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 14 May 2010 20:03 On May 14, 5:00 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > harald wrote: > > On May 12, 1:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> One doesn't use 'length' for the invariant length .. on uses 'invariant > >> length' or 'proper length' or 'interval'. > > > Tom does. > > No, Tom most definitely does not, as a perusal of my writings around here will show. > > WHAT I SAID is that "length of an object" can only mean its intrinsic length, as > no other quantity/qualifier is mentioned. Look at the CONTEXT of > what I wrote -- > I was pointing out ambiguities in OTHER PEOPLE'S words. > > I never speak so loosely, or at least make serious efforts to avoid > doing so. > > You need to learn how to read more accurately. Context matters, as > do the actual words themselves. In your first reply to his first message you did speak that loosely, and in the WRONG context: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c7064df7f07dcf46?scoring=d& The context: consider the mathematical description of a "moving" Michelson interferometer (compare bottom of page of http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html). -> Setting: v =/= 0 => Lorentz contraction. -> Inappropriate reply (for v=0), and no mention of "proper" length. Below is a copy-paste. As I explained this already, I won't come back to this. Harald ------------------------------------------------ [reinserting snipped part:] " > Given these simple facts, the time t along the horizontal leg must be t = (2L/c)(1/(1-v^2/c^2)), whereas the vertical leg time t' must be t' = (2L/c)(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)), a time that is shorter than t. (v is of course Earth's unknown speed in space, which cannot be zero except for a brief period each year). > [...] > As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; > thus, something about the MMx apparatus had to change. But just LOOK at it -- as it rotates it does not "change". In fact, it was specifically designed to minimize any changes during measurements. > The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs > different. But that presupposes your logic is correct and valid. It isn't. Relativity does not conform to your math or your logic. > Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making > the legs different. No. SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. Indeed, in SR the legs must not change for the predicted null result to hold. " -------------------
From: Simple Simon on 15 May 2010 12:22 Inertial wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:310f6bef-6bc7-4754-9710-2e69a3f889d1(a)a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> On May 13, 8:28 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> Paul Stowe wrote: >>>> I thought physics was about 'the world, universe, & >>>> everything'... >>> >>> That's your basic problem -- you don't understand what science >>> really is. >> >> No Tom, I simply don't agree with what 'you want' to define science >> as... Your 'philosophy' is simply irrational. > > You just don't understand what science is .. probably due to > difficulties in comprehension .. as shown below > >>> You are human, ... >> >> Yes, so what? >> >>> and can never know ANYTHING about the world. >> >> Bullshit! > > No .. its true .. you can only work with models of the world based on > how you brain reacts to stimulus from sense organs. You don't > directly interact with the world. But one can still come up with > very compelling models for what that world is .. and models that get > you through most things you do each day. > A few Saturday morning thoughts regarding working with world vs working with models of the world: "Observing outer objects, I find but my own mind." from The Vow of Mahamudra "...it's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside." from Doctor Who "...it goes on forever-and-oh my God- /it's full of stars!/" from 2001: A Space Odyssey "The Doctor's Dilemma", part 1 When I consider the mapping of physical space to conceptual space, and therein the mapping of my own head to itself, does it then not become an infinite regression? Welcome to the Hotel California
From: Paul Stowe on 15 May 2010 11:37 On May 15, 9:22 am, "Simple Simon" <pi.r.cubed-nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Inertial wrote: > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:310f6bef-6bc7-4754-9710-2e69a3f889d1(a)a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com.... > >> On May 13, 8:28 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> PaulStowewrote: > >>>> I thought physics was about 'the world, universe, & > >>>> everything'... > > >>> That's your basic problem -- you don't understand what science > >>> really is. > > >> No Tom, I simply don't agree with what 'you want' to define science > >> as... Your 'philosophy' is simply irrational. > > > You just don't understand what science is .. probably due to > > difficulties in comprehension .. as shown below > > >>> You are human, ... > > >> Yes, so what? > > >>> and can never know ANYTHING about the world. > > >> Bullshit! > > > No .. its true .. you can only work with models of the world based on > > how you brain reacts to stimulus from sense organs. You don't > > directly interact with the world. But one can still come up with > > very compelling models for what that world is .. and models that get > > you through most things you do each day. > > A few Saturday morning thoughts regarding working with world vs working with > models of the world: > > "Observing outer objects, I find but my own mind." > from The Vow of Mahamudra > "...it's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside." > from Doctor Who > "...it goes on forever-and-oh my God- > /it's full of stars!/" > from 2001: A Space Odyssey > > "The Doctor's Dilemma", part 1 > When I consider the mapping of physical space to conceptual space, and > therein the mapping of my own head to itself, does it then not become an > infinite regression? > > Welcome to the Hotel California And its great philosopher's fodder, but NOT! science or any definition thereof... Paul Stowe
From: Simple Simon on 15 May 2010 12:47 Paul Stowe wrote: > On May 15, 9:22 am, "Simple Simon" <pi.r.cubed-nos...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Inertial wrote: >>> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:310f6bef-6bc7-4754-9710-2e69a3f889d1(a)a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >>>> On May 13, 8:28 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> PaulStowewrote: >>>>>> I thought physics was about 'the world, universe, & >>>>>> everything'... >> >>>>> That's your basic problem -- you don't understand what science >>>>> really is. >> >>>> No Tom, I simply don't agree with what 'you want' to define science >>>> as... Your 'philosophy' is simply irrational. >> >>> You just don't understand what science is .. probably due to >>> difficulties in comprehension .. as shown below >> >>>>> You are human, ... >> >>>> Yes, so what? >> >>>>> and can never know ANYTHING about the world. >> >>>> Bullshit! >> >>> No .. its true .. you can only work with models of the world based >>> on how you brain reacts to stimulus from sense organs. You don't >>> directly interact with the world. But one can still come up with >>> very compelling models for what that world is .. and models that get >>> you through most things you do each day. >> >> A few Saturday morning thoughts regarding working with world vs >> working with models of the world: >> >> "Observing outer objects, I find but my own mind." >> from The Vow of Mahamudra >> "...it's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside." >> from Doctor Who >> "...it goes on forever-and-oh my God- >> /it's full of stars!/" >> from 2001: A Space Odyssey >> >> "The Doctor's Dilemma", part 1 >> When I consider the mapping of physical space to conceptual space, >> and therein the mapping of my own head to itself, does it then not >> become an infinite regression? >> >> Welcome to the Hotel California > > And its great philosopher's fodder, but NOT! science or any definition > thereof... > > Paul Stowe How would you know?
From: Inertial on 16 May 2010 10:39
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c0c1b4c0-f449-4aa9-ab1d-a18c0a57c3b3(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On May 15, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:310f6bef-6bc7-4754-9710-2e69a3f889d1(a)a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On May 13, 8:28 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> PaulStowewrote: >> >> > I thought physics was about 'the world, universe, & >> >> > everything'... >> >> >> That's your basic problem -- you don't understand what science really >> >> is. >> >> > No Tom, I simply don't agree with what 'you want' to define science >> > as... Your 'philosophy' is simply irrational. >> >> You just don't understand what science is .. probably due to difficulties >> in >> comprehension .. as shown below >> >> >> You are human, ... >> >> > Yes, so what? >> >> >> and can never know ANYTHING about the world. >> >> > Bullshit! >> >> No .. its true .. you can only work with models of the world based on how >> you brain reacts to stimulus from sense organs. You don't directly >> interact >> with the world. But one can still come up with very compelling models >> for >> what that world is .. and models that get you through most things you do >> each day. > > Sorry, there is an actual physical existence independent of us. Again you totally miss the point and don't understand what is being said, and waste time arguing against things the noone has said [snip irrelevance] >> Which (if you mean LET) is based on a physical sysmte that is rigid with >> galillean transforms. You don't even understand the theory you claim to >> support > > No, it is NOT! That is the whole point of his description. Nothing > physical is rigid, thus there is NO! Galilean transforms, there are > Lorentz Transforms due to the physical contraction in physical length > caused by motion. Wrong. Go read up on LET again. [snip ignorance] |