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 2 Jun 2010 21:30 > On Jun 2, 4:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On Jun 2, 11:27 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> >> > > [..] >> >> > >> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance >> > >> (the >> > >> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' >> > >> (ie geometry) of spacetime. >> >> > > Talking about backwards! >> >> > Indeed it is >> >> > > Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated >> > > way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical world, >> >> > Of course they are .. I didn't say otherwise >> >> You appeared to disagree with "Mathematical form comes directly from >> physical properties & substance." However, if everyone agrees on that >> fact, then that's nice. :-) >> >> > > and I >> > > add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates to the >> > > topic of this thread. >> >> > > - >> > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincar... >> >> > Do you have a point? >> >> Again, two points: >> - It elaborates on the fact that geometrical "space" is a concept that >> is based on our physical world, and not the other way round Of course it is .. just like any other aspect of physics. Our physical reality behaves in a way that is best modeled by that geometry. We don't impose the geometry on the world. The geometry that best modeled reality used to be simple Euclidean. Then we late found Minkowski geometry models it far better. With GR, that geometry isn't 'fixed' as it is in GR, but 'curves' due to the prescence of mass. None of that doesn't mean we need to invent a 'substance' in order to justify the geometry. We didn't need a substance to make the geometry to be Galilean / Euclidean .. we don't need one to make the geometry Lorentz / Minkowski etc. Of course, whether or not there is an 'aether' depends on what you mean by 'aether'. >> - It also provides commentary on the first message of this thread. >> >> > > Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression >> > > "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem with >> > > that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space that he >> > > next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. >> >> > > [..] >> >> > >> Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the >> > >> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, >> >> > > Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! >> >> > Blame Lorentz .. I'm not saying it is correct. >> >> You don't stop saying that he stated such nonsense. LET has matter compressed and processes slowed. Do you not understand LET? >> Where? Androcles >> failed to find it, but maybe you can. ;-) >> >> > > -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression >> > > -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox >> >> > And your point is? >> >> You keep on repeating the same nonsense about Lorentz contraction >> implying "compression". It does. We simply cannot detect that compression because our tools are similarly compressed. LET has space as being simple Galilean/Euclidian, and filled with an aether. Movement through that aether compresses all matter and fields and slows all processes. The amount of compression and slowing due to absolute motion thru the aether is as given by the Lorentz transforms. As moving rulers and clocks are also affected, we cannot detect the effects on comoving objects. SR does not have any compression or slowing. That is one of the fundamental difference between the two theories .. even though they predict the same measurements.
From: Paul Stowe on 2 Jun 2010 21:56 On Jun 2, 6:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > On Jun 2, 4:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 11:27 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > >> > > [..] > > >> > >> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance > >> > >> (the > >> > >> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' > >> > >> (ie geometry) of spacetime. > > >> > > Talking about backwards! > > >> > Indeed it is > > >> > > Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated > >> > > way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical world, > > >> > Of course they are .. I didn't say otherwise > > >> You appeared to disagree with "Mathematical form comes directly from > >> physical properties & substance." However, if everyone agrees on that > >> fact, then that's nice. :-) > > >> > > and I > >> > > add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates to the > >> > > topic of this thread. > > >> > > - > >> > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincar... > > >> > Do you have a point? > > >> Again, two points: > >> - It elaborates on the fact that geometrical "space" is a concept that > >> is based on our physical world, and not the other way round > > Of course it is .. just like any other aspect of physics. Our physical > reality behaves in a way that is best modeled by that geometry. We don't > impose the geometry on the world. The geometry that best modeled reality > used to be simple Euclidean. Then we late found Minkowski geometry models > it far better. With GR, that geometry isn't 'fixed' as it is in GR, but > 'curves' due to the prescence of mass. > > None of that doesn't mean we need to invent a 'substance' in order to > justify the geometry. We didn't need a substance to make the geometry to be > Galilean / Euclidean .. we don't need one to make the geometry Lorentz / > Minkowski etc. > > Of course, whether or not there is an 'aether' depends on what you mean by > 'aether'. > > > > > > >> - It also provides commentary on the first message of this thread. > > >> > > Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression > >> > > "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem with > >> > > that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space that he > >> > > next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. > > >> > > [..] > > >> > >> Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the > >> > >> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, > > >> > > Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! > > >> > Blame Lorentz .. I'm not saying it is correct. > > >> You don't stop saying that he stated such nonsense. > > LET has matter compressed and processes slowed. Do you not understand LET? > > >> Where? Androcles > >> failed to find it, but maybe you can. ;-) > > >> > > -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression > >> > > -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox > > >> > And your point is? > > >> You keep on repeating the same nonsense about Lorentz contraction > >> implying "compression". > > It does. We simply cannot detect that compression because our tools are > similarly compressed. > > LET has space as being simple Galilean/Euclidian, and filled with an aether. > Movement through that aether compresses all matter and fields and slows all > processes. The amount of compression and slowing due to absolute motion > thru the aether is as given by the Lorentz transforms. As moving rulers and > clocks are also affected, we cannot detect the effects on comoving objects. NO, NO NO! Things don't 'compress' nor does time slow down. When sources are in motion (or there is a current) the resultant fields must conform to a shape the conserves continuity. That form conforms to the Lorentz contractive method. Likewise, when fields move it simply takes longer for photons to complete a circuit. Since all natural processes (including clocks) are regulated in this fashion it physically takes longer for those processes to proceed. Time proceeds at a universal rate BUT! local processes (like ticks of a clock) must travel farther to complete circuits. Given that light speed itself hasn't changed it just takes longer to complete the circuits. > SR does not have any compression or slowing. > > That is one of the fundamental difference between the two theories .. even > though they predict the same measurements.
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 22:17 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:264380c3-7835-4bca-bbaf-456ba0e2325f(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 6:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > On Jun 2, 4:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> >> On Jun 2, 11:27 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > [..] >> >> >> > >> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a >> >> > >> substance >> >> > >> (the >> >> > >> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' >> >> > >> (ie geometry) of spacetime. >> >> >> > > Talking about backwards! >> >> >> > Indeed it is >> >> >> > > Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated >> >> > > way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical world, >> >> >> > Of course they are .. I didn't say otherwise >> >> >> You appeared to disagree with "Mathematical form comes directly from >> >> physical properties & substance." However, if everyone agrees on that >> >> fact, then that's nice. :-) >> >> >> > > and I >> >> > > add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates to >> >> > > the >> >> > > topic of this thread. >> >> >> > > - >> >> > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincar... >> >> >> > Do you have a point? >> >> >> Again, two points: >> >> - It elaborates on the fact that geometrical "space" is a concept that >> >> is based on our physical world, and not the other way round >> >> Of course it is .. just like any other aspect of physics. Our physical >> reality behaves in a way that is best modeled by that geometry. We don't >> impose the geometry on the world. The geometry that best modeled reality >> used to be simple Euclidean. Then we late found Minkowski geometry >> models >> it far better. With GR, that geometry isn't 'fixed' as it is in GR, but >> 'curves' due to the prescence of mass. >> >> None of that doesn't mean we need to invent a 'substance' in order to >> justify the geometry. We didn't need a substance to make the geometry to >> be >> Galilean / Euclidean .. we don't need one to make the geometry Lorentz / >> Minkowski etc. >> >> Of course, whether or not there is an 'aether' depends on what you mean >> by >> 'aether'. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - It also provides commentary on the first message of this thread. >> >> >> > > Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression >> >> > > "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem with >> >> > > that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space that >> >> > > he >> >> > > next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. >> >> >> > > [..] >> >> >> > >> Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the >> >> > >> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, >> >> >> > > Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! >> >> >> > Blame Lorentz .. I'm not saying it is correct. >> >> >> You don't stop saying that he stated such nonsense. >> >> LET has matter compressed and processes slowed. Do you not understand >> LET? >> >> >> Where? Androcles >> >> failed to find it, but maybe you can. ;-) >> >> >> > > -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression >> >> > > -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox >> >> >> > And your point is? >> >> >> You keep on repeating the same nonsense about Lorentz contraction >> >> implying "compression". >> >> It does. We simply cannot detect that compression because our tools are >> similarly compressed. >> >> LET has space as being simple Galilean/Euclidian, and filled with an >> aether. >> Movement through that aether compresses all matter and fields and slows >> all >> processes. The amount of compression and slowing due to absolute motion >> thru the aether is as given by the Lorentz transforms. As moving rulers >> and >> clocks are also affected, we cannot detect the effects on comoving >> objects. > > NO, NO NO! Things don't 'compress' nor does time slow down. It does in LET > When > sources are in motion (or there is a current) the resultant fields > must conform to a shape the conserves continuity. That form conforms > to the Lorentz contractive method. Likewise, when fields move it > simply takes longer for photons to complete a circuit. Since all > natural processes (including clocks) are regulated in this fashion it > physically takes longer for those processes to proceed. Time proceeds > at a universal rate BUT! local processes (like ticks of a clock) must > travel farther to complete circuits. Given that light speed itself > hasn't changed it just takes longer to complete the circuits. So .. processes slow down and objects compress. Thanks for agreeing >> SR does not have any compression or slowing. >> >> That is one of the fundamental difference between the two theories .. >> even >> though they predict the same measurements. >
From: Paul Stowe on 2 Jun 2010 22:27 On Jun 2, 7:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:264380c3-7835-4bca-bbaf-456ba0e2325f(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 6:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> > On Jun 2, 4:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 2, 11:27 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > [..] > > >> >> > >> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a > >> >> > >> substance > >> >> > >> (the > >> >> > >> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' > >> >> > >> (ie geometry) of spacetime. > > >> >> > > Talking about backwards! > > >> >> > Indeed it is > > >> >> > > Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated > >> >> > > way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical world, > > >> >> > Of course they are .. I didn't say otherwise > > >> >> You appeared to disagree with "Mathematical form comes directly from > >> >> physical properties & substance." However, if everyone agrees on that > >> >> fact, then that's nice. :-) > > >> >> > > and I > >> >> > > add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates to > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > topic of this thread. > > >> >> > > - > >> >> > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincar... > > >> >> > Do you have a point? > > >> >> Again, two points: > >> >> - It elaborates on the fact that geometrical "space" is a concept that > >> >> is based on our physical world, and not the other way round > > >> Of course it is .. just like any other aspect of physics. Our physical > >> reality behaves in a way that is best modeled by that geometry. We don't > >> impose the geometry on the world. The geometry that best modeled reality > >> used to be simple Euclidean. Then we late found Minkowski geometry > >> models > >> it far better. With GR, that geometry isn't 'fixed' as it is in GR, but > >> 'curves' due to the prescence of mass. > > >> None of that doesn't mean we need to invent a 'substance' in order to > >> justify the geometry. We didn't need a substance to make the geometry to > >> be > >> Galilean / Euclidean .. we don't need one to make the geometry Lorentz / > >> Minkowski etc. > > >> Of course, whether or not there is an 'aether' depends on what you mean > >> by > >> 'aether'. > > >> >> - It also provides commentary on the first message of this thread. > > >> >> > > Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression > >> >> > > "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem with > >> >> > > that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space that > >> >> > > he > >> >> > > next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. > > >> >> > > [..] > > >> >> > >> Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the > >> >> > >> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, > > >> >> > > Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! > > >> >> > Blame Lorentz .. I'm not saying it is correct. > > >> >> You don't stop saying that he stated such nonsense. > > >> LET has matter compressed and processes slowed. Do you not understand > >> LET? > > >> >> Where? Androcles > >> >> failed to find it, but maybe you can. ;-) > > >> >> > > -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression > >> >> > > -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox > > >> >> > And your point is? > > >> >> You keep on repeating the same nonsense about Lorentz contraction > >> >> implying "compression". > > >> It does. We simply cannot detect that compression because our tools are > >> similarly compressed. > > >> LET has space as being simple Galilean/Euclidian, and filled with an > >> aether. > >> Movement through that aether compresses all matter and fields and slows > >> all > >> processes. The amount of compression and slowing due to absolute motion > >> thru the aether is as given by the Lorentz transforms. As moving rulers > >> and > >> clocks are also affected, we cannot detect the effects on comoving > >> objects. > > > NO, NO NO! Things don't 'compress' nor does time slow down. > > It does in LET > > > When > > sources are in motion (or there is a current) the resultant fields > > must conform to a shape the conserves continuity. That form conforms > > to the Lorentz contractive method. Likewise, when fields move it > > simply takes longer for photons to complete a circuit. Since all > > natural processes (including clocks) are regulated in this fashion it > > physically takes longer for those processes to proceed. Time proceeds > > at a universal rate BUT! local processes (like ticks of a clock) must > > travel farther to complete circuits. Given that light speed itself > > hasn't changed it just takes longer to complete the circuits. > > So .. processes slow down and objects compress. Thanks for agreeing > > > > >> SR does not have any compression or slowing. > > >> That is one of the fundamental difference between the two theories .. > >> even > >> though they predict the same measurements. Perhaps we have a semantics issue. The word 'compress' means, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861599214 The make smaller by pressure a.k.a. compression... Verses 'contraction' meaning reduction in size: a shrinking or reducing Which! the main difference is the later does NOT! involve an external pressure as any causative agent. As for your comment on time, Lorentz got it right with his term 'local time'... Paul Stowe
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 22:39
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a47405f2-dd02-4e44-9dc7-c122f9e2e205(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 7:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:264380c3-7835-4bca-bbaf-456ba0e2325f(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 6:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jun 2, 4:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 2, 11:27 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > [..] >> >> >> >> > >> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a >> >> >> > >> substance >> >> >> > >> (the >> >> >> > >> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' >> >> >> > >> (ie geometry) of spacetime. >> >> >> >> > > Talking about backwards! >> >> >> >> > Indeed it is >> >> >> >> > > Poincare explained (in an overly elaborated >> >> >> > > way) how our geometric concepts are based on the physical >> >> >> > > world, >> >> >> >> > Of course they are .. I didn't say otherwise >> >> >> >> You appeared to disagree with "Mathematical form comes directly >> >> >> from >> >> >> physical properties & substance." However, if everyone agrees on >> >> >> that >> >> >> fact, then that's nice. :-) >> >> >> >> > > and I >> >> >> > > add a link to his article on that topic as it directly relates >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> > > the >> >> >> > > topic of this thread. >> >> >> >> > > - >> >> >> > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincar... >> >> >> >> > Do you have a point? >> >> >> >> Again, two points: >> >> >> - It elaborates on the fact that geometrical "space" is a concept >> >> >> that >> >> >> is based on our physical world, and not the other way round >> >> >> Of course it is .. just like any other aspect of physics. Our >> >> physical >> >> reality behaves in a way that is best modeled by that geometry. We >> >> don't >> >> impose the geometry on the world. The geometry that best modeled >> >> reality >> >> used to be simple Euclidean. Then we late found Minkowski geometry >> >> models >> >> it far better. With GR, that geometry isn't 'fixed' as it is in GR, >> >> but >> >> 'curves' due to the prescence of mass. >> >> >> None of that doesn't mean we need to invent a 'substance' in order to >> >> justify the geometry. We didn't need a substance to make the geometry >> >> to >> >> be >> >> Galilean / Euclidean .. we don't need one to make the geometry Lorentz >> >> / >> >> Minkowski etc. >> >> >> Of course, whether or not there is an 'aether' depends on what you >> >> mean >> >> by >> >> 'aether'. >> >> >> >> - It also provides commentary on the first message of this thread. >> >> >> >> > > Note: he evidently misunderstood the meaning of the expression >> >> >> > > "absolute space" but intelligent readers won't have a problem >> >> >> > > with >> >> >> > > that; and he makes a doubtful claim about possible 4D space >> >> >> > > that >> >> >> > > he >> >> >> > > next waters down, but which isn't relevant here. >> >> >> >> > > [..] >> >> >> >> > >> Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the >> >> >> > >> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, >> >> >> >> > > Amazing, still the same nonsense about "compression"! >> >> >> >> > Blame Lorentz .. I'm not saying it is correct. >> >> >> >> You don't stop saying that he stated such nonsense. >> >> >> LET has matter compressed and processes slowed. Do you not understand >> >> LET? >> >> >> >> Where? Androcles >> >> >> failed to find it, but maybe you can. ;-) >> >> >> >> > > -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compression >> >> >> > > -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox >> >> >> >> > And your point is? >> >> >> >> You keep on repeating the same nonsense about Lorentz contraction >> >> >> implying "compression". >> >> >> It does. We simply cannot detect that compression because our tools >> >> are >> >> similarly compressed. >> >> >> LET has space as being simple Galilean/Euclidian, and filled with an >> >> aether. >> >> Movement through that aether compresses all matter and fields and >> >> slows >> >> all >> >> processes. The amount of compression and slowing due to absolute >> >> motion >> >> thru the aether is as given by the Lorentz transforms. As moving >> >> rulers >> >> and >> >> clocks are also affected, we cannot detect the effects on comoving >> >> objects. >> >> > NO, NO NO! Things don't 'compress' nor does time slow down. >> >> It does in LET >> >> > When >> > sources are in motion (or there is a current) the resultant fields >> > must conform to a shape the conserves continuity. That form conforms >> > to the Lorentz contractive method. Likewise, when fields move it >> > simply takes longer for photons to complete a circuit. Since all >> > natural processes (including clocks) are regulated in this fashion it >> > physically takes longer for those processes to proceed. Time proceeds >> > at a universal rate BUT! local processes (like ticks of a clock) must >> > travel farther to complete circuits. Given that light speed itself >> > hasn't changed it just takes longer to complete the circuits. >> >> So .. processes slow down and objects compress. Thanks for agreeing >> >> >> >> >> SR does not have any compression or slowing. >> >> >> That is one of the fundamental difference between the two theories .. >> >> even >> >> though they predict the same measurements. > > Perhaps we have a semantics issue. The word 'compress' means, > > http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861599214 It all depends on which meaning of the word you are referring to to press together; force into less space. to cause to become a solid mass: to compress cotton into bales. to condense, shorten, or abbreviate: The book was compressed by 50 pages. to press together: compressed her lips. to make more compact by or as if by pressing. to reduce in size or volume as if by squeezing > The make smaller by pressure a.k.a. compression... According to LET it is made physically and intrinsically smaller due to motion through the Aether. That sounds like 'compression' for me. > Verses 'contraction' > > meaning reduction in size: a shrinking or reducing I choose deliberately to use the term 'compression' to make it distinct from what is called 'length contraction' in SR, where there is no physical intrinsic change in the object itself. In LET there IS a physical intrinsic change in the object due to the motion through the supposed aether. > Which! the main difference is the later does NOT! involve an external > pressure as any causative agent. As for your comment on time, Lorentz > got it right with his term 'local time'... LET says processes slow down and matter and fields compress, but time and space remains the same. |