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: funkenstein on 4 Jun 2010 06:39 On Jun 3, 11:43 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 3, 3:08 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.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 > > > - 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. 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". > > > > Harald > > > Hi Harald, > > > Let's recap this portiob shall we. > > > No one (not you or I) is disputing the observational apspects of SR, > > GR,or, in fact anything else. Instead the whole debate is about what > > causes the observed behavior. IOW, were debating the > > philosophical basis not the actual science. > > I don't appreciate debates; when a discussion deteriorates to that > point, I usually leave. > > DDRR / Ron presented a simple argument that is well known for over a > century, there were just a few small shortcomings in his presentation > together with the ambiguity of the word "physical". > > Nevertheless one has to agree with the standard sketch as based on the > standard assumptions, and one has to consider if one's interpretation > can accommodate the facts or not. I found it rather revealing that > several people who should know better protested too much or even > pretended not to understand the subject matter; but I think that > little more can be said without falling in continued repetition. > > Meanwhile you restarted a philosophical debate of the never-ending > type, which doesn't seem useful to me. It is well known that the > explanation by means of a stationary ether is liked by many as they > find it helpful for understanding such facts as here discussed while > it is disliked by many others who hold that it's completely useless. > Little can be gained from bringing up that dispute. > Thanks for the thread review Harald :) > > Boiling down my position on this succinctly as follows, > > > 1. I take as given Maxwell's was on the right track when he posited > > a perfect (inviscid) fluid state with predominant vorticity. > > He found that there were just too many possible models to choose from. > I am aware that nowadays this has been picked up again, but as far as > I know still very different models are proposed. > > > 2. I note the fact GR is founded upon a hydrodynamical > > expression for just such a perfect fluid. > > > 3. We accept QM and SM Tenets that all material systems are nothing > > more that some form of complex oscillatory wave > > patterns and interacting fields. > > Some mysteries to be solved there... Moreover, the apparent conflict > between local realism and QM needs to be solved. > > > > > 4. Therefore given 1, 2, 3 above all material systems would, by > > their very nature, be completely dependent upon the local perfect > > fluid properties in which they exist. This, in turn, would make > > their properties appear and measuably, locally invariant. In > > other words, the EVERYTHING changes equally making everything > > measure invariant. It truly is, Dirac's dilemna... > > > 5. Because of 1,2,3,4 Lorentz's postulates would simply be the > > natural behavior of such a system (the perfect fluid). No > > compression is required, or present. Fields simply conform to > > that shape as as Uno Ingard states so elequently in his article > > in Condon & Odishaw's "Handbook of Physics" > > > So natured card not about what people thought they should see and > > behaved precisely as a perfect fluid medium should have. YES UNCLE > > AL, the perfect fluid of the aether has NO LORENTZ VIOLATION!!!! > > Don't loose track of the fact that you just have a model; other models > could work as well. > > Regards, > Harald
From: harald on 4 Jun 2010 10:20 On Jun 4, 12:39 pm, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 11:43 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: [..] > > > > > > 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 > > > > - 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. [..] > > > Hi Harald, > > > > Let's recap this portiob shall we. > > > > No one (not you or I) is disputing the observational apspects of SR, > > > GR,or, in fact anything else. Instead the whole debate is about what > > > causes the observed behavior. IOW, were debating the > > > philosophical basis not the actual science. > > > I don't appreciate debates; when a discussion deteriorates to that > > point, I usually leave. > > > DDRR / Ron presented a simple argument that is well known for over a > > century, there were just a few small shortcomings in his presentation > > together with the ambiguity of the word "physical". > > > Nevertheless one has to agree with the standard sketch as based on the > > standard assumptions, and one has to consider if one's interpretation > > can accommodate the facts or not. I found it rather revealing that > > several people who should know better protested too much or even > > pretended not to understand the subject matter; but I think that > > little more can be said without falling in continued repetition. > > > Meanwhile you restarted a philosophical debate of the never-ending > > type, which doesn't seem useful to me. It is well known that the > > explanation by means of a stationary ether is liked by many as they > > find it helpful for understanding such facts as here discussed while > > it is disliked by many others who hold that it's completely useless. > > Little can be gained from bringing up that dispute. > > Thanks for the thread review Harald :) You're welcome. ;-)
From: Inertial on 4 Jun 2010 10:37 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:ab1332c0-c873-4d55-914b-3fa1d63744d3(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 4, 8:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:f8678b6c-a8b5-47a7-a92f-e963ad91e0fe(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 2, 11:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > {...} >> >> >> >> > 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). > > Science Dictionary, compression: > > 1. A force that tends to shorten or squeeze something, decreasing > its volume. > 2. The degree to which a substance has decreased in size (in > volume, length, or some other dimension) after being or while being > subject to stress. See also strain. > 3. The re-encoding of data (usually the binary data used by > computers) into a form that uses fewer bits of information than the > original data. Compression is often used to speed the transmission of > data such as text or visual images, or to minimize the memory > resources needed to store such data. > > Lorentz contraction isn't about computer science. :-)) Noone said it was. I already showed you definitions of 'compress' that match my usage of the word. If you don't like it .. then lets use the word 'shrink' One point is clear, however, that using the term 'contraction' for what happens in LET due to motion in the aether is misleading. It is a totally different concept to the 'contraction' of SR, and as both theories are often discussed together, the use of that term causes confusion. Would you be happy with me saying LET says movement through the aether causes shrinking of objects and fields and the slowing of processes?
From: Sue... on 4 Jun 2010 14:35 On Jun 4, 2:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f8678b6c-a8b5-47a7-a92f-e963ad91e0fe(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 2, 11:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > {...} > > >> >> > 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. > > > But, the word 'compression' does. > > No > > > If you say, deliberately, > > compressed that by the definition of the word says pressure > > distortions. > > No .. that is only one of its possible meanings. > > >> > 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. > > > What you observe, yes. > > The length of a path is frame dependent. ''''''''''''''''' > > > It's simply enough to comprehend. > > Lets hope you can manage then > > > Imagine a > > simple timer. It's a pulse counter and the setup is, > > > ___ (reflector) > > ^ > > | > > | > > | > > | (distance d) > > | > > | > > | > > |0| (Transmitter/counter) > > Fine > > > > > From the local point of view the pulse move outward at c, hits the > > reflector, and returns and triggers the counter and next pulse. Tick, > > Tick, Tick... c = d/t > > In that frame of reference. From a different frame the d will be different. > And in SR the t is different as well. And in LET the measured value of t > will be different (due to distortions in ticking rates of clocks) > > > Now take the second postulate verbatum, c is fixed and independent of > > any speed of emission/reception. > > Fine No... That isn't "fine". http://meshula.net/wordpress/?p=222 You are both lost in space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Learn some physics! << 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... > > > Look at what happens if the system > > above moves from left to right at some speed v. Then, given c cannot > > be changed. > > > c^2 = s^2 + v^2 -> s^2 = c^2 - v^2 > > > Where s is the actual speed along the path d. > > No .. according to SR, the actual speed of light is c in every inertial > frame. > > > > > Clearly the path (p) > > traversed by the light would follow the hypotenuse of, > > > p^2 = d^2 + (pv/c)^2 -> p^2 - (pv/c)^2 = d^2 -> p[Sqrt(1 - [v/ > > c]^2)] = d > > > Thus, > > > p = d/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) and 1/Sqrt(...) = g or p = dg > > > and the time it takes is, of course, > > > t = p/c = dg/c > > > Finally therefore, for all possible velocities up to c, > > > given the definition of speed as d/t then with d = p/g and therefore t > > = (p/g)/c speed s will always be, > > > c(local) =(p/g)/(p/gc) = c... > > > In other words, because light MUST always travel AT c it must always > > be measured as such. > > Of course it is > > > But, what about our timer, tick, tick, tick? Well as v goes to c and > > the actual time it takes to traverse 2d is is, actually, dg/c so the > > rate of our 'ticks' becomes slower & slower and would stop ticking > > completely at c. And, yes, relative to any two systems with some dv > > between them the differential is based solely upon the differential > > velocity between them. BUT! the process causing the 'time dilation' > > is real and measurable IF AND ONLY IF physical processes and > > properties ARE actually following such a process. > > > Now, please give me a viable alternative explanation. > > I already know how to derive SR thanks. > > None of that shows the LET is correct, nor that there is an aether.
From: harald on 4 Jun 2010 18:02
On Jun 4, 4:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:ab1332c0-c873-4d55-914b-3fa1d63744d3(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 4, 8:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:f8678b6c-a8b5-47a7-a92f-e963ad91e0fe(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 2, 11:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > {...} > > >> >> >> > 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). > > > Science Dictionary, compression: > > > 1. A force that tends to shorten or squeeze something, decreasing > > its volume. > > 2. The degree to which a substance has decreased in size (in > > volume, length, or some other dimension) after being or while being > > subject to stress. See also strain. > > 3. The re-encoding of data (usually the binary data used by > > computers) into a form that uses fewer bits of information than the > > original data. Compression is often used to speed the transmission of > > data such as text or visual images, or to minimize the memory > > resources needed to store such data. > > > Lorentz contraction isn't about computer science. :-)) > > Noone said it was. I already showed you definitions of 'compress' that > match my usage of the word. > > If you don't like it .. then lets use the word 'shrink' > > One point is clear, however, that using the term 'contraction' for what > happens in LET due to motion in the aether is misleading. It is a totally > different concept to the 'contraction' of SR, and as both theories are often > discussed together, the use of that term causes confusion. > > Would you be happy with me saying LET says movement through the aether > causes shrinking of objects and fields and the slowing of processes? "shrinking" along the direction of motion is quite correct! :-) Harald |