Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 01:54 On Apr 9, 12:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. With your right foot, kick a bowling ball as fast as you can swing your leg. With your left foot, kick a brick wall as fast as you can swing your leg. Which of your toes is really broken and which of your toes is mathematically broken? Newton made maths to implicate the ball. Mach suggested it was the ~fixed stars~. Einstein, Weber and Sakharov filed charges of a conspiracy. Sue... > > > 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 02:03 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:075cbd07-9b4d-4202-8f0f-a839a714ee36(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 9, 12:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > With your right foot, kick a bowling ball as > fast as you can swing your leg. > > With your left foot, kick a brick wall as > fast as you can swing your leg. > > Which of your toes is really broken and > which of your toes is mathematically broken? > > Newton made maths to implicate the ball. > Mach suggested it was the ~fixed stars~. > > Einstein, Weber and Sakharov filed charges > of a conspiracy. > > Sue... When you're not quote mining in the hope of fluking relevance and appearing knowledgeable, and actually post your own ideas, you're funny :)
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 02:47 On Apr 9, 2:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:075cbd07-9b4d-4202-8f0f-a839a714ee36(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 9, 12:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > With your right foot, kick a bowling ball as > > fast as you can swing your leg. > > > With your left foot, kick a brick wall as > > fast as you can swing your leg. > > > Which of your toes is really broken and > > which of your toes is mathematically broken? > > > Newton made maths to implicate the ball. > > Mach suggested it was the ~fixed stars~. > > > Einstein, Weber and Sakharov filed charges > > of a conspiracy. > > > Sue... > > When you're not quote mining in the hope of fluking relevance and appearing > knowledgeable, and actually post your own ideas, you're funny :) No mining involved. It is from a collection I started several years ago to advance discussions beyond nauseous page after page of ascii maths that had no hope of physically determining which light corpuscle hit the rail passenger first. ;-) As Wikipedia has matured I find less need for my own collection and that may give the appearance of mining. Support for a particular point of view is not what determines "relevance". More often than not, a controversy is perpetuated because someone has overlooked an important point of view. Frequently a offered page is one that got me out of a rut or tail-chase. It is not irrelevant just because it doesn't help another in the same manner. I admit to throwing a few gutter balls now and then and try to 'fess-up when I do. But is not nearly as many as my detractors accuse. Sue...
From: eric gisse on 9 Apr 2010 03:26 Ste wrote: > 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 [...] What is your purpose here if it isn't to learn?
From: Inertial on 9 Apr 2010 06:04
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:055be373-32c0-4689-9cc9-897cc0076dcc(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 9, 2:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:075cbd07-9b4d-4202-8f0f-a839a714ee36(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 9, 12:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> > With your right foot, kick a bowling ball as >> > fast as you can swing your leg. >> >> > With your left foot, kick a brick wall as >> > fast as you can swing your leg. >> >> > Which of your toes is really broken and >> > which of your toes is mathematically broken? >> >> > Newton made maths to implicate the ball. >> > Mach suggested it was the ~fixed stars~. >> >> > Einstein, Weber and Sakharov filed charges >> > of a conspiracy. >> >> > Sue... >> >> When you're not quote mining in the hope of fluking relevance and >> appearing >> knowledgeable, and actually post your own ideas, you're funny :) > > No mining involved. > > It is from a collection I started several > years ago to advance discussions beyond > nauseous page after page of ascii maths > that had no hope of physically determining which > light corpuscle hit the rail passenger first. ;-) > > As Wikipedia has matured I find less > need for my own collection and that > may give the appearance of mining. > > Support for a particular point of view > is not what determines "relevance". More > often than not, a controversy is perpetuated > because someone has overlooked an important > point of view. > > Frequently a offered page is one that got me > out of a rut or tail-chase. It is not > irrelevant just because it doesn't help > another in the same manner. > > I admit to throwing a few gutter balls now and > then and try to 'fess-up when I do. But > is not nearly as many as my detractors accuse. Might I not-so-humbly suggest that you actually post your own words more often, as they are far more likely to be relevant and far more entertaining,. |