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: Henry Wilson DSc on 11 May 2010 17:24 On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Da Do Ron Ron <ron_aikas(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. It's sickening to see grown men make such fools of themselves. The ends of a rod DEFINE an absolute and invariant spatial interval. The rod can be taken anywhere, anyhow without changing. It still defines the same absolute LENGTH of space. Anyone who measures a moving metre rod and gets an answer different from exactly ONE METRE should immediately realise that his experimental technique was flawed. >> "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~ Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Stupidschit Hanson on 11 May 2010 17:41 On May 11, 1:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > It's sickening to see grown men make such fools of themselves. > Yes. We are manly men who like manly men! Thanks for the laughs thou.... ahahaha... ahahahanson ahahaha.... AHAHAHA....
From: Tom Roberts on 11 May 2010 18:09 Inertial wrote: > [... statements I basically agree with ...] > Spacetime > itself takes on the characteristics of an aether without actually being > a 'substance'. No. What actually happens in SR/GR is that the geometry makes an aether superfluous -- if there were one it would be required to do absolutely nothing. IOW: the relevant "physical relationships" in LET are geometrical relationships in SR/GR. For instance, the "physical contraction" of moving rods and the "physical slowing" of moving clocks in LET become merely two aspects of geometrical projection in SR/GR. Remember the difference between world and model: spacetime is part of the model, while aether is putatively part of the world. Spacetime cannot "take on characteristics of an aether", because they are components of completely different realms. Spacetime cannot be considered to be the model of some aether, as it is just a manifold with metric (an associated geometry) -- it has no physical aspects with which to model a physical substance like aether. The thing most aether advocates fail to see is that they have IMPLICITLY selected a geometry, Euclidean 3-space. And they have done so because of personal biases. So they must postulate the geometry PLUS the existence of an aether with a specific set of complex properties that are highly non-obvious. SR, on the other hand, needs only to postulate its Minkowski geometry. That is the same level as aether advocates selecting Euclidean 3-space, and completely avoids having to assume the complex properties of aether. Moreover, the aether advocates have not begun to address the subtle and complex issues related to the quantum aspects of light and electrodynamics, and there is grave doubt that any aether approach can handle that (with the potential exception of Ilja's theory, which has other problems). Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 11 May 2010 19:10 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > > It's sickening to see grown men make such fools of themselves. Yet you are the only one in this thread who has taken the time to forge degrees and post them as if they were real. [...]
From: eric gisse on 11 May 2010 19:10
Surfer wrote: > 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...." Like goddamn clockwork. |