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: Da Do Ron Ron on 17 May 2010 13:38 On May 13, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >The intrinsic length of an object means the length that the object itself >inherently has, without relation to anything else. That can only mean the >length measured by a ruler held directly up to the object without slipping -- >i.e. its proper length. > I repeat: this does not change if you think that objects do > "shrink" due to their "absolute motion" -- the ruler and object > will necessarily be affected the same, and the value obtained > will still be correct. Of course, the ruler and the object will be samely affected, but this means that the shrunken ruler now reads incorrectly. For example, a 10-meter ruler can still read 10 meters for an object that is in fact now only 5 meters long. I took it for granted at the start of this thread that anyone who knows anything about SR knew this. Unshrunken 10-meter ruler: |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|10 Intrinsically-shrunken 10-meter ruler: |--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|10 Do you get it now? >>(However, note that Wheeler improperly placed quotes around "motion >>through absolute space" >HA!!! -- you did misquote him. He used quotes to indicate the phrase >is of questionable meaning. That is not "improper". And you probably >omitted his context as well.... FYI>I never deliberately misquote or deliberately quote out-of- context. Here is proof that I was not misquoting Wheeler: (I strongly suggest that you get a copy of his book) Since both theory A and theory B (Wheeler's appellations) pertain to absolute motion through absolute space (they are pre-SR), and since Wheeler stated explicitly that theory B is still alive, this tells us that motion through absolute space is also still a viable concept. Not to mention the fact that Einstein did not (and could not) deny the very existence of absolute motion, but merely denied the detection thereof. (And he could not even prove this because it's a negative.) Moreover, every physicist prior to the MMx firmly believed that we could use light's (absolute) motion through space to detect our absolute speed through space, and the null result did not change anything about light, so it still has its absolute motion through space, and it is still an absolute frame. The MMx null result cannot be blamed on light. It's nature has not changed since it appeared shortly after the Big Bang. The only thing that can be blamed for the MMx null result is the intrinsic shrinkage of the horizontal leg. (Ignoring the highly unlikely intrinsic expansion of the vertical leg.) Einstein even admitted that observers given absolutely synchronous clocks could still use light to detect their absolute motion: [Quoting Einstein:] "w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity.... For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html This is not a closing velocity case - no mere closing velocity could conflict with the principle of relativity. This is simply two observers using truly synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed. One observer is at absolute rest in space, so he got c, whereas the other observer moves through space at the absolute speed v, so he got c - v for light's one-way speed. {Roberts] >>> "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] >> Why different? >> (full details please) [Roberts] >Because in SR a frame moving relative to the object will PROJECT the >object's length differently onto the moving frame than onto the object's >rest frame, and thus the value obtained for the PROJECTION will be different >from its proper length. In SR, the length of an object measured in a given >frame is always the proper length of the object PROJECTED onto the measurement >frame. All this talk about "projection" evades the issue. Why not just say that different observer's get different "lengths" for a "moving" rod because their absolutely asynchronous clocks cannot pin down or locate the rod's end points truly simultaneously? It is absolutely necessary that any passing rod's end points be located at (absolutely) the same time in order for its length to be correctly measured. Since SR admittedly does not have absolute time (or absolute simultaneity or absolute clock synchronization), no SR observer can correctly measure the length of any passing rod; indeed, each such observer will find a different bogus length for one and the same such rod because each such observer's clocks are "synchronized" differently due to each such observer's different absolute speed through space. But you are in denial, so none of the above will compute for you. ~RA~
From: harald on 17 May 2010 15:04 Dear Ron, > On May 17, 7:38 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: [..] > The only thing that can be blamed for the MMx null result is the > intrinsic shrinkage of the horizontal leg. (Ignoring the highly > unlikely intrinsic expansion of the vertical leg.) Good to see that you realise now that there were some other options at the time (although you forgot a few others that I informed you about). > Einstein even admitted that observers given absolutely synchronous > clocks could still use light to detect their absolute motion: > > [Quoting Einstein:] > "w is the required velocity of light with respect to > the carriage, and we have > > w = c - v. > > The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative > to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. > > But this result comes into conflict with the principle > of relativity.... For, like every other general law of > nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo > must, according to the principle of relativity, be the > same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when > the rails are the body of reference."http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html > > This is not a closing velocity case - no mere closing velocity could > conflict with the principle of relativity. > This is simply two observers using truly synchronous clocks to > measure > light's one-way speed. One observer is at absolute rest in space, so > he got c, whereas the other observer moves through space at the > absolute speed v, so he got c - v for light's one-way speed. There he did not formulate it as carefully as in his 1905 paper. What he meant (without implying "absolute speed"*), was that if one uses the Galilean transformation, one obtains (c-v) for the speed of light as measured in the railway carriage. * It is important to understand that this is valid for *any* set of inertial systems. [..] > All this talk about "projection" evades the issue. Why not just say > that > different observer's get different "lengths" for a "moving" rod > because > their absolutely asynchronous clocks cannot pin down or locate the > rod's end points truly simultaneously? Simple: some people *deny* that explanation as a reasonable possibility. Consequently, another "explanation" is desired. > It is absolutely necessary that any passing rod's end points be > located at > (absolutely) the same time in order for its length to be correctly > measured. Except if we do not insist on measuring "absolute" length, but go with what is feasible and practical. :-) Regards, Harald > Since SR admittedly does not have absolute time (or absolute > simultaneity or > absolute clock synchronization), no SR observer can correctly measure > the > length of any passing rod; indeed, each such observer will find a > different > bogus length for one and the same such rod because each such > observer's > clocks are "synchronized" differently due to each such observer's > different absolute speed through space. > > But you are in denial, so none of the above will compute for you. > > ~RA~
From: harald on 18 May 2010 15:39 On May 18, 3:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: [...] > In LET there is a notion of absolute length .. a moving object will still be > measured (by a comoving ruler) as having the same length as its absolute > length. So the absolute length of LET corresponds to the measured rest > length and to the measured proper/invariant length (as per SR) Who told you that nonsense? Ken Seto perhaps? ;-) [...] > > The only thing that can be blamed for the MMx null result is the > > intrinsic shrinkage of the horizontal leg. (Ignoring the > > highly unlikely intrinsic expansion of the vertical leg.) > > There is no need for ANY shrinkage. The light simly travels the same > distance in the same time (ie at the same speed all 4 ways). > > So your assertion is wrong Hmmm... don't you agree with the following? We can say this about the physical behaviour of the mirror system of Michelson-Morley: the instrument is contracted in the direction of motion for a coordinate system which is at rest relative to the sun. And 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 any Galilean coordinate system throughout the whole year. If we based our considerations on the Galilei transformation then we would not have obtained a contraction as a consequence of its motion. Cheers, Harald
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 19 May 2010 15:34 On May 17, 9:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:00cb267f-d23d-43d4-a877-28e163decae6(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... >>and the null result did not change anything about light, >it changed what was known about light Like what? >indeed, each such observer will find a different >bogus length for one and the same such rod because >each such observer's clocks are "synchronized" >differently due to each such observer's different >absolute speed through space. >They will be different .. but that doesn't make them >'bogus' Are you agreeing that the differences are caused by the observers' usage of absolutely asynchronous clocks? If you are not agreeing to this, then what do you say is the physical cause of the differences? ~RA~
From: BURT on 19 May 2010 15:39
On May 19, 12:34 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 17, 9:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:00cb267f-d23d-43d4-a877-28e163decae6(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > >>and the null result did not change anything about light, > >it changed what was known about light > > Like what? > > >indeed, each such observer will find a different > >bogus length for one and the same such rod because > >each such observer's clocks are "synchronized" > >differently due to each such observer's different > >absolute speed through space. > >They will be different .. but that doesn't make them > >'bogus' > > Are you agreeing that the differences are caused by the > observers' usage of absolutely asynchronous clocks? > > If you are not agreeing to this, then what do you say is > the physical cause of the differences? > > ~RA~ Accelerated energy has a slow time flow. Mitch Raemsch |