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 5 Jun 2010 09:26 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6e37f5a9-b63f-4f94-b027-d5774245d636(a)u20g2000pru.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 5, 1:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1f985718-dacb-4eed-9223-4dfdf8378955(a)11g2000prw.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 3, 11:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > On Jun 2, 11:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "PaulStowe" <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. >> >> > Are you a robotic echo? >> >> No .. just pointing out that it isn't just some subjective thing .. the >> path >> itsle has different lengths in different frames. Do you understand that? >> Its not just 'what you observe' is differnet but somehow it really isn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> > 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. >> >> > Fine, step by step as I have done, without the use of Pathagorean's >> > identity show us how the gamma factor comes about... >> >> See Einstein's paper. And no reason not to use pythagous, if one wants. > > What an idiotic response... NO .. it was a response to an idiot .. you > Just PFA a trigonometric form an ignore > the obvious and necessary foundation. Are you REALLY that stupid??? No .. I'm not you > Perhaps... Nope >> >> > 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. >> >> > What a non-answer... >> >> I'm just pointing out that your post was a waste of time > > Well we notice you haven't provided an alternative viable derivation. See Eintstines papers .. or any modern physics book > Einstein's is solided based upon exactly the same premise. THAT! was > the point. NO! I don't think you're that stupid, you're being > deliberately obstinate and obtuse instead. No.. that's you ,, again > The bottom line IS! you > cannot provide any other physical explanation for the form of the so- > called Lorentz transform. There doesn't need to be one. It models how reality works >> >> None of that shows the LET is correct, nor that there is an aether. >> >> I see you don't have anything to say. > > Except that the whole derivation was solely based upon the the > existence of an aether medium WRONG. Einstein derived it without any such notion > providing for the very existence and > nature of wave propagation. Why do I need to restate a foundation??? You're an ignorant fool, hiding in the physics of over a century ago. Don't waste our time.
From: Paul Stowe on 6 Jun 2010 13:57
On Jun 5, 5:43 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 5, 8:17 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 5, 1:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1f985718-dacb-4eed-9223-4dfdf8378955(a)11g2000prw.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 3, 11:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >> > On Jun 2, 11:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> >> "PaulStowe" <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. > > > > > Are you a robotic echo? > > > > No .. just pointing out that it isn't just some subjective thing .. the path > > > itsle has different lengths in different frames. Do you understand that? > > > Its not just 'what you observe' is differnet but somehow it really isn't. > > > > >> > 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 > > > > >> > 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. > > > > > Fine, step by step as I have done, without the use of Pathagorean's > > > > identity show us how the gamma factor comes about... > > > > See Einstein's paper. And no reason not to use pythagous, if one wants. > > > What an idiotic response... Just PFA a trigonometric form an ignore > > the obvious and necessary foundation. Are you REALLY that stupid??? > > Perhaps... > > > > >> > 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. > > > > > What a non-answer... > > > > I'm just pointing out that your post was a waste of time > > > Well we notice you haven't provided an alternative viable derivation. > > Einstein's is solided based upon exactly the same premise. THAT! was > > the point. NO! I don't think you're that stupid, you're being > > deliberately obstinate and obtuse instead. The bottom line IS! you > > cannot provide any other physical explanation for the form of the so- > > called Lorentz transform. > > Of course he can provide a modern physical > derivation. But then it will become blatantly > obvious that he carries 90 percent of his > brain matter between his legs. > > http://meshula.net/wordpress/?p=222 > > He is not uniquely afflicted with his little > anatomical problem, of course. :-)) > > Sue... > > > > > > > > >> None of that shows the LET is correct, nor that there is an aether. > > > > I see you don't have anything to say. > > > Except that the whole derivation was solely based upon the the > > existence of an aether medium providing for the very existence and > > nature of wave propagation. Why do I need to restate a foundation??? > > > PaulStowe Hi Sue, Given the lack of technical physics content in most postings here one has to wonder about the purpose of the poster's intent. Is it to bolster their egos, denigrate others, or both. It certainly isn't to discuss ideas in physics. Heck not only did Inertial act like a two year old he couldn't even recognize the foundation of the the LT. We never even got to the actual interesting elements of LR/SRT like the nature of the contraction, its possible connection to inertia, and thus, gravity & GR. As for being 'stuck' in the 19th century by rejecting the pure geometric approach to science then so are these folk. http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/ps/unified_field.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0612/0612036.pdf http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ingeniare/v16nespecial/art16.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.3303v2.pdf Regards, Paul |