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: Sue... on 23 May 2010 09:02 On May 23, 8:31 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > news:HfSdnfox3dNSa2vW4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > > > Inertial wrote: > >> [...] > >> However, both LET and SR predict that relatively moving observers will > >> measure a shorter spatial distance between two events than a co-moving > >> observer will measure. > > > Not quite. This holds for measuring the length of an object, not for any > > arbitrary pair of events. Necessarily when measuring the length of a > > moving object in an inertial frame, both ends of the object must be marked > > simultaneously in the frame; that cannot be done for an arbitrary pair of > > events. > > Yeup .. fair enough. I'll happily reword that as 'length of object' :):) That leaves objects fortuitously changing shape to preserve imagined properties of never detected particles. But heck, if religion isn't good for things like that what use is it? Still haven't found any study time I see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Sue...
From: Inertial on 23 May 2010 11:58 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:6c16c2be-b13a-4c0d-a797-7701243ebece(a)m21g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On May 21, 9:10 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > [...] > >> There is no 'MMX Math' .. MMX is not a theory. > > Here you can find the "MMX math" that Ron refers to (as if you didn't > know it!): There is no 'MMX math' .. There is the math of the various theories that can be used to explain it .. the math depends on the theory. Are you unaware of how science works?
From: Inertial on 23 May 2010 12:00 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:5505ba9b-77cf-4654-97d8-4ae39f526b17(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > On May 23, 8:31 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> news:HfSdnfox3dNSa2vW4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... >> >> > Inertial wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> However, both LET and SR predict that relatively moving observers will >> >> measure a shorter spatial distance between two events than a co-moving >> >> observer will measure. >> >> > Not quite. This holds for measuring the length of an object, not for >> > any >> > arbitrary pair of events. Necessarily when measuring the length of a >> > moving object in an inertial frame, both ends of the object must be >> > marked >> > simultaneously in the frame; that cannot be done for an arbitrary pair >> > of >> > events. >> >> Yeup .. fair enough. I'll happily reword that as 'length of object' :):) > > That leaves objects fortuitously changing shape to preserve > imagined properties of never detected particles. Nope .. but its not surprising that you don't understand > But > heck, if religion isn't good for things like that what > use is it? > > Still haven't found any study time I see. Haven't you? Not surprising as all you seem to do is hunt for quotes and links, and never know what is relevant .. as shown below ... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory We were discussing (primarily) SR. You should study it yourself some time
From: Sue... on 23 May 2010 12:08 On May 23, 12:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:5505ba9b-77cf-4654-97d8-4ae39f526b17(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 23, 8:31 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > >>news:HfSdnfox3dNSa2vW4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > > >> > Inertial wrote: > >> >> [...] > >> >> However, both LET and SR predict that relatively moving observers will > >> >> measure a shorter spatial distance between two events than a co-moving > >> >> observer will measure. > > >> > Not quite. This holds for measuring the length of an object, not for > >> > any > >> > arbitrary pair of events. Necessarily when measuring the length of a > >> > moving object in an inertial frame, both ends of the object must be > >> > marked > >> > simultaneously in the frame; that cannot be done for an arbitrary pair > >> > of > >> > events. > > >> Yeup .. fair enough. I'll happily reword that as 'length of object' :):) > > > That leaves objects fortuitously changing shape to preserve > > imagined properties of never detected particles. > > Nope .. but its not surprising that you don't understand > > > But > > heck, if religion isn't good for things like that what > > use is it? > > > Still haven't found any study time I see. > > Haven't you? Not surprising as all you seem to do is hunt for quotes and > links, and never know what is relevant .. as shown below ... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > ============== > We were discussing (primarily) SR. You should study it yourself some time I plan to do that just as soon as I complete my studies of Caloric Theory. :-)) << Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological foundation of those formulas must be sought in the context of the general theory.>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm See also: Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html Sue...
From: harald on 23 May 2010 14:34
On 22 mei, 04:41, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 6:57 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: [...] > > The OP invited people to make a sketch of the moving apparatus (of > > course "moving" means for the case that v>0, for example in the solar > > frame) and draw the light paths in it. > > > Now, he claimed that the *only* way we can obtain the MMX "null" > > result is if we make the lengths of the legs in our sketch different > > from each other - if indeed we assume that the speed of light is > > everywhere in vacuum constant. > > The problem is, since you and everything else changes automatically > according to the LT as speed changes YOU! can't see or measure those > changes. In principle (as follows from this "gedanken"), those effects should be measurable with the chosen coordinate system in which the sun is in rest. > There in lies the problem... THAT! is what everyone has been > trying to tell you and OP.... Since SRT theorists deny any physical > reality to the 'contraction' ascribing it to a 'geometric rotation' in > the relative moving 'frame'. Do you mean that some people pretend that Einstein was *not* an SRT theorist? > > Such a consideration and associated sketch are nothing extraordinary, > > and one may even say that it's the "A" of the "ABC" of SRT. A possible > > argument concerns his claim that no other possibility exists. > > Let's hope that this helps... > > Paul Stowe I take not that you also did not comment on his claim. Regards, Harald |