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: Inertial on 31 May 2010 03:16 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:0be1e8f3-75bb-4b8e-8de4-8985c135875e(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 1:29 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Paul Stowe wrote: >> > On May 30, 5:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:782858d6-e183-4a49-b720-b2ab959fa0cf(a)p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > [... Lorentz contraction] BUT! because it physically DOES >> >> >> >> > occur >> >> >> >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? >> >> >> >> > No God, the physical existence of time dilation... >> >> >> >> Yes .. we measure time dilation .. consistent with both LET and SR >> >> >> (as >> >> >> they predict the same measurements). We actually also measure it >> >> >> consistent with GR .. LET does not predict what we actually measure >> >> >> in >> >> >> those cases. >> >> >> > LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. >> >> > But >> >> > LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the central >> >> > equation is, >> >> >> > dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 >> >> >> And how does that come about? I'm guessing you just made it up. >> >> > Hmmm, you think I made up that a wave propagates the distance ct or >> > that the three equal orthogonal components of vector s is s^2 = dx^2 + >> > dy^2 + dz^2. OK, I'll take credit :) (I wish...) >> >> a) You dropped the 'd' again. You to know that 's' and 'ds' are not the >> same >> thing, right? >> >> b) The condition for wave propagation is that ds^2 = 0. >> >> c) That still isn't general relativity. >> >> >> >> >> > Where u -> coefficient of compressibility of the medium and n -> the >> >> > density of the medium >> >> >> > and, like all mediums (and like Maxwell modeled), >> >> >> > c^2 = 1/un >> >> >> So 'relativity' happens for all mediums and waves .. not just light. >> >> > Yes, it does... Why don't you go check the references provided? >> >> The hell it does. Have you ever taken - and passed - an undergraduate or >> graduate mechanics course that deals with the behavior or fluids & >> solids? >> >> Stop making things up. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Funny that we never see that. >> >> > Not at all the key issue is, what are the limitation on measuring >> > devices for both. >> >> >> > Since t^2/un = ds^2 then, >> >> >> > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 >> >> >> Bahah .. you think that is GR ? .. you're still talking SR there. You >> >> haven't a clue. >> >> > I really REALLY have to start wondering about your reasoning >> > ability. NO! I did not claim that that equation formed the basis of >> > GR. >> >> YOU SAID THIS: >> >> "LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. >> But LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the >> central equation is: >> >> dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2" >> >> >> >> > As Einstein clearly pointed out in his description OF THE BASIS >> > OF GR, >> >> > "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general >> > theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of >> > light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental >> > assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we >> > have >> > already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A >> > curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of >> > propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that >> > as >> > a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it >> > the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in >> > reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special >> > theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; >> > its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the >> > influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of >> > light)." >> > > ================== > >> IOW: SR is only locally true. > > No... SR (1905) is never true because it leads to > mathematical absurdity. Wrong > Its equations are useful > when *local* is the scale of atomic structure where > quantisation masks the most of the problems. Wrong Gees .. why do people like you, who have no idea about what SR says, continue to comment on it
From: Sue... on 31 May 2010 04:01 On May 31, 3:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:0be1e8f3-75bb-4b8e-8de4-8985c135875e(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 31, 1:29 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Paul Stowe wrote: > >> > On May 30, 5:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:782858d6-e183-4a49-b720-b2ab959fa0cf(a)p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > [... Lorentz contraction] BUT! because it physically DOES > >> >> >> >> > occur > > >> >> >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? > > >> >> >> > No God, the physical existence of time dilation... > > >> >> >> Yes .. we measure time dilation .. consistent with both LET and SR > >> >> >> (as > >> >> >> they predict the same measurements). We actually also measure it > >> >> >> consistent with GR .. LET does not predict what we actually measure > >> >> >> in > >> >> >> those cases. > > >> >> > LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. > >> >> > But > >> >> > LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the central > >> >> > equation is, > > >> >> > dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 > > >> >> And how does that come about? I'm guessing you just made it up. > > >> > Hmmm, you think I made up that a wave propagates the distance ct or > >> > that the three equal orthogonal components of vector s is s^2 = dx^2 + > >> > dy^2 + dz^2. OK, I'll take credit :) (I wish...) > > >> a) You dropped the 'd' again. You to know that 's' and 'ds' are not the > >> same > >> thing, right? > > >> b) The condition for wave propagation is that ds^2 = 0. > > >> c) That still isn't general relativity. > > >> >> > Where u -> coefficient of compressibility of the medium and n -> the > >> >> > density of the medium > > >> >> > and, like all mediums (and like Maxwell modeled), > > >> >> > c^2 = 1/un > > >> >> So 'relativity' happens for all mediums and waves .. not just light.. > > >> > Yes, it does... Why don't you go check the references provided? > > >> The hell it does. Have you ever taken - and passed - an undergraduate or > >> graduate mechanics course that deals with the behavior or fluids & > >> solids? > > >> Stop making things up. > > >> >> Funny that we never see that. > > >> > Not at all the key issue is, what are the limitation on measuring > >> > devices for both. > > >> >> > Since t^2/un = ds^2 then, > > >> >> > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 > > >> >> Bahah .. you think that is GR ? .. you're still talking SR there. You > >> >> haven't a clue. > > >> > I really REALLY have to start wondering about your reasoning > >> > ability. NO! I did not claim that that equation formed the basis of > >> > GR. > > >> YOU SAID THIS: > > >> "LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. > >> But LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the > >> central equation is: > > >> dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2" > > >> > As Einstein clearly pointed out in his description OF THE BASIS > >> > OF GR, > > >> > "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general > >> > theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of > >> > light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental > >> > assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we > >> > have > >> > already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.. A > >> > curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of > >> > propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that > >> > as > >> > a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it > >> > the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in > >> > reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special > >> > theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; > >> > its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the > >> > influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of > >> > light)." > > > ================== > > >> IOW: SR is only locally true. > > > No... SR (1905) is never true because it leads to > > mathematical absurdity. > > Wrong > > > Its equations are useful > > when *local* is the scale of atomic structure where > > quantisation masks the most of the problems. > > Wrong > > Gees .. why do people like you, who have no idea about what SR says, > continue to comment on it Ahh! You must be one of BURT's better students. He can't read either. << Einstein's relativity principle states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue...
From: Inertial on 31 May 2010 05:03 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4df14bb2-a9a5-480f-905b-e68e1c80928b(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 3:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:0be1e8f3-75bb-4b8e-8de4-8985c135875e(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 31, 1:29 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Paul Stowe wrote: >> >> > On May 30, 5:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:782858d6-e183-4a49-b720-b2ab959fa0cf(a)p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > [... Lorentz contraction] BUT! because it physically DOES >> >> >> >> >> > occur >> >> >> >> >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? >> >> >> >> >> > No God, the physical existence of time dilation... >> >> >> >> >> Yes .. we measure time dilation .. consistent with both LET and >> >> >> >> SR >> >> >> >> (as >> >> >> >> they predict the same measurements). We actually also measure >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> consistent with GR .. LET does not predict what we actually >> >> >> >> measure >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> those cases. >> >> >> >> > LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. >> >> >> > But >> >> >> > LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the >> >> >> > central >> >> >> > equation is, >> >> >> >> > dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 >> >> >> >> And how does that come about? I'm guessing you just made it up. >> >> >> > Hmmm, you think I made up that a wave propagates the distance ct or >> >> > that the three equal orthogonal components of vector s is s^2 = dx^2 >> >> > + >> >> > dy^2 + dz^2. OK, I'll take credit :) (I wish...) >> >> >> a) You dropped the 'd' again. You to know that 's' and 'ds' are not >> >> the >> >> same >> >> thing, right? >> >> >> b) The condition for wave propagation is that ds^2 = 0. >> >> >> c) That still isn't general relativity. >> >> >> >> > Where u -> coefficient of compressibility of the medium and n -> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > density of the medium >> >> >> >> > and, like all mediums (and like Maxwell modeled), >> >> >> >> > c^2 = 1/un >> >> >> >> So 'relativity' happens for all mediums and waves .. not just >> >> >> light. >> >> >> > Yes, it does... Why don't you go check the references provided? >> >> >> The hell it does. Have you ever taken - and passed - an undergraduate >> >> or >> >> graduate mechanics course that deals with the behavior or fluids & >> >> solids? >> >> >> Stop making things up. >> >> >> >> Funny that we never see that. >> >> >> > Not at all the key issue is, what are the limitation on measuring >> >> > devices for both. >> >> >> >> > Since t^2/un = ds^2 then, >> >> >> >> > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 >> >> >> >> Bahah .. you think that is GR ? .. you're still talking SR there. >> >> >> You >> >> >> haven't a clue. >> >> >> > I really REALLY have to start wondering about your reasoning >> >> > ability. NO! I did not claim that that equation formed the basis of >> >> > GR. >> >> >> YOU SAID THIS: >> >> >> "LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR >> >> does. >> >> But LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR >> >> the >> >> central equation is: >> >> >> dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2" >> >> >> > As Einstein clearly pointed out in his description OF THE BASIS >> >> > OF GR, >> >> >> > "In the second place our result shows that, according to the >> >> > general >> >> > theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of >> >> > light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental >> >> > assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we >> >> > have >> >> > already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. >> >> > A >> >> > curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity >> >> > of >> >> > propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that >> >> > as >> >> > a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with >> >> > it >> >> > the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in >> >> > reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the >> >> > special >> >> > theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity >> >> > ; >> >> > its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the >> >> > influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of >> >> > light)." >> >> > ================== >> >> >> IOW: SR is only locally true. >> >> > No... SR (1905) is never true because it leads to >> > mathematical absurdity. >> >> Wrong >> >> > Its equations are useful >> > when *local* is the scale of atomic structure where >> > quantisation masks the most of the problems. >> >> Wrong >> >> Gees .. why do people like you, who have no idea about what SR says, >> continue to comment on it > > Ahh! You must be one of BURT's better students. > He can't read either. I can read [snip more of sue quote mining .. which does NOT support her nonsense statements.. she quotes what she cannot understand]
From: Paul Stowe on 31 May 2010 14:37 On May 31, 12:14 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> > [... Lorentz contraction] BUT! because it physically DOES occur > > >> >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? > > >> >> > No God, the physical existence of time dilation... > > >> >> Yes .. we measure time dilation .. consistent with both LET and SR (as > >> >> they predict the same measurements). We actually also measure it > >> >> consistent with GR .. LET does not predict what we actually measure in > >> >> those cases. > > >> > LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. But > >> > LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the central > >> > equation is, > > >> > dt^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 > > >> And how does that come about? I'm guessing you just made it up. > > > Hmmm, you think I made up that a wave propagates the distance ct or > > that the three equal orthogonal components of vector s is s^2 = dx^2 + > > dy^2 + dz^2. OK, I'll take credit :) (I wish...) > > All you've done is shown that the distance a wave propogates is proportional > to the time. Nothing terribly interesting there Indeed! That's the point... It forms the whole foundation of Minkowski's theorm > >> > Where u -> coefficient of compressibility of the medium and n -> the > >> > density of the medium > > >> > and, like all mediums (and like Maxwell modeled), > > >> > c^2 = 1/un > > >> So 'relativity' happens for all mediums and waves .. not just light. > > > Yes, it does... Why don't you go check the references provided? > > Nonsense So you're claiming x' = x/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) where x is the local value and x' the associated rest value does not apply to moving acoustic fields? Are you also claiming that this idea is unique to me??? Finally, did you bother to check the references provided eariler? Your ignorance does not make it nonsense... If you're so inclined check these out, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4652v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0104/0104019v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0310/0310007v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.0613v2.pdf > >> Funny that we never see that. > > > Not at all the key issue is, what are the limitation on measuring > > devices for both. > > Nonsense See the references provided > >> > Since t^2/un = ds^2 then, > > >> > ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 > > >> Bahah .. you think that is GR ? .. you're still talking SR there. You > >> haven't a clue. > > > I really REALLY have to start wondering about your reasoning > > ability. > > You're the one who thinks coming up with that shows LET to cover GR. THAT > is poor reasoning. I NEVER! constrained my statements to LET! Nor do the references above! > > NO! I did not claim that that equation formed the basis of > > GR. > > Yes.. you did > > > As Einstein clearly pointed out in his description OF THE BASIS > > OF GR, > > You don't understand what Einstein says > > [snip irrelevant quote] Irrelevant? Let's see: "In the second place OUR RESULT SHOWS THAT, ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVIYy, THE LAW OF THE CONSTANCY OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN VACUO, WHICH CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE TWO FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND TO WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY FREQUENTLY REFERRED, CANNOT CLAIM ANY UNLIMITED VALIDITY. A CURVATURE OF RAYS OF LIGHT CAN ONLY TAKE PLACE WHEN THE VELOCITY OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT VARIES WITH POSITION. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." And, my whole point was/is that GLR (a Generalized Lorentzian Relativity) revolves around the FACT! that an actual medium consist of physical properties the regulate and provide the basis of wave speed c (light in the case of aether). These properties ARE! compressibility (u) and density (n) such that, like ALL! known media c^2 = 1/un. Thus, 'locally' the u & n set c but, these values can and will vary from one locale to another. Thus "...THE LAW OF THE CONSTANCY OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN VACUO, WHICH CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE TWO FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND TO WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY FREQUENTLY REFERRED, CANNOT CLAIM ANY UNLIMITED VALIDITY"!!! Which Einstein said formed the basis for formulating the General theory to account for this in the case of gravity... Oh, BTW, this is a good description of GLR... http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/~arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf Nope, doesn't seem irrelevant. If you think it is, expain why. > > Now, look again at the expression c^2 = 1/un. If either density or > > compressibility changes in any way what happens to c??? > > So what? > > > We know that for all known media this in fact happens all the time. > > it doesn't change the speed of light in vacuo Funny how Einstein himself said the speed of light changes in vacuo > > Since the very > > basis of Lorentzian Relativity is formed upon this basis it is both > > expected and normal for c to vary from one locale to another with such > > variations. > > The net speed of light in a medium changes. c does not. Funny how Einstein says otherwise above... > > Please note that Einstein identifies this feature > > (changes in light speed) as the core feature of GR, > > Changes of net speed of light in a medium is NOT the basis of GR Funny how Einstein said it was above... > > as opposed to SR. > > you have NO idea > > > Gravity effects this, the result, so-called 'curvature'. For LR, this > > is a essential feature of the model. This leads to NO! differences in > > the observables of both SR/GR and GLR (Generalized Lorentzian > > Relativity). > > Learn some physics, boy Take your own advice infant... Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 31 May 2010 21:41
Paul Stowe wrote: [...] > Yes Eric, I expected nothing less, or more... Like I've said, you flee technical arguments that don't go your way. Thus you completely ignore the dissection of the reference that supposedly supports you, and shift gears to argue that tensor analysis used in two different theories somehow proves your point. You've been doing it for years, no surprises. |