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: harald on 12 May 2010 02:32 On May 11, 6:04 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. > > 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. I agree with that; however the language that you use is a new dialect of SR. ;-) > 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. As Einstein replaced Maxwell's equations by the second postulate, original SR is already independent of Maxwell's equations. The "best" derivation brings in the constant c through the back door; if you really think that that is an essential difference in theory, that would be another reason to give it a different name. > > 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. This is not about physics but about the ability to make oneself understandable to the other. Regretfully, DDRR is not going to get any wiser from you. [..] Regards, Harald
From: harald on 12 May 2010 02:43 On May 12, 1:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:add3966f-1ea3-43a2-8f5b-b96932a57393(a)q30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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. > > Nope > > > Tom rightly > > remarked here above that "the meanings of some important words have > > changed since 1905-1920" > > I know what he said .. that is NOT saying that "SRT has been reformulated > beyond recognition" > > > - 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". > > Both say the same things. spatial/measured lengths *do* shorten in both > 'physics', proper/invariant lengths do *not* shorten in both 'physics'. The > difference is what length is implied by just using the unadorned term > 'length'. > > > Tom calls the original expression an "older meanings of > > words". > > One doesn't use 'length' for the invariant length .. on uses 'invariant > length' or 'proper length' or 'interval'. Tom does. As a result (you seem to have missed that fact), Tom and DDRR did not recognize that they in fact agreed on essential points. > Of course, in some cases, where the context is implied (eg in an article > talking about invariant lengths) one may omit the adjective :) Yes - as always. :-) > Length is still length (the spatial separation of two events at a given > time) > > Regardless, a refinement in the terms used in modern physics does not > mean a reformulation. Dictionary.com: re·for·mu·late 1. to formulate again. 2. to formulate in a different way; alter or revise: to reformulate our plans. That is correct, on both accounts. But perhaps I did not reformulate what Tom was saying, and I only used different 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. :-)) > > I don't think I've had the (mis?)fortune of discussing with him/mer If you missed the endless discussion of Tom with him/her (although you commented on my comment on that), then I can understand your reaction. :-) Cheers, Harald
From: harald on 12 May 2010 02:47 On May 12, 12:09 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. [...] > Tom Roberts Hi Tom, Not only what you call SR differs from the SRT of Einstein and Lorentz, also what you call GR differs from Einstein's GRT. But I agree with you that spacetime does not have ether characteristics. Only what you call "model" and "world", I call "mathematical description" and "physical model". Regards, Harald
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 12 May 2010 14:32 ["Inertial" declared] > There is no absolute rest Proof? Here's my proof that there is: On page 80 of his book, _Spacetime Physics_,1963 ed., Dr. John A. Wheeler, who put forth the phrase "black hole," stated in no uncertain terms that "theory B" is still viable, and yet this theory is based on absolute rest and absolute motion. Also, as I mentioned before, Einstein did not really state, much less prove, that absolute motion does not exist, but merely denied the measurement or detection thereof. (Einstein know well that absolute motion certainly exists. He stated so in ways such as this: "For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity of rotation of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year." Of course, the master relativist always hedges his bet by adding such things as quotes or the word "hypothetical," but it is clear to anyone with half a brain that Einstein was speaking non-hypothetically of the dear Earth's absolute motion through space.)(Wheeler also mentioned such motion in the same connection.) But Einstein was drastically wrong in claiming that we have no means of detecting this absolute motion because he overlooked the extremely simple fact that light itself is an absolute frame. (It's speed in or through space is fixed - no slowing - no speeding up - and it is a known speed - so this means that any light ray in space is certainly an absolute frame.) [T Robts claimed] >>> "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. [~RA~ merely enquired] >> Why different? >> (full details please) ["Inertial" also failed to answer] > Read a real physics book For many who are reading this cute little thread, this quickie reply perfectly masks the import of the quickie question, so "Inertial" did his job properly (which was to evade the issue). But why would "Inertial" wish to evade this issue? Because it goes quickly to the heart of the entire SR "length contraction" fiasco. It would show that SR's "length contraction" is both trivial and useless to physics. It is of no more importance than the "size shrinkage" seen when two people depart. And - even worse - it takes us away from the real issue of real (or absolute) length contractions, the only kind that can explain the result of any real experiment, including the MMx null result. ~RA~
From: PD on 12 May 2010 15:17
On May 12, 1:32 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Also, as I mentioned before, Einstein did not really state, much less > prove, that absolute motion does not exist, but merely denied the > measurement or detection thereof. In particle physics, fermions are known by their interactions. Electrons, for example, engage in the electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational interactions, but not in the strong. Back when neutrinos were thought to be massless, it was believed that left-handed neutrinos engaged in the weak interaction. And since this would be the only interaction that neutrinos would engage in, this raised the question about the existence of right-handed neutrinos, which would therefore interact with nothing. A particle that does not interact at all and therefore is undetectable would be, in physics, a "useless" particle. One wouldn't be able to prove that right-handed massless neutrinos don't exist, but on the other hand, they would serve no functional role in a description of the dynamics of nature, either -- other than some aesthetic completeness. The customary position in physics is to then dismiss such useless particles from any viable physical theory -- simply exclude them. They contribute nothing to the refinement of the theory, change no observable results, and are not required to explain anything that is observed. This kind of thinking applies not only to right-handed massless neutrinos. PD |