From: NoEinstein on 12 Apr 2010 18:23 On Apr 11, 2:32 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 11, 2:19 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "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. > > Magicians use hoops to expose this sort of thing. > Some of us have the opinion that a fast magician > will sever the head and foot from the levitated lady if > he drops his hoop over her length, regardless of how fast > she zips from stage left to stage right. > > Sue...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Sue: Your good humor and literary ability seem to exceed your ability to comment on issues of science. But I like reading what you say, anyway! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 12 Apr 2010 18:35 On Apr 11, 3:16 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Miguel: If those in universities actually do experiments and... question the present state-of-the-art, how is it that no one before yours truly realized that the M-M experiment didn't have a control? And none of them realized that Coriolis's 1830 kinetic energy equation, KE = 1/2 mc^2, and Einstein's E = mc^2 / beta, BOTH violate the law of the conservation of energy?? The reason is: Those majoring in physics have never understood what the hell they were being taught, nor had their professors, and their professors before them. The solution? FIRE at least 75% of those who teach physics, and fire about 50% of those coasting through life as supposed professors knowledgeable enough to... teach anyone anything at ANY university. You, and they, are laughable screw-ups! NoEinstein AKA John A. Armistead > > On 11 abr, 00:55, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 10 Apr, 18:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm interested in science because I'm interested in the natural world, > > > > Which "natural world" is only demarcated by your arbitrary and > > > capricious labels. > > > Which is the same arbitrary and capricious labels that everyone else > > uses. As I've said, the only difference is that a minority continue to > > insist that somehow science has no ideological content at all. > > > For me, there is no useful argument to be had on, for example, whether > > unicorns or angels are "natural" or not - the real question is what > > sort of ideological framework do they fall into, and invariably you > > find that a belief in unicorns and angels is simply ancilliary to an > > ideology involving the supernatural, or ancilliary to a belief that > > the world does not operate in an understandable, predictable, and > > mechanistic way (which really sums up my axioms, my "ideology" in this > > respect). > > > In fact, the existence of unicorns would not be incompatible with my > > general outlook at all. Even angels would not be, as long as they > > existed within naturalistic principles of cause and effect, and some > > plausible mechanism was posited for firstly how their influence > > manifests and secondly for why they have any interaction at all with > > humanity (or any concern for humanity). > > > But once you scratch the surface, you often find that the explanations > > to these questions are sorely lacking, and that there is in fact not a > > great deal of concern with how it may be explained on the part of > > those who posit the existence of unicorns and angels. Indeed, when you > > ask where the idea even came from in the first place, the answer is > > rarely (if ever!) "from personal hypothesis", "from inference", or > > "from observation", but "from religious authority". Such proponents > > also tend to have a general worldview that is informed entirely by > > their imaginations or naive beliefs, and show a total unfamiliarity > > with history, science, politics, psychology, economics, or any > > systematic body of human knowledge that might offer any counter to the > > mere spoken word of their priest or other religious figures, or which > > may put a different slant on their beliefs. > > > Indeed, for me, I also take the view that it will often be futile to > > attack ideology using mere logic. Most people hold an ideology because > > in some way or another because it has a concrete function for them, > > never because it is wholly logical. The answer to a stubborn ideologue > > is not to try and convince him otherwise, but instead to rob him of > > the support of others who can be convinced otherwise (if indeed you > > can rob him of his support and offer people a better ideology that is > > more functional for them). > > > As long as people are familiar with the conflicting ideologies of > > science and religion, then it is fairly certain that most people will > > continue to support science as long as science continues to deliver > > the goods. For science to become overly concerned with an appearance > > of objectivity, or to try too hard to repress religion, will in fact > > be damaging for science - and may in fact be a reflection of the fact > > that science is delivering certain answers that scientists, and their > > paymasters, don't want to hear (because it conflicts with the tenents > > of the prevailing political ideology, in which the scientists often > > have a personal vested interest). > > All these thoughts of yours are so typical of a person which knows > very little of how science works or is performed. It reminds me when a > physicist went to my high school, several years ago, and told us that > he was at one airport where he was questioned about his job. He > answered "I'm a physicist" and the guy at the airport told him "so, > you do physical therapy?". > > I have been into a university system for over 40 years now and can > assure you none of your rantings have anything to do with how science > is performed. Most of scientists do their research "just for the fun > of it", meaning they love to explore Nature and discover its secrets. > In doing so, their only required law is to follow the scientific > method and produce replicable results. It also requires of them to > always question the current "state of the art" and in so doing > discover gaps or domains of applicability, where some improvement on > the current knowledge is necessary. > > In many fields, such as mathematics, this game frequently results in > new algorithms and theorems whose applicability are near to nil, and > they will continue like that for several years or centuries (like > Fermat's last theorem). And then, some of those discovered relations > are re-discovered and put into work in un-expected ways. Look, for > instance, Gallager's LDPC coding, which for over 30 years was sleeping > in a shelve until somebody found them to be what the next generation > of data communications just needed. > > Why you have got to think you can discuss (even in this crappy forum), > without any knowledge of even simple mathematics, and very little > knowledge about basic physics, theories like Special Relativity is not > even funny....it is just pathetic!!! > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 Apr 2010 18:37 On Apr 11, 10:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 11, 8:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:1d716e5d-6fb0-4a04-9aea-fe249242e945(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups..com... > > > >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative > > >> >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the points at > > >> >> >> > the > > >> >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are > > >> >> >> > synchronised. > > > >> >> >> It changes > > > >> >> > Will you quantify this change? > > > >> >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms. > > > >> > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level. > > > >> >> You also say you > > >> >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting here > > > >> > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock accelerates, > > >> > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead... etc.." > > >> > or something of that kind. > > > >> I already said all that > > > >> >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as > > >> >> >> ticking > > >> >> >> slower. > > >> >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the > > >> >> >> relatively > > >> >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock. That is independent of the > > >> >> >> direction > > >> >> >> of > > >> >> >> the relative motion. > > > >> >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation > > >> >> >> delays. > > > >> >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding up", > > >> >> > that > > >> >> > caused me confusion. > > > >> >> Why? Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate on > > >> >> what > > >> >> is > > >> >> actually going on. > > > >> > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical illusion. > > > >> No .. I didn't. If you are talking about what is actually seen, then > > >> optical illusion makes a difference. But there is NO optical illusion in > > >> the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc > > > >> > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer > > >> > here? > > > >> You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them > > > >> >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing, > > > >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are talking about > > >> >> additonal > > >> >> optical illusions. > > > >> > No, > > > >> Yes .. you were. > > ================= > > > >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not > > >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are > > >> > "illusions". > > > >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion. The same > > >> that i > > >> already described in detail before > > > > In view of Noether's work with GR and the > > > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time > > > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane > > > might fly relative to another aeroplane on > > > some course that would weaken an air marshal's > > > bullet. That would violate PoR. > > > Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? > > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path > that is changing length under the term "illusion" > but you say there is some other effect that > causes a clock to slow. Just to be clear to > what you are referring we need to be more > specific about the *process* that marks time. > > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors > connected with long wires to that dynamo. > > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a > revolution of both clocks motors. > > What part of the voyage and by what *process* > do the clocks get out of sync? > > > > > > The statement also also seems inconsistent with > > > Einstein's formal statement. > > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > > > What statement? > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > > > > I know the practice is frowned on in many schools > > > but may I suggest you study material before > > > teaching it. :-) > > > I have > > Fine for the links you snipped. Now you will > need this one and a bit of history too. > > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > > Sue...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Sue: Haven't you heard? I have long since disproved SR and GR. Where have you been? NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 12 Apr 2010 18:39 On Apr 12, 4:26 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > It does tell you something about physicists though. The philosophy of > > science (including the physical sciences) has nothing at all to do > > with physics. > > Of course, as you know nothing at all about physics, and I daresay don't > know a single physicist, your opinions on the subject are worthless. > > Instead of hanging around physics newsgroups telling physicists that they > don't know what they are doing, why don't you take this opportunity to learn > something about physics and physicists? The POT calling the kettle... BLACK. NE
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 18:46
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:8801f2d3-b89a-4055-8ab0-cd87888b9cf4(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > 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. It implies light travels at c.. all that is required for SR > 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. I urge you to learn physics instead of just quoting it |