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: didier on 11 May 2010 08:21 Hello, On 11 mai, 14:01, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > What or who is DDRR ?? Da Do Ron Ron,
From: harald on 11 May 2010 11:38 On May 11, 2:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:681a3280-dc36-4fff-858d-3c44e8e03edf(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 11, 1:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > > >> > [from a Roberts prior post] > >> >> 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 [or when a ruler measures them as equal]. > > >> > Let's try to attain some common ground by using the math: > > >> OK. But please remember I am using the context of SR, not some > >> unspecified and > >> nebulous "aether" theory. And I am using SR as known in 2010, not as > >> discussed > >> in 1905-20 (the meanings of some important words have changed since > >> then). > > > Very good - you are making progress! > > As you now admit yourself, SRT has been reformulated almost beyond > > recognition (to avoid confusion, shouldn't we call that "Minkowski > > Spacetime Physics"?). > > He didn't say that .. do you commonly read things into > posts that people don't say? Hi Inertial you wrongly read a citation in my words. Tom rightly remarked here above that "the meanings of some important words have changed since 1905-1920" - to the extent that (as Tom also noted here above), while for example according to original SRT, "moving lengths shorten", according to Minkowski Spacetime Physics "lengths cannot change". Tom calls the original expression an "older meanings of words". > > But note that at least until 1932 (KTX), SRT was formulated and > > compared with other theories and hypotheses in the way that DDRR does. > > Certain concepts that those definitions relate to are difficult to > > understand in your language. Are you capable of a discussion with DDRR > > using the common definitions of words of SRT in the period 1905-1932? > > What or who is DDRR ?? The OP, with whom Tom is debating based on mutual misunderstanding. :-)) > > Coincidentally my main physics textbooks of around 1980 (alonso & > > Finnn) was mostly compatible with those definitions; that turned out > > to be very helpful for understanding old papers. Harald
From: Tom Roberts on 11 May 2010 12:04 harald wrote: > On May 11, 1:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> I am using the context of SR, not some unspecified and >> nebulous "aether" theory. And I am using SR as known in 2010, not as discussed >> in 1905-20 (the meanings of some important words have changed since then). > > Very good - you are making progress! At most in how to describe this to people who don't understand it; there's no change in my own understanding of physics and its implications. > As you now admit yourself, SRT has been reformulated almost beyond > recognition (to avoid confusion, shouldn't we call that "Minkowski > Spacetime Physics"?). Not so. The theory presented in Einstein's 1905 paper is the same as the SR we know and use today. Some of the WORDS we use have morphed in meaning to more accurately reflect their meanings and usage IN THAT THEORY; but the words are not the theory. Also, the best derivation of its equations has changed, because we have LEARNED A LOT since 1905 -- for instance, SR no longer depends in an essential way on electrodynamics or Maxwell's equations. > Are you capable of a discussion with DDRR > using the common definitions of words of SRT in the period 1905-1932? There's no point it attempting to do so. Today is 2010. People who attempt to live in the past are ignoring a HUGE amount of LEARNING. And if they ever bothered to STUDY what we know today, their confusions and misunderstandings could be resolved. DDRR and Paul Stowe are conspicuous examples of such silliness, perhaps harald as well; there are others around here.... Tom Roberts
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 11 May 2010 13:14 On May 10, 7:55 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "length of an arm" can only mean the INTRINSIC length of the arm; > its proper length. Da Do Ron Ron writes: Speaking of being confused, proper length and the intrinsic length are two entirely different things. As Wheeler correctly noted, the intrinsic length of a rod is its absolute length which can vary with rod motion through space. (However, note that Wheeler improperly placed quotes around "motion through absolute space" - Einstein neither denied or proved that absolute motion does not exist, but only postulated that we cannot detect such motion.) Intrinsic length is the real, absolute, or true length. Proper length, on the other hand, is that which is measured by an at- rest ruler, and this may or may not be the actual or absolute length depending upon whether the rod is currently at absolute rest or not. (This is simply because a ruler will absolutely shrink with the rod, thereby giving a false reading.) If you keep on making such grievous errors, then this thread may never end. > "length of an arm measured in frame S" means a measurement in frame S, > and if S is moving relative to the arm then the value can be different > from the proper length of the arm. Why different? (full details please) ~RA~
From: Surfer on 11 May 2010 13:40
On Tue, 11 May 2010 13:55:14 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >How can we detect it? > >How is it any different to the empty spacetime of SR/GR? > Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed Anisotropy http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 "......Doppler shift observations of spacecraft, such as Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, Rosetta and MESSENGER in earth flybys, have all revealed unexplained speed `anomalies' - that the doppler-shift determined speeds are inconsistent with expected speeds. Here it is shown that these speed anomalies are not real and are actually the result of using an incorrect relationship between the observed doppler shift and the speed of the spacecraft - a relationship based on the assumption that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames, i.e. invariant. Taking account of the repeatedly measured light-speed anisotropy the anomalies are resolved. The Pioneer 10/11 anomalies are discussed, but not resolved. The spacecraft observations demonstrate again that the speed of light is not invariant, and is isotropic only with respect to a dynamical 3-space. The existing doppler shift data also offers a resource to characterise a new form of gravitational waves, the dynamical 3-space turbulence, that has also been detected by other techniques...." |