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: Paul Stowe on 2 Jun 2010 22:45 On Jun 2, 7:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(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.a... > > 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. Well, in the Lorentzian model it is NOT! a compression it is a physical distortion that results in a shortening of the physical travel path in the direction of motion. No physical pressure or differential thereof is involved. Paul Stowe
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 22:55 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f732768-a1b9-45a1-9f29-cd075c3996cf(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 7:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(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.a... >> >> 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. > > Well, in the Lorentzian model it is NOT! a compression Yes .. it is. In the way I am deliberately using the term (which is perfectly valid). > it is a > physical distortion that results in a shortening of the physical > travel path in the direction of motion. So it is compressed. It is a physical intrinsic shortening as if by squeezing or pressure. This does not happen in SR, and is part of what distinguished SR from LET. BTW: you were just telling me earlier that the paths are longer, hence the slowing of processes .. Seems you can't make up your mind :) > No physical pressure or > differential thereof is involved. I never said there was. Please stop putting words into my mouth. There does not need to be physical pressure for something to be compressed.
From: Paul Stowe on 3 Jun 2010 00:16 On Jun 2, 7:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6f732768-a1b9-45a1-9f29-cd075c3996cf(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(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.a.... > > >> 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. > > > Well, in the Lorentzian model it is NOT! a compression > > Yes .. it is. In the way I am deliberately using the term (which is > perfectly valid). > > > it is a > > physical distortion that results in a shortening of the physical > > travel path in the direction of motion. > > So it is compressed. It is a physical intrinsic shortening as if by > squeezing or pressure. This does not happen in SR, and is part of what > distinguished SR from LET. > > BTW: you were just telling me earlier that the paths are longer, hence the > slowing of processes .. Seems you can't make up your mind :) > > > No physical pressure or > > differential thereof is involved. > > I never said there was. Please stop putting words into my mouth. There > does not need to be physical pressure for something to be compressed. Even with the contraction the length of the path along the axis of motion increases with speed by gamma, which, of course, is the same as the increase for the transverse trajectory...
From: Inertial on 3 Jun 2010 02:21 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2673c559-c5c2-483f-ad5a-6893840bdf6c(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 7:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6f732768-a1b9-45a1-9f29-cd075c3996cf(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 7:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(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.a... >> >> >> 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. >> >> > Well, in the Lorentzian model it is NOT! a compression >> >> Yes .. it is. In the way I am deliberately using the term (which is >> perfectly valid). >> >> > it is a >> > physical distortion that results in a shortening of the physical >> > travel path in the direction of motion. >> >> So it is compressed. It is a physical intrinsic shortening as if by >> squeezing or pressure. This does not happen in SR, and is part of what >> distinguished SR from LET. >> >> BTW: you were just telling me earlier that the paths are longer, hence >> the >> slowing of processes .. Seems you can't make up your mind :) >> >> > No physical pressure or >> > differential thereof is involved. >> >> I never said there was. Please stop putting words into my mouth. There >> does not need to be physical pressure for something to be compressed. > > Even with the contraction the length of the path along the axis of > motion increases with speed by gamma, which, of course, is the same as > the increase for the transverse trajectory... It depends on your frame of reference. Length of path is frame dependent.
From: eric gisse on 3 Jun 2010 03:17
Paul Stowe wrote: [...] > 2. I note the fact GR is founded upon a hydrodynamical expression > for just such a perfect fluid. Why no, Paul, this is not a fact. It is actually quite wrong. [snip rest] |