Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 17:18 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:981e1814-f71b-4533-a919-d62eda33395f(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 12:15, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:95400b2a-0896-4610-881b-0f5c32444782(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 12 Apr, 11:50, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> Then that is your problem. It doesn't mean the physics is wrong .. >> >> >> just >> >> >> you >> >> >> are unwilling to accept that it is right. >> >> >> > I didn't say physics was wrong. >> >> >> Yes .. you have >> >> > What I've suggested is that some interpretations may be faulty. >> >> Yes .. yours. Particularly about synchrnoisation. >> >> >> >> >> > I was alluding more to Paul's notions >> >> > about premonition and cause, or about the universe not being >> >> > governed >> >> > by cause and effect, which I think is nonsense (and so would many >> >> > physicists). >> >> >> Yet in the QM world, effect can precede cause. Lets not got there yet >> >> :):) >> >> > Yes, we'll leave that for now, because I strongly disagree with the >> > idea. >> >> Its not a matter of whether you agree with it or not .. it is a fact. > > It is a matter of whether I agree with it. Wrong. Your agreement with it make no difference to physics. If you wish to deny facts, then you have a problem. > But as I said, rather than > kick off another argument on an unrelated issue, let's pin down SR > first. You mean pin down your understanding of it by fixing what you don't 'get'.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 17:20 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8bd3c8f3-09cc-4246-bcd8-555bb6f666ba(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 13:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4164eef8-bc24-4e52-9071-ae455ad3f77f(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 12 Apr, 12:07, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:0faebd8d-d6fd-4475-8996-f96717fbb594(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 12 Apr, 11:45, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> > Now, to what degree is the distant clock appearing retarded (or >> >> >> > advanced), and how (i.e. to what degree) is that retardation or >> >> >> > advance related to: >> >> >> > a) distance; and >> >> >> > b) velocity? >> >> >> >> See the lorentz transforms >> >> >> > I was hoping you'd spell it out Inertial. >> >> >> But you refuse to read mathematic >> >> > I don't refuse to, but bear in mind my current level of competence. >> > Also, bear in mind that this particular, narrow question *is* one that >> > lends itself to a mathematical quantification, since I am asking the >> > question "what", not "why". >> >> >> > You'd think with the >> >> > hundreds of thousands of words we've already put down on this issue, >> >> > you wouldn't be averse to a little clarity at this stage of the >> >> > game. >> >> >> I will do so, if you actually want to see the math. In which case, the >> >> Lorentz transforms give the answers. I can explain them in words, if >> >> you >> >> can't work it out >> >> > Ok. >> >> >> >> >> > And they both argue that it is the *other* who is lagging? >> >> >> >> >> It is the *other* clock in your example is ahead .. not lagging >> >> >> >> > At what point? >> >> >> >> When they start moving toward each other >> >> >> > OK. Does the distant clock always advance, even if they are moving >> >> > *away* from each other? >> >> >> It always ticks in a forward direction .. time doesn't go backward. >> >> So >> >> it >> >> is always advancing. >> >> > Yes, but obviously I mean the relative simultaneity of the "ticks" of >> > the clock. In other words, does the local clock read, say, 00:20 >> > before or after the distant clock (in other words, is the distant >> > clock ahead or advanced, or is it behind or retarded). >> >> >> What depends on velocity and position (from my frame of reference) is >> >> how >> >> far ahead or behind the reading on a moving clocks is compared to a >> >> (synchrnoised with my at-rest clock) stationary clock at the same >> >> position >> >> as the moving one. >> >> > Yes, but we don't need to talk about the "same position as the moving >> > one", because we're disregarding propagation delays altogether - so >> > the separation distance shouldn't have any influence on the result. >> >> Just making it clear. And that is HOW we can get rid of propagation >> delays. > > That reasoning does not *necessarily* stand up. Yes .. it does > The propagation delay > may be different for a moving object than for a stationary object. Doesn't matter .. because we are not using anything that involves ANY propagation delays. > Although obviously I'll bear in mind your comments. > >> We don't need to use just what information comes via EM to a single >> observer >> location. We consider things happening simultaneously anywhere >> throughout >> the frame (ie as though the information was sent instantaneously). That >> is >> WHY you supposedly different definition of simultaneity is just the same >> as >> what SR uses anyway .. and ends up being frame dependent. > > Indeed. Well, I'll run with it for now.
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 18:05 On Apr 12, 5:26 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 abr, 16:28, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Apr 12, 3:56 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > =============== > > > > And you clearly proof your troll behavior quite clearly, when you > > > answer to the clear wording of Peter Webb "It has been explained to > > > you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is independent of the > > > speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is > > > predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved > > > experimentally." > > > What has been "massively proved" is the light used > > for Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" does > > not exist. > > Yeah right. that is the reason your hero, Dr. Fitzpatrick writes: > "...Consider, now, a wave-like disturbance which is self-regenerating > and does not require a medium through which to propagate. The most > well known example of such a disturbance is a light wave. Another > example is a gravity wave. According to electromagnetic theory the > speed of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is c=1/ > sqrt(epsilon_0*mu_0)=2.99729*10^8 m/sec That implies no inertial motion of light as in Einstien's RoS. Indeed, I urge people to study Fitzpatrick's lectures and I also urge them to replace the carbide lamps on their autos with the new electric models because the acetylene gas can be very dangerous. > > where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated > by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force > of attraction between two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current > carrying wires. According to the relativity principle these > experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all > inertial frames. In fact, any disturbance which does not require a > medium to propagate through must appear to travel at the same velocity > in all inertial frames, otherwise we could differentiate inertial > frames using the apparent propagation speed of the disturbance, which > would violate the relativity principle..." > > > > > Lucky for him, Minkowski put it on an imaginary > > axis. > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > Yeah, right. You mean like this: ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - > dz^2 ??? Your are getting better with the maths. << if you know about complex numbers you will notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2 where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to time. >> http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html But you are still sloppy with the links when you excerpt. Let me help you and the author whose website no doubt lives and dies by "hits". "The relativity principle" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... > > Miguel Rios
From: NoEinstein on 12 Apr 2010 18:20 On Apr 11, 2:19 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Dear Peter Webb: An imbecile named Lorentz, while sitting in a beer hall, proposed that the M-M experiment got nil results because the velocity change in light that had been soughtdue to the drag of the 'stationary' lumeniferous ethergot equaled by the change in the lengths of all of the optical components due to that same ether drag. For anyone with a structural engineering background, like me, that is the most laughable of ignorance! All materials 'contract' under applied loads depending on their lengths, cross-sections, and their unique moduli of elasticity. And all materials will REBOUND, elastically, as soon as the force is removed. In the case of masses that are in free motion in the Universe, the only forces velocity can possibly cause are forces due to ACCELERATION of the ACCELERATION, acting on the INERTIA of the masses, and which can only occur for very short periods of time. Lorentz's 'rubber ruler' requires that all materialwhether soft rubber or hard steelcontract identically due to the force being applied. But be it known: Velocity, alone, has never caused any object in the Universe to contract! If velocity were capable of contracting matter, the Earth, as it spins on its axis and orbits the Sun would have a constantly changing velocity component. That would require that all of the matter in and on the Earth would be in a constant state of alternating compression and decompression. Those, over time would cause the Earth to become either a molten blob, due to frictional heating, or, more like, would cause the Earth to stop rotating on its axis and to stop revolving around the Sun. Both of those scenarios would mean there could be no life anywhere in the Universe So, Peter, when you "drop" a technical sounding discussion of science such as Lorentz contraction, what you are actually doing is exposing your own stupidity, and the stupidity of anyone who is willing to converse with you. NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... An Einstein Disproof for Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7 There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en& > > "Timo Nieminen" <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message > > news:899a661a-3a01-4ed0-9396-7e18c7eed862(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 11, 5:35 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 7:30 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > 3. Can the observer see the Lorentz contraction of the pole? > > > Not cleanly. > > What the observer will see will be the "optical illusion" length, > which includes the effect of Lorentz contraction. A full answer to > this part would mean finding out whether or not the Lorentz > contraction is a visibly significant part of the total effect. Some > guess as to visual acuity might be needed. > > __________________________________________ > You can see the Lorentz contraction of the pole "cleanly" by designing your > experiment correctly. Have the ladder travelling at exactly the right speed > to exactly fit into the barn, so the ends of the ladder exactly line up with > the doors at either end. Take your photo when that happens. If you take a > photo from the centre of the barn, then the distance from the photographer > to the front of the ladder, the back of the ladder, the first barn door and > second barn door are all identical and hence the propagation delay is the > same for each. So the propagation delay drops out of the equation, and what > you photograph reflects exactly what is happening. > > If the ladder is moving faster than the speed which is required to make it > exactly fit into the barn, then the propagation delays from the ends of the > ladder will be different to those for the light from the barn door, and > would need to be compensated for if you want to know the "real" position > when the photo was taken. > > In other words, by carefully controlling the experimental design so that the > front end of the ladder reaches the second barn door at exactly the same > time (in the barn's frame) as the back-end reaches the first door, and you > take the photo from the centre of the barn, then all propagation delays are > identical, and there is no "optical illusion" in the photo.
From: paparios on 12 Apr 2010 18:23
On 12 abr, 18:05, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 12, 5:26 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 12 abr, 16:28, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 3:56 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > =============== > > > > > And you clearly proof your troll behavior quite clearly, when you > > > > answer to the clear wording of Peter Webb "It has been explained to > > > > you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is independent of the > > > > speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is > > > > predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved > > > > experimentally." > > > > What has been "massively proved" is the light used > > > for Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" does > > > not exist. > > > Yeah right. that is the reason your hero, Dr. Fitzpatrick writes: > > "...Consider, now, a wave-like disturbance which is self-regenerating > > and does not require a medium through which to propagate. The most > > well known example of such a disturbance is a light wave. Another > > example is a gravity wave. According to electromagnetic theory the > > speed of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is c=1/ > > sqrt(epsilon_0*mu_0)=2.99729*10^8 m/sec > > That implies no inertial motion of light as in > Einstien's RoS. > Would you care explaining why? And how it relates to the next pharagraph, which you did not care to comment. > > > where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated > > by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force > > of attraction between two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current > > carrying wires. According to the relativity principle these > > experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all > > inertial frames. In fact, any disturbance which does not require a > > medium to propagate through must appear to travel at the same velocity > > in all inertial frames, otherwise we could differentiate inertial > > frames using the apparent propagation speed of the disturbance, which > > would violate the relativity principle..." > > > > Lucky for him, Minkowski put it on an imaginary > > > axis. > > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > > > Yeah, right. You mean like this: ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - > > dz^2 ??? > > Your are getting better with the maths. > > << if you know about complex numbers you will notice that > the space part enters as if it were imaginary > > R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2 > > where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence > of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that > space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to > time. > So where are the i^2 terms in ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ??? > But you are still sloppy with the links when > you excerpt. Let me help you and the author > whose website no doubt lives and dies by "hits". I did not use his web site but my books...Do you remember those? Those things with letters written on pieces of paper??? Miguel Rios |