much fun with your aka hobby? ~RA~
From: Tom Roberts on 7 May 2010 14:00 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > On May 4, 1:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >>> 2. Can you show it on paper? (Can you show the >>> MMx null result on paper using identical legs?) > >> It is trivial, and no math is needed; I'll use the inertial frame >> in which the center of the interferometer is at rest [#]. In SR the >> speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame. Since the >> arms have constant lengths, the round-trip time for the light to >> traverse each arm is independent of the orientation of the instrument. >> So the location of the visible fringes does not vary with orientation >> -- a null result. > > Too trivial to be true. You neglected to show how the speed of > light can be isotropically c (in any inertial frame) without of > course involving legs of intrinsically different lengths. That is trivially part of SR. Plese look up there and see that I am using the theoretical context of SR. So I can use the speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame. Of course this is more than merely a theoretical result: the speed of light is MEASURED to be isotropically c in any inertial frame occupied by many different labs on earth. So "I" don't need to show how this can be so, EXPERIMENTS already have done so. > Your meaningless definition of "identical legs" cannot and does not > address the problem of explaining the MMx null result. It is > meaningless > because, as I said, merely using a ruler to check intrinsic length is > a fruitless gesture because the ruler also shrinks. You are confused -- that is not "meaningless", it is the standard and usual definition. It boggles the mind to think you don't accept that two legs have identical lengths if when you hold them up next to each other their ends line up. And this is _INTRINSIC_ length, which is always measured by a ruler held up to the object. As I said before, you confuse yourself by attempting to consider "shrinking" due to motion relative to a hypothetical, unknown, and unobservable ether frame. But for INTRINSIC length it does not matter -- the legs of the interferometer are at rest in the lab frame, and that's where I measure them. Moreover, even given your silly and unsupported assumptions, when I hold a ruler up to the leg, it measures the intrinsic length REGARDLESS of what you think about "shrinkage". Because indeed the ruler also shrinks. > Given truly (or intrinsically) identical legs, here is the math for > the MMx: [...] Again you are confusing different theoretical contexts and different meanings of words. In particular, intrinsic length is the length of an object measured in its rest frame, not in any frame relative to which it is moving. > Obviously, the only way to get equal times is to change one or both > of the L's because you can't monkey with c or v. The right approach is to use SR. > As John Wheeler said, an intrinsic length contraction can explain the > MMx null result, Yes, when computed CORRECTLY. The full developed theory is known as LET, and it includes more than just "intrinsic length contraction". > and as ~RA~ said, no other explanation works, and SR > has no physical explanation anyway. You remain confused. The explanation of SR does indeed work. There's no need for a "physical explanation" of SR, because it is essentially geometry. What is the "physical explanation" for the sum of the lengths of two sides of a triangle being larger than the length of the third side? Or of the circumference of a circle being pi times its diameter? At base, you'll ultimately need to invoke Euclidean geometry, which has no "physical explanation" at all. Tom Roberts
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 7 May 2010 14:36
On May 7, 2:00 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> As John Wheeler said, an intrinsic length contraction can explain the >> MMx null result, > Yes, when computed CORRECTLY. The full developed theory is known as LET, > and it includes more than just "intrinsic length contraction". I see that you did not properly read what Wheeler wrote. Here it is again: Wheeler said that the MMx null result was physically explained by two theories, namely, theory A and theory B. The former has a real, physical, intrinsic leg contraction, and the latter added real clock slowing to this. (Only after the second version of the MMx - the timed round-trip experiment - was theory A shot down, but theory B remains viable, with its double-barreled full physical explanation of the full round-trip null result. > You remain confused. The explanation of SR does indeed work. There's no need > for a "physical explanation" of SR, because it is essentially geometry. > What is the "physical explanation" for the sum of the lengths > of two sides of a triangle being larger than the length of the > third side? Or of the circumference of a circle being pi times > its diameter? At base, you'll ultimately need to invoke > Euclidean geometry, which has no "physical explanation" at all. > Tom Roberts The SR "explanation" cannot work because SR pertains only to an outside observer's view of the MMx apparatus. No mere outside viewpoint can possibly control or affect any part of this closed-lab experiment. ~RA~ |