From: NoEinstein on
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
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
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
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

"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