Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 9 Apr 2010 16:16 On Apr 9, 3:00 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Apr, 15:45, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 8, 8:59 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > So for example, if you're talking about the frequency of an audio > > > source, then you isolate the Doppler effects and correct for them, > > > leaving the "true" value for the source frequency. > > > This is not removing an "effect". By "true" source frequency, you are > > simply stating what the frequency is as observed in the reference > > frame in which the source is at rest. > > No I'm not. As I started out by saying, the frequency of the source > can be measured directly by Ladar, or even high-speed cameras, even > when the observer is moving relative to the source. And for sure, if > you were at rest relative to the source, then the microphone > measurement would accord with the Ladar measurement. But the point is > that the Ladar measurement is the same *even when you are moving > relative to the source*. > > The conclusion to reach from this is not that the Ladar is merely > measuing the "rest frequency", but rather that the frequency measured > when at rest is the *real* source frequency, and if one wants to > measure the source frequency with sound, then one must account for the > dynamics of sound when trying to ascertain the source frequency from > the received frequency. > > It is the same with this length contraction. Unless the object is > mechanically contracting, then the explanation *must* lay in the > dynamics of the electromagnetic interaction *between* the two objects. > There is no other explanation that has been offered, except to assert > plainly (and unconvincingly) that it is not due to the interaction. This is simply not the case. I'll give you another example. If you take a string and rub a balloon on it so that it builds up a static charge, the string will have an electric field around it. An observer at rest relative to the string will observe no magnetic field around it at all (e.g. there will be no magnetic forces on any test charge in the region). However, for an observer moving relative to the string, the electric field will be altered and there will be a magnetic field now present. Keep in mind that there is NOTHING interacting with the string that differs between these two cases. There is literally nothing that could be physically altering the string. If nothing else, this is confirmed by the fact that while the second observer is noting the different electric field and the nonzero magnetic field, the first observer CONTINUES to observe no change in the electric field and a zero magnetic field. If there were some process that were affecting the string, then the first observer would note a change as well. This is an observed fact, something that was noted 150 years ago. It is simply incorrect to say that if a property of an object changes when a reference frame is changed, this MUST be due to some physical interaction with the object. There are some properties that are simply frame-dependent. As I mentioned to you, the velocity of an object is defined with respect to a *coordinate system*. This is the *definition* of velocity. This is despite your profound desire otherwise, that a reference frame means in reference to a second object, and that velocity is defined as something between two objects, and that this is a frame-independent property of those two objects. First of all, velocity is defined for a *single* object in a reference frame, as I pointed out to you by showing you definitions and discussions of what a reference frame is. Secondly, it is inconsistent with measurement that the pairwise velocity between two objects is a frame-independent quantity, and that any choice of reference frame to select one value of pairwise velocity out of many possible values is a completely arbitrary and capricious choice. > > > There is no "true" frequency > > other than that. By "isolating the Doppler effects and correcting for > > them," what you are doing is switching from the reference frame in > > which the source is moving to the reference frame in which the source > > is stationary. There is nothing in that which is separating "real" > > from "distorted perception". It is simply recognizing the frame > > dependence of the frequency and choosing a particular frame and > > LABELING it (arbitrarily) as the "true" frequency. > > I didn't label it as the "true frequency". I labelled it as the "true > value for the source frequency", which is different from the apparent > value. > > > > > > > > > And it turns out that the relative speed between two > > > > > > objects as *measured* in different reference frames, is frame- > > > > > > dependent. Observationally. Whether you think this is nonsense or not. > > > > > > And of course, I do think that. > > > > > Then you should be encouraged to do some measurements. > > > > Again, the fundamental issue is that you seem to insist on believing > > > > in the unverifiable reality of certain things because those things > > > > make sense to you. > > > > No, it's simply because I hold that not everything "real", and of > > > relevance, can be directly measured and verified. > > > As would be claimed by people who hold that they can infer the > > existence of angels from other evidence, even though angels themselves > > cannot be directly measured and verified. > > Indeed. As I've said, I would merely affirm my naturalistic axioms. > There is no useful distinction between science and religion, *except* > that science necessarily rules out the supernatural as a cause or > explanation for anything. To beat about the bush, and pretend that > science is somehow being objective or has no axioms, just hobbles the > further development of science and indeed means that science is lying > to itself all the time. I'm sorry, but you seem to be missing my point that you haven't clarified why angels would be considered supernatural and people to be natural, if both of them are taken to be real, other than by capricious labeling, which is nothing more than subjective "I accept this" or "I don't accept that."
From: PD on 9 Apr 2010 16:26 On Apr 9, 3:11 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Apr, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 8, 9:07 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes, indeed, this is a crucial ingredient. And of course if the doors > > > > were not shut at the same time, then we would not say that the first > > > > object fit inside the second object, would we, even though otherwise > > > > the observations would be the same? That is, if the front of the > > > > ladder were inside the barn (having verified that it passed through > > > > one but not the other door) when one door was shut, and the back of > > > > the ladder were inside the barn (by the same verification) when the > > > > other door was shut, this would be no indication that the ladder fit > > > > inside the barn, right? Especially if the doors were not shut at the > > > > same time. > > > > Indeed. The question, really, is not whether the ladder fits inside > > > when the doors are actually shut, but whether it *would* fit if they > > > *were* shut. > > > And again, the main thing to remember is that the ladder is moving > > relative to the barn. > > I didn't forget it, and it is indeed obvious that, with a moving > object, the doors could not remain shut indefinitely without a > collision. > > > > As I say, I don't think we need to discuss extensively > > > what "fitting" means - but for completeness, it simply means whether > > > the full extent of the ladder could be at once contained within the > > > confines of the barn. > > > I completely disagree. This is where the precision of the definition > > is important. It is only by waving hands generally and dismissively > > about what a word *means* that you afford yourself enough vagueness to > > suppose that "fitting" should be a frame-independent concept. As soon > > as you try to be precise about what "fitting" means, you learn that > > any precise definition quickly leads to incompatibility with frame- > > independence. So the conclusion is that if the only way you can secure > > the frame-independence of the concept is by being vague and loose with > > what the concept actually means, then you've only succeeded in fooling > > yourself with an inherently inconsistent concept. > > As I've said, I think the concept of "fitting" is quite obvious It is indeed, and it rests wholly on the stipulation of simultaneity. Therefore, your claim that "fitting" is frame-independent rests WHOLLY on the claim that simultaneity is frame-independent. If you cannot establish that simultaneity is frame-independent, then you CANNOT claim that "fitting" is frame-independent, precisely because of your own definition of "fitting". I'm sure you have to acknowledge this statement. This dependency is *critical*. It will turn out that this is essential to the comparable claim about length. One simply cannot assert that length is frame-independent without having evidence that simultaneity is frame-independent. Thus, the frame-dependence of simultaneity is the crux of the matter to both. The resolution to whether simultaneity is frame-dependent will rest on the answers to two questions: 1. Do the known laws of physics require that simultaneity be frame- dependent or do they allow frame-independence of simultaneity? 2. Is there experimental evidence of frame-dependence of simultaneity? This is important, as well, because if the notion of frame-dependence of simultaneity is to be rejected, and it is also true that the known laws of physics demand frame-dependence of simultaneity, then this is a tacit rejection of those laws of physics, and you are in fact demanding that those laws also be replaced. It will perhaps be of interest to you to understand the magnitude of such a claim. > - it > is surprising that physicists can not understand the meaning of this > ordinary concept. And as I've said, the definition can be taken as the > one I gave above. I suspect the real disagreement is not on the word > "fitting", but, once again, about the concept of "simultaneity". > > > > > > > So, jumping to the chase, if in one reference frame, it is established > > > > that the doors were shut at the same time, then the definition of > > > > "fitting" inside the barn would have been met, and the ladder would > > > > have fit inside the barn in that frame. If in another reference frame, > > > > it is established that the doors were not shut at the same time, then > > > > the definition of "fitting" inside the barn would not have been met, > > > > and the ladder would not have fit inside the barn in that frame. So, > > > > you see, it is entirely possible -- and indeed we would be forced to > > > > this conclusion -- that the ladder fits in the barn (by virtue of your > > > > own definition) in one frame and does not fit in the barn in another > > > > frame, provided that we can establish that the timing of the doors > > > > being shut depends on the frame. > > > > Yes, but this is a contradiction in reality, so the only other > > > explanation is that perhaps it *appears* to do this, but does not > > > actually do so. > > > And again, what we would have to do is to clearly define what > > simultaneity *means*, so that we can determine whether in fact the > > frame-dependence of the timing of the doors is real. We've already > > determined that the *reality* of "fitting* hinges precisely on this > > statement of simultaneity, and so the question simply shifts to the > > *reality* of simultaneity. > > Indeed. And as I've argued, while I accept that no information in the > universe *does* propagate instantly, when talking of simultaneous, we > must talk about what would be simultaneous if information *had* > propagated instantly. Otherwise, we get a definition of simultaneity > that is entirely subjective, and meaningless - that is, we get a > situation where John, who ate breakfast at 9am, says it happened at > 9am, and as for Jack, whom John told about eating breakfast, Jack says > the breakfast was eaten at 7pm (i.e. when Jack finally found out that > John's breakfast had been eaten). > > > > And of course, my money would be that nothing changes > > > real length at all, and that the appearance of this is an illusion > > > that can be explained somehow in terms of the behaviour of the > > > electromagnetic interaction (possibly combined with a > > > misinterpretation of what relativity actually describes, and an > > > ignorance of the mechanisms underlying the effects of relativity). > > > The "explained somehow" is the part that gets into vigorous hand- > > waving. It is an appeal to "Surely there is something -- *anything* -- > > that could account for this other than having to appeal to > > relativity." > > It is not hand-waving Paul. The electromagnetic interaction is where I > remain convinced the explanation lies, for all the reasoning we've > discussed at length previously in this thread. As we would eventually see, the laws of the electromagnetic interaction are well known and exceedingly well tested. It is these laws themselves that demand the frame-dependence of simultaneity. > > > That's all well and good, but in the absence of a > > concrete alternative, there is the fact that relativity does do a > > proper job of explaining it, whether you find it distasteful or not. > > When there is something put forward that competes as well as > > relativity, then surely it will be deserving of consideration. > > No one says that relativity doesn't account for what is *observed*. > The question is whether the observation reflects reality - i.e. > whether the observation can be taken at face value, or whether it > requires a layer or interpretation or "correction".
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 16:28 On Apr 9, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 2:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 8, 9:09 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > But that is not what happens. > > > For example, if I see a car traveling west at 10 kmh, and a car > > > traveling east at 35 kmh, then you have the expectation that, to a > > > passenger riding in the car traveling east, the other car is traveling > > > 45 kmh west. > > > But in fact, it is not traveling at 45 kmh west to a passenger in that > > > car. > > > It is traveling at something close to that, but only approximately. > > > ========================== > > > > The bottom line is, the basic sum rule you've been taught for relative > > > velocities is a LIE. > > > << The main types of particle combinations used at RHIC > > are p + p, d + Au, Cu + Cu and Au + Au. The projectiles > > typically travel at a speed of 99.995% of the speed of light > > in vacuum. For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass > > energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV > > (or 100 GeV per nucleus); >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider > > Yes, and the energy adds. The velocities don't. You DO know the > difference, don't you? > No, I suppose not. Wouldn't a calculation from the relative velocities demonstrate your point better than an insult? Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html A couple of your fellow Lorentz ether theorists seem to be having the same problem so perhaps it is worth looking into. Sue... > > > > > > PD > >
From: Ste on 9 Apr 2010 16:31 On 9 Apr, 15:57, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 9:09 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > But that is not what happens. > For example, if I see a car traveling west at 10 kmh, and a car > traveling east at 35 kmh, then you have the expectation that, to a > passenger riding in the car traveling east, the other car is traveling > 45 kmh west. > But in fact, it is not traveling at 45 kmh west to a passenger in that > car. > It is traveling at something close to that, but only approximately. > > The bottom line is, the basic sum rule you've been taught for relative > velocities is a LIE. i would expect the combined speed to be a real 45kmh, yes, although it's quite possible that none of them will any longer agree on the definition of "hour" or "kilometer".
From: Ste on 9 Apr 2010 16:37
On 9 Apr, 16:01, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 9:12 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > It ought to be of scientific interest that there are lots of things > > > that cannot be verified by experiment but inferred from other > > > measurements? No, I don't think so. > > > But I do think so. It's a bit like how I infer the moon exists even > > when I'm not observing it, even though by definition I can't be sure > > what is happening when I'm not observing. > > But there ARE ways of confirming the moon's presence, even when you're > not observing the moon. For example, you could predict what would > happen to the orbits of other celestial bodies if the moon disappeared > when you were not looking at it. But then you are drawing inferences without direct observation. Which is precisely what I said we should do, and *must* do. > Then when you did look again and saw > that the moon had at least reappeared, you could test the hypothesis > that it had disappeared in between. There is always the option of saying that the heavens don't work in the way we thought they did, and so the moon *did* in fact disappear, but we weren't measuring any of the variables that would have been affected by its absence. > > > That would apply to angels and demons. No, thank you. > > > As I've said before, I think science would do better to simply assert > > it's naturalistic ideology, rather than pretending that the > > demarcation between science and religion lies in the method. > > There are those that believe that angels are real and therefore > natural creatures, under the presumption that anything that is real in > the universe is also natural. So you'd have to be a little clearer > about that which belongs to "naturalistic ideology" and that which > does not. As I've said, there is ultimately no way to exclude religious concepts with science, except by excluding them a priori. |