Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 16:53 On Apr 9, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Your "observer" is interacting with the string exerting forces 10^32 times greater than gravity. That is no way compares to pole and barn which are neutral object moving inertially. <<Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > 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 17:03 On Apr 9, 3:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > 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 > > That's fine. For starters, your quote above is incorrect and needs to be updated. See your own wiki link for the correction. The energy is 100 GeV per *nucleon*, not per *nucleus*. A gold nucleus has an atomic mass of 196.96655 amu, and an amu is 931.494028 MeV. So the gold nucleus rest energy is 183.473165 GeV. Therefore a gold nucleus with energy 100 GeV/nucleon corresponds a relativistic gamma factor of 107.354. From this, the speed of the nucleon can be calculated from beta^2 = 1 - 1/gamma^2, from which we find that beta = 0.999957, in agreement with the number that's in the wiki article. For two particles closing each at beta in the lab, the relative velocity is given by beta_rel = 2beta/(1+beta^2) = 99.999999906% of c. The center of mass energy squared is given by the relation (E1+E2)^2 - |p1+p2|^2, where the first sum is a scalar sum and the second is the scalar magnitude of a vector sum. Here, since p2 = -p1, the vector sum trivially adds to zero, and so leaves only the first term, which is (100 GeV + 100 GeV)^2 = (200 GeV)^2. Hence the center of mass energy is 200 GeV, while the relative velocity between the two is 99.999999906% of c. All of these calculational formulas are found in public archives, which you should take care to bookmark, read, and learn how to use, since it is plain that you don't know what you're doing when you look at a wiki article and incorrectly quote it, let alone derive incorrect conclusions from it. If you need help, let me point you to http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-kinematics.pdf
From: PD on 9 Apr 2010 17:24 On Apr 9, 3:31 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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". Oh, no, they agree on the definition of hour and kilometer, alright. Something that is measured locally to be a km will still be measured locally to be a km. And a standard process that locally takes an hr will still locally take an hour. But nevertheless, the combined speed will not be 45 kmh. The correct answer will be *close* to that, and for a long time nobody bothered to measure it precisely enough to check whether it really was 45 kmh. It's not, but the approximation was close enough to fool people. PD
From: PD on 9 Apr 2010 17:37 On Apr 9, 3:37 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, I'm making a direct test on a direct and distinguishing implication of a hypothesis. That is, the trajectories of other bodies would be measurably *different* under the hypothesis that the moon disappeared between direct observations, compared to what they would be under the hypothesis that the moon did not disappear. This measurable *difference* is what constitutes the test between the hypotheses. > > > 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. Which is similar to the notion that the Earth is really 6600 years old as indicated in the Bible, but God has arranged things to *fool* us into thinking that it is really 4.3 billion years old. There is always this loose, hand-waving out: "Maybe we only *think* there are laws of physics, but there aren't laws at all and we're just given the appearance that there are," or "I choose to believe that the laws that you've deduced are all wrong, and that there are some other laws that are at work instead. I haven't got the foggiest idea what they are, but they surely will be easier for me to accept than the ones you've found so far." > > > > > 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. In which case, there is no distinction WHATSOEVER in your mind between science and religion, or for that matter any belief system including morals, customs, common opinions, fads and fancies. That is because there is no such thing as "naturalistic ideology" other than a completely subjective and capricious assignment on an item by item basis: "This is natural. This, too, is natural. This, however, is not, and neither is that over there." And in fact, you can make no distinction whatsoever between the study of the natural universe and head-scratching over whether a round belly on a woman is to be considered beautiful. Since you can make no defensible distinction between these two, or in fact, any two contentions of any variety whatsoever, I'm curious why you have an interest in science, other than as another example of mental diddling.
From: PD on 9 Apr 2010 17:52
On Apr 9, 3:53 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 9, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Your "observer" is interacting with the string > exerting forces 10^32 times greater than gravity. > > That is no way compares to pole and barn > which are neutral object moving inertially. Interesting. So according to you, the laws of electrodynamics cannot be subject to the principle of relativity because no situation involving electrodynamics could involve inertial frames of reference, and this in turn is because you believe that to look at something from an inertial reference frame, the objects examined in them must also be moving inertially. Then by extension, the laws of Newtonian mechanics cannot be subject to the principle of relativity *either*, because anything that is obeying Newton's second law F=ma will likely have a nonzero acceleration and will therefore not be moving inertially. Therefore, according to you, if the principle of relativity applies to any laws of physics at all, you'll be hornswaggled if you know what they would be. Ah. > > <<Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria > of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, > controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. > Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, > stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious > anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either > ignored or misinterpreted.>>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > Sue... > > > 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." > > |