Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 9 Apr 2010 00:30 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:15f5de00-92f3-47e8-a6d0-8b12482b08aa(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Apr, 03:13, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > - but for completeness, it simply means whether >> > the full extent of the ladder could be at once contained within the >> > confines of the barn. >> >> 'At once' is what makes it frame dependent. So the answer depends on >> which >> frame of reference is dertmining whether or not the doors are closed 'at >> once' > > But I reject the idea that "at once" can be frame dependent, Tough luck. We KNOW, from experiment, that time is frame depednent. > although > I don't refute that it can *appear* to be frame dependent, Its not just an apeparance. > because it > takes different lengths of time for the information to propagate > (which, in this case, is akin to saying it is an optical illusion). That is wrong . You have an incorrect idea of what SR says, and a fixed notion that reality must behave the way you want it to. You need to get beyond those limitations.
From: Ste on 9 Apr 2010 00:45 On 9 Apr, 03:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:eb581e80-73ee-4f1b-b86a-729c49128d65(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of a > >> measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of another > >> measurement. > > > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B is > > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving at > > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical difference of > > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. > > You can both calculate what A's movement is relative to B and agree on that. > > Ignoring SR just for now, and just using the Galillean/Newtonian model that > you seem to think is valid in cases when it is not ... Yes, I think we've agreed that we are using the Newtonian model here. > That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And so, by > your definition, A's velocity isn't real. > > That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And so, by > your definition, B's velocity isn't real. We must be more clear about what is "real" here. You keep talking about "A's velocity". What you mean, but didn't say, is A's velocity *with respect to a certain frame*. I also explained that "frames" are, in reality (if not in mathematical theory) always tied to real objects (that is, the velocity of any frame is always defined in relation to a real object, an "anchor" if you will). A frame that had no "anchor" would be useless in practical reality. Since everyone agrees on A's velocity with respect to the frame (which is implicitly anchored to some other object), then that velocity is real (all observers get the same value when measuring the same relationship). A's velocity with respect to a different frame (and hence, with reference to a different anchor object) is also real (again, all observers get the same value when measuring the same relationship). Finally, A and B's velocity relative to each other is also real (for the third time, all observers get the same value when measuring the same relationship). > However, the difference between A' not-real velocity and B's not-real > velocity IS real. Similarly, the difference in their momentums is also > real. However, the difference in their kinetic energies is not real. I don't really understand the mathematical basis of KE. Just as a frame is "not real" unless anchored, it may be that KE is a mathematical construct, not a direct measurement of a real property or relationship between physical objects. > It really (sic) would be better if you dropped this confusing use of 'real', > and just used 'frame independent' or 'invariant' instead. But as I said, those concepts do not carry the same meaning. > Though I know you > do enjoy the word games that ensure, it is not helpful. Not really. I loathe the difficulties of communication here.
From: Inertial on 9 Apr 2010 00:56 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d1ca3093-a224-41d0-ba1e-dde13ff3e6bf(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Apr, 03:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:eb581e80-73ee-4f1b-b86a-729c49128d65(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of a >> >> measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of another >> >> measurement. >> >> > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B is >> > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving at >> > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical difference of >> > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. >> >> You can both calculate what A's movement is relative to B and agree on >> that. >> >> Ignoring SR just for now, and just using the Galillean/Newtonian model >> that >> you seem to think is valid in cases when it is not ... > > Yes, I think we've agreed that we are using the Newtonian model here. Though when discussing SR (and reality) you cannot do that. Your problem is that is what you do. You try to make SR work in the Newtonian / Galillean model. It can't .. it replaces that model and is not completely consistent with it. >> That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And so, >> by >> your definition, A's velocity isn't real. >> >> That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And so, >> by >> your definition, B's velocity isn't real. > > We must be more clear about what is "real" here. Its your term > You keep talking > about "A's velocity". Yes .. which is frame dependent, and so not real. > What you mean, but didn't say, is A's velocity > *with respect to a certain frame*. That is the whole point. And seeing it is frame dependent, it is not real by your definition. If you make your bed you have to lie in it. Otherwise, change beds > I also explained that "frames" are, > in reality (if not in mathematical theory) always tied to real objects > (that is, the velocity of any frame is always defined in relation to a > real object, an "anchor" if you will). A frame that had no "anchor" > would be useless in practical reality. Irrelevant > Since everyone agrees on A's velocity with respect to the frame (which > is implicitly anchored to some other object), > then that velocity is > real (all observers get the same value when measuring the same > relationship). It is hilarious watching you trying to get out of it. According to your new logic here, every measurement is now real, because either it is frame independent anyway .. or that it is frame dependent and all observers agree on its value in any particular frame. So now your 'notion of 'real' is impotent. > A's velocity with respect to a different frame (and hence, with > reference to a different anchor object) is also real (again, all > observers get the same value when measuring the same relationship). > > Finally, A and B's velocity relative to each other is also real (for > the third time, all observers get the same value when measuring the > same relationship). >> However, the difference between A' not-real velocity and B's not-real >> velocity IS real. Similarly, the difference in their momentums is also >> real. However, the difference in their kinetic energies is not real. > > I don't really understand the mathematical basis of KE. Just as a > frame is "not real" unless anchored, it may be that KE is a > mathematical construct, not a direct measurement of a real property or > relationship between physical objects. Then learn >> It really (sic) would be better if you dropped this confusing use of >> 'real', >> and just used 'frame independent' or 'invariant' instead. > > But as I said, those concepts do not carry the same meaning. Your notion is useless. >> Though I know you >> do enjoy the word games that ensure, it is not helpful. > > Not really. I loathe the difficulties of communication here. Then STOP USING TERMS WHICH GET IN THE WAY. Do NOT use 'real'. The point is .. once we escape the limitations of Galilean/Newtonian physics, and look at SR .. length, simultaneity, and clock rates are frame dependent measurements .. just as velocity is. Why can't you get you mind around this simple fact?
From: Ste on 9 Apr 2010 01:32 On 9 Apr, 05:56, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> You can both calculate what A's movement is relative to B and agree on > >> that. > > >> Ignoring SR just for now, and just using the Galillean/Newtonian model > >> that > >> you seem to think is valid in cases when it is not ... > > > Yes, I think we've agreed that we are using the Newtonian model here. > > Though when discussing SR (and reality) you cannot do that. Your problem is > that is what you do. You try to make SR work in the Newtonian / Galillean > model. It can't .. it replaces that model and is not completely consistent > with it. The point is, we accept we're talking about a "frame dependent" velocity, but we're ignoring any contribution of SR. > >> That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And so, > >> by > >> your definition, A's velocity isn't real. > > >> That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And so, > >> by > >> your definition, B's velocity isn't real. > > > We must be more clear about what is "real" here. > > Its your term No, what I meant is that we have to clarify what is and isn't real here. > > You keep talking > > about "A's velocity". > > Yes .. which is frame dependent, and so not real. No, because the "frame" has an anchor, and the velocity with respect to the anchor *is* real (and invariant). > > What you mean, but didn't say, is A's velocity > > *with respect to a certain frame*. > > That is the whole point. And seeing it is frame dependent, it is not real > by your definition. If you make your bed you have to lie in it. Otherwise, > change beds I'm more intent on getting *you* to lie in it. > > I also explained that "frames" are, > > in reality (if not in mathematical theory) always tied to real objects > > (that is, the velocity of any frame is always defined in relation to a > > real object, an "anchor" if you will). A frame that had no "anchor" > > would be useless in practical reality. > > Irrelevant No it isn't, because I'm explaining how a "frame dependent velocity" becomes real - by virtue of referencing a frame-invariant relationship between two real objects. > > Since everyone agrees on A's velocity with respect to the frame (which > > is implicitly anchored to some other object), > > then that velocity is > > real (all observers get the same value when measuring the same > > relationship). > > It is hilarious watching you trying to get out of it. I'm not getting out of it. I haven't moved an inch. > According to your new logic here, every measurement is now real, because > either it is frame independent anyway .. or that it is frame dependent and > all observers agree on its value in any particular frame. Och! You've completely missed the point about how if you want to talk about "real", then you must stop talking about abstract "frames". > > I don't really understand the mathematical basis of KE. Just as a > > frame is "not real" unless anchored, it may be that KE is a > > mathematical construct, not a direct measurement of a real property or > > relationship between physical objects. > > Then learn I'm not interested in learning it, or explaining the dicrepancy in the numbers. Everything I need to know - that the hammer smashes the skull no matter how you look at it - I already knew. > The point is .. once we escape the limitations of Galilean/Newtonian > physics In other words, once we take off the shackles of reality...
From: Inertial on 9 Apr 2010 01:48
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e0d60281-6718-4dcd-a1d8-31392161fec0(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Apr, 05:56, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> You can both calculate what A's movement is relative to B and agree on >> >> that. >> >> >> Ignoring SR just for now, and just using the Galillean/Newtonian model >> >> that >> >> you seem to think is valid in cases when it is not ... >> >> > Yes, I think we've agreed that we are using the Newtonian model here. >> >> Though when discussing SR (and reality) you cannot do that. Your problem >> is >> that is what you do. You try to make SR work in the Newtonian / >> Galillean >> model. It can't .. it replaces that model and is not completely >> consistent >> with it. > > The point is, we accept we're talking about a "frame dependent" > velocity Yes we are .. but that has nothing to do with, and does not negate, what I just said above > but we're ignoring any contribution of SR. Yes we are .. but that has nothing to do with, and does not negate, what I just said above >> >> That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And >> >> so, >> >> by >> >> your definition, A's velocity isn't real. >> >> >> That does NOT mean that A has the same velocity in all frames. And >> >> so, >> >> by >> >> your definition, B's velocity isn't real. >> >> > We must be more clear about what is "real" here. >> >> Its your term > > No, what I meant is that we have to clarify what is and isn't real > here. No .. we don't. What YOU have to do is stop using the term 'real'. it is getting in the way of your understanding and of effective communication. Unless you course you are not interested in understanding or effective communication. >> > You keep talking >> > about "A's velocity". >> >> Yes .. which is frame dependent, and so not real. > > No, because the "frame" has an anchor, and the velocity with respect > to the anchor *is* real (and invariant). That is what frame dependent means .. relative to the frame (and its 'anchor' if any) So now you are claiming frame dependent values are real when the frame has an 'anchor' that is real? All you are doing is wasting time with trying to define a term we can simply NOT USE !! >> > What you mean, but didn't say, is A's velocity >> > *with respect to a certain frame*. >> >> That is the whole point. And seeing it is frame dependent, it is not >> real >> by your definition. If you make your bed you have to lie in it. >> Otherwise, >> change beds > > I'm more intent on getting *you* to lie in it. I am not interested in your uncomfortable bed. it is getting in the way of a good nights sleep. >> > I also explained that "frames" are, >> > in reality (if not in mathematical theory) always tied to real objects >> > (that is, the velocity of any frame is always defined in relation to a >> > real object, an "anchor" if you will). A frame that had no "anchor" >> > would be useless in practical reality. >> >> Irrelevant > > No it isn't, yes .. it is > because I'm explaining how a "frame dependent velocity" > becomes real - by virtue of referencing a frame-invariant relationship > between two real objects. So the same with any frame dependent value .. you have just made your definition of 'real' impotent. How about you just give up on the notion .. it has no clear meaning and is getting in everyone's way >> > Since everyone agrees on A's velocity with respect to the frame (which >> > is implicitly anchored to some other object), >> > then that velocity is >> > real (all observers get the same value when measuring the same >> > relationship). >> >> It is hilarious watching you trying to get out of it. > > I'm not getting out of it. I haven't moved an inch. I know you're not .. but you're still trying to >> According to your new logic here, every measurement is now real, because >> either it is frame independent anyway .. or that it is frame dependent >> and >> all observers agree on its value in any particular frame. > > Och! You've completely missed the point about how if you want to talk > about "real", then you must stop talking about abstract "frames". Och! You've completely missed the point about how if you want to talk about physics, then you must stop talking about an ill-defined 'real'. >> > I don't really understand the mathematical basis of KE. Just as a >> > frame is "not real" unless anchored, it may be that KE is a >> > mathematical construct, not a direct measurement of a real property or >> > relationship between physical objects. >> >> Then learn > > I'm not interested in learning it, I noticed > or explaining the dicrepancy in the > numbers. Everything I need to know - that the hammer smashes the skull > no matter how you look at it - I already knew. Just stick one's head in the sand an ignore those things that upset your world model, eh? >> The point is .. once we escape the limitations of Galilean/Newtonian >> physics > > In other words, once we take off the shackles of reality... No .. reality does not work as per Galilean/Newtonian physics. That is a proven fact. Your denial of that, and your insistence that reality must instead work the way YOU want it to, is once again noted. That you refuse to accept it is your downfall, and as a result you'll remain ignorant and arrogant. |