Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 20:28 On Apr 12, 7:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:96e1c021-d505-4f43-a514-dcc1dcf6f396(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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 > > > Exactly my point. > =============== > You mean you have one? > > Odd that you started arguing against me when I said that earlier. Scrolling back, It appears you jumped into to the line of fire to defend a POV you don't even support. I will trade you a suit of armour for a Rolex if it is not motion sensitive. :-)) > > > The gyrations with > > "relativity of simultaneity" usually > > serve to mislead people > > Only those who don't understand > > > who will assume source > > dependency on the train > > Why? Never mind how a carbide lamp works. Just just turn that stalk on the steering column. You will have plenty of light. Replace the lighting strokes with 2 or 4 cannon if you have the time but remember what happens to you result. <<There is only one demand to be made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A > M as for the path B > M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html I think you will agree the imaginary operator is appropriately placed in the theory's formal statement. http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > and and then > > allow a Lorentz transformation to "fix" > > a problem that did not even exist > > Of course it did not exist. Measurements between frames are related by > Lorentz transforms.. that is a result of spacetime being Minkowski in > geometry (at least until you start to consider how mass curves it in GR ... > but we're ignoring that for now). Whoa! We don't toss our Lorentz transforms. We just don't use them to resolve an conflict that is only apparent. << Einstein's relativity principle states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html A few unnamed posters will protest that can't possibly apply to a clock mechanism. That isn't what they were taught. But their arguments always lead back to the assumption of and a non-existent conflict with non-existent light corpuscles. > (at least until you start to consider how mass curves it in GR .. > but we're ignoring that for now). The important thing for GR is that a volume of space-time (electrical) can be set equal to energy density or equivalent mass. With that, you can conjure up virtual mass to move the preferred frame where it is needed. If that ain't relativity (Mach) it is the next best thing. (That is poetry, not physics.) Better words here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress-energy_tensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector Sue... > > > except > > in the minds of Einstein's contemporaries. > > > In Einstein's defence, he writes that > > it is an "apparent conflict". > > Indeed .. there is no conflict.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 20:37 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:71ab0ef3-aa05-499c-bc47-7b9903d23938(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 7:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:96e1c021-d505-4f43-a514-dcc1dcf6f396(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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 >> >> > Exactly my point. >> > =============== > >> You mean you have one? >> >> Odd that you started arguing against me when I said that earlier. > > Scrolling back, It appears you jumped into to > the line of fire to defend a POV you don't > even support. Nope. You just went off on a tangent talking about how to make clocks. And making odd claims about SR and emitter theory. > I will trade you a suit of armour for a > Rolex if it is not motion sensitive. :-)) > >> >> > The gyrations with >> > "relativity of simultaneity" usually >> > serve to mislead people >> >> Only those who don't understand >> >> > who will assume source >> > dependency on the train >> >> Why? > > Never mind how a carbide lamp works. I don't care > Just just turn that stalk on the steering > column. You will have plenty of light. More Sue off-topic nonsense > Replace the lighting strokes with > 2 or 4 cannon if you have the time > but remember what happens to you > result. Nothing relevant happens. [snip same old quotes] >> > and and then >> > allow a Lorentz transformation to "fix" >> > a problem that did not even exist >> >> Of course it did not exist. Measurements between frames are related by >> Lorentz transforms.. that is a result of spacetime being Minkowski in >> geometry (at least until you start to consider how mass curves it in GR >> .. >> but we're ignoring that for now). > > Whoa! We don't toss our Lorentz transforms. I didn't say we did .. gees .. you have trouble reading. > We just don't use them Of course we do > to resolve an > conflict that is only apparent. There is no conflict .. the reason WHY is because the Lorentz transforms apply. [snip same old quotes] > A few unnamed posters will protest that > can't possibly apply to a clock mechanism. > That isn't what they were taught. > But their arguments always lead back to > the assumption of and a non-existent conflict > with non-existent light corpuscles. Crackpots say all sorts of nonsense. You at least usually quote valid physics (even if you don't understand it), but just hardly ever on-topic or relevant. >> (at least until you start to consider how mass curves it in GR .. >> but we're ignoring that for now). [snip GR which we are not discussing]
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 20:49 On Apr 12, 8:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: [...] > > >> You mean you have one? > > >> Odd that you started arguing against me when I said that earlier. > > > Scrolling back, It appears you jumped into to > > the line of fire to defend a POV you don't > > even support. > > Nope. You just went off on a tangent talking about how to make clocks. And > making odd claims about SR and emitter theory. > > > > > I will trade you a suit of armour for a > > Rolex if it is not motion sensitive. :-)) > > >> > The gyrations with > >> > "relativity of simultaneity" usually > >> > serve to mislead people > > >> Only those who don't understand > > >> > who will assume source > >> > dependency on the train > > >> Why? > > > Never mind how a carbide lamp works. > > I don't care > > > Just just turn that stalk on the steering > > column. You will have plenty of light. > > More Sue off-topic nonsense > > > Replace the lighting strokes with > > 2 or 4 cannon if you have the time > > but remember what happens to you > > result. > > Nothing relevant happens. > > [snip same old quotes] > > >> > and and then > >> > allow a Lorentz transformation to "fix" > >> > a problem that did not even exist > > >> Of course it did not exist. Measurements between frames are related by > >> Lorentz transforms.. that is a result of spacetime being Minkowski in > >> geometry (at least until you start to consider how mass curves it in GR > >> .. > >> but we're ignoring that for now). > > > Whoa! We don't toss our Lorentz transforms. > > I didn't say we did .. gees .. you have trouble reading. > > > We just don't use them > > Of course we do > > > to resolve an > > conflict that is only apparent. > > There is no conflict .. the reason WHY is because the Lorentz transforms > apply. > > [snip same old quotes] > > > A few unnamed posters will protest that > > can't possibly apply to a clock mechanism. > > That isn't what they were taught. > > But their arguments always lead back to > > the assumption of and a non-existent conflict > > with non-existent light corpuscles. > > Crackpots say all sorts of nonsense. You at least usually quote valid > physics (even if you don't understand it), but just hardly ever on-topic or > relevant. Which crackpot are you referring to? Einstein or Fitzpatrick? < Einstein's relativity principle states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html [1]<< 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 << 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 charges 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. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue...
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 21:27 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:9f9c0448-def2-46f2-b2ee-1ee8db3f493e(a)u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 8:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > [...] >> >> >> You mean you have one? >> >> >> Odd that you started arguing against me when I said that earlier. >> >> > Scrolling back, It appears you jumped into to >> > the line of fire to defend a POV you don't >> > even support. >> >> Nope. You just went off on a tangent talking about how to make clocks. >> And >> making odd claims about SR and emitter theory. >> >> >> >> > I will trade you a suit of armour for a >> > Rolex if it is not motion sensitive. :-)) >> >> >> > The gyrations with >> >> > "relativity of simultaneity" usually >> >> > serve to mislead people >> >> >> Only those who don't understand >> >> >> > who will assume source >> >> > dependency on the train >> >> >> Why? >> >> > Never mind how a carbide lamp works. >> >> I don't care >> >> > Just just turn that stalk on the steering >> > column. You will have plenty of light. >> >> More Sue off-topic nonsense >> >> > Replace the lighting strokes with >> > 2 or 4 cannon if you have the time >> > but remember what happens to you >> > result. >> >> Nothing relevant happens. >> >> [snip same old quotes] >> >> >> > and and then >> >> > allow a Lorentz transformation to "fix" >> >> > a problem that did not even exist >> >> >> Of course it did not exist. Measurements between frames are related >> >> by >> >> Lorentz transforms.. that is a result of spacetime being Minkowski in >> >> geometry (at least until you start to consider how mass curves it in >> >> GR >> >> .. >> >> but we're ignoring that for now). >> >> > Whoa! We don't toss our Lorentz transforms. >> >> I didn't say we did .. gees .. you have trouble reading. >> >> > We just don't use them >> >> Of course we do >> >> > to resolve an >> > conflict that is only apparent. >> >> There is no conflict .. the reason WHY is because the Lorentz transforms >> apply. >> >> [snip same old quotes] >> >> > A few unnamed posters will protest that >> > can't possibly apply to a clock mechanism. >> > That isn't what they were taught. >> > But their arguments always lead back to >> > the assumption of and a non-existent conflict >> > with non-existent light corpuscles. >> >> Crackpots say all sorts of nonsense. You at least usually quote valid >> physics (even if you don't understand it), but just hardly ever on-topic >> or >> relevant. > > Which crackpot are you referring to? > Einstein or Fitzpatrick? False dichotomy [snip same old irrelevant quotes]
From: Ste on 13 Apr 2010 03:20
On 12 Apr, 22:20, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > 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. The point is how can you correct for transmission delays, unless you have quantified that delay in the first place? |