Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 14 Mar 2010 23:14 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:30328257-8768-4499-9469-da6e4d2f1a34(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 8 mar, 02:14, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/7/10 5:27 PM,JTwrote: >> >> > I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try >> > to lie. You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse >> > backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c have a spatial separation to >> > the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial >> > separation bacward that is 299 999.9997 km backwards. >> >> Photon propagate at c for all inertial observers. Empirically >> verified. > > Since c is a velocity and velocity is the ratio of d/t ,you better > make sure that your d/t really are invariant units of same magnitudes > between frames. Every frame uses well defined units. A metre long ruler at rest in one frame is a meter long. The same ruler at rest in another frame is 1 metre long. A clocks ticking once per second at rest in one frame will tick once per second at rest in another frame > If not you are just juggling words when claiming > invariant. v'<>v in two frames all though the ratio d/t=d'/t'. No .. If the ratios are the same, the speeds are the same .. because (as you said) speed is the ration d/t. Or are you contradicting yourself? > Similar one must ask in my example where we had a lightpulse > travelling from relative stationary C to D at 0,9999999999c Light does not travel at 0,9999999999c .. it travels at c. > separated > by 300 000km. > That took 300 years at the clock at A and B at 0 c. 0 c ?? You really do say some bizarre things when trying to explain scenarios .. is English not your first language? > So lightpulse was > fired when C and D passed A and B. You'd better draw some diagrams .. they are hopefully les confusing than your twisted English > But the lightpulse will not reach D until A and B 300 lightyears away > 300 years later. Another serve of word soup. [ snip more that is no point reading until you can explain your scenario either in English sentences that make some sort of sense, or draw an unambiguous diagram ]
From: Inertial on 15 Mar 2010 02:01 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:30328257-8768-4499-9469-da6e4d2f1a34(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 8 mar, 02:14, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/7/10 5:27 PM,JTwrote: >> >> > I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try >> > to lie. You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse >> > backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c have a spatial separation to >> > the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial >> > separation bacward that is 299 999.9997 km backwards. >> >> Photon propagate at c for all inertial observers. Empirically >> verified. > > Since c is a velocity and velocity is the ratio of d/t ,you better > make sure that your d/t really are invariant units of same magnitudes > between frames. Every frame uses well defined units. A metre long ruler at rest in one frame is a meter long. The same ruler at rest in another frame is 1 metre long. A clocks ticking once per second at rest in one frame will tick once per second at rest in another frame > If not you are just juggling words when claiming > invariant. v'<>v in two frames all though the ratio d/t=d'/t'. No .. If the ratios are the same, the speeds are the same .. because (as you said) speed is the ration d/t. Or are you contradicting yourself? > Similar one must ask in my example where we had a lightpulse > travelling from relative stationary C to D at 0,9999999999c separated > by 300 000km. Light does not travel at "0,9999999999c" .. it travels at c. > That took 300 years at the clock at A and B at 0 c. How can the clock be at A and at B? And at 0 c .. is that a temperature? You really do say some bizarre things when trying to explain scenarios .. is English not your first language? > So lightpulse was > fired when C and D passed A and B. You'd better draw some diagrams .. they are hopefully less confusing than your twisted English > But the lightpulse will not reach D until A and B 300 lightyears away > 300 years later. Another serve of word soup .. its getting worse. [ snip rest as there is no point in reading it until you can explain your scenario either in English sentences that make some sort of sense, or draw an unambiguous diagram ]
From: JT on 15 Mar 2010 03:21 On 15 mar, 04:14, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:30328257-8768-4499-9469-da6e4d2f1a34(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > On 8 mar, 02:14, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/7/10 5:27 PM,JTwrote: > > >> > I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try > >> > to lie. You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse > >> > backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c have a spatial separation to > >> > the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial > >> > separation bacward that is 299 999.9997 km backwards. > > >> Photon propagate at c for all inertial observers. Empirically > >> verified. > > > Since c is a velocity and velocity is the ratio of d/t ,you better > > make sure that your d/t really are invariant units of same magnitudes > > between frames. > > Every frame uses well defined units. A metre long ruler at rest in one > frame is a meter long. The same ruler at rest in another frame is 1 metre > long. A clocks ticking once per second at rest in one frame will tick once > per second at rest in another frame > > > If not you are just juggling words when claiming > > invariant. v'<>v in two frames all though the ratio d/t=d'/t'. > > No .. If the ratios are the same, the speeds are the same .. because (as you > said) speed is the ration d/t. Or are you contradicting yourself? Well since ratios of two dependent units have their own physics definition as a unit. However when the ratios use other physical magnitudes to deliver the ratio. You will be dependent upon that those physical magnitudes really represent invariant units. Otherwise your delivered ratios are just a ratio without any physical substance. > > Similar one must ask in my example where we had a lightpulse > > travelling from relative stationary C to D at 0,9999999999c > > Light does not travel at 0,9999999999c .. it travels at c. No idiot it was the system [C and D] that travelled at 0.9999999999c light travel at c. [C and D] are relative stationary, please try to stay honest no trolling. > > separated > > by 300 000km. > > That took 300 years at the clock at A and B at 0 c. > > 0 c ?? Yes the system [A and B] travels at 0c that is 0 km/s, 0 km/h etc etc. In Euclidian 3D space using a Cartesian cordinate system it would be at rest. To make things easy for you we put A in Origo. > You really do say some bizarre things when trying to explain scenarios .. is > English not your first language? Well what really is bizarre is your tries to obfuscate and trolling, but enough about that. > > So lightpulse was > > fired when C and D passed A and B. > You'd better draw some diagrams .. they are hopefully les confusing than > your twisted English No i do not need to draw any diagrams in ASCII you need to draw them at paper, it is very simple examples. > > But the lightpulse will not reach D until A and B 300 lightyears away > > 300 years later. > Another serve of word soup. That you snip and take words out of context does not make them wordsoup. 1. [A] and [B] relative at rest worth eachother 300 000 km apart, denoted system [A and B] 2. [C] and [D] relative at rest worth eachother 300 000 km apart, denoted system [C and D] 3. System [C and D] travels at 0.9999999999c towards and relative system [A and B] 4. When [C] is parallel with [A].........[C] fire lightpuls toward [D] So i will claim once again that lightpulse fired when [C] was parallel with [A] will take 300 years to travel from [C] and reach [D], when you use the clock at [A and B]. So light travel at 3 cm/second within frame [C and D] using clocks at system [A and B]. It is also perfectly clear from this that system [C and D] will be 300ly away from [A and B] when light reach [D]. But right now, we are not interested in the time it take for light to travel single way between [C and D], we want the roundtrip of light between [C and D]. And here is the conundrum again, we do now that light fired when [C] was parallel with [A] took 1 second to reach [B] at clocks within [A and B]. Now when lightpulse reached [D] to be able to travel ***back*** from [B] to [A] at same time 1 second when lightpulse fired from ***[D]***. The lightpulse must travel at 1.9999999999c relative [C] at clocks of system [A and B]. This make the roundtrip however somewhat unbalanced.......... roundtrip=300 years from [C to D] + 0,5 seconds from [D to C] ***Notice*** that this roundtrip is the same if you let C be the point of origin in Euclidian 3D space using a Cartesian cordinate system. Now [A] will pass Origo [C] at 0,9999999999 and [C] fire lightpulse toward [D], but when light from [C] ***finally*** reach [D]. Somehow mysteriously system [A and B] is 300 ly away?????????? That is 300 years passed within [A and B] for light from [C] to reach [D]...piuuuuuh And system [A and B] incredible velocity moving 300 ly relative inertial system [C and D] in one second, Yes you can calculate the velocity of system [A and B] relative Origo [C] from this. We know that 1ls=300 000 km. So first we calculate distance in km and second velocity. distance=60*60*24*365*300*300 000 km velocity=60*60*24*365*300*300 000 km/1 second..... Piuh quite a fast system [A and B] And now to the even bigger conundrum again, when light reach [D] and is fired back to [C]. This will take the amazing.............. 0.5 seconds, that is system [A and B] that is 300 ly away only will move 300 000 km*1.9999999999 relative system [C and D] before light travelled back to [C] from [D] So we have the distances relative system [A and B] for roundtrip........ [60*60*24*365*300*300 000 km]+[150 000 km] And we have the velocities for each part of roundtrip relative [A and B]........ [60*60*24*365*300*300 000 km/1 second] from [C] to [D] [1.9999999999*300 000 km] from [D] to [C] Anyone can confirm all this by just plotting in the numbers in a Cartesian cordinate system in Euclidian space. > [ snip more that is no point reading until you can explain your scenario > either in English sentences that make some sort of sense, or draw an > unambiguous diagram ] Well you can not snip the context of reality. JT
From: JT on 15 Mar 2010 03:47 On 15 mar, 08:21, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15 mar, 04:14, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:30328257-8768-4499-9469-da6e4d2f1a34(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On 8 mar, 02:14, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 3/7/10 5:27 PM,JTwrote: > > > >> > I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try > > >> > to lie. You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse > > >> > backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c have a spatial separation to > > >> > the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial > > >> > separation bacward that is 299 999.9997 km backwards. > > > >> Photon propagate at c for all inertial observers. Empirically > > >> verified. > > > > Since c is a velocity and velocity is the ratio of d/t ,you better > > > make sure that your d/t really are invariant units of same magnitudes > > > between frames. > > > Every frame uses well defined units. A metre long ruler at rest in one > > frame is a meter long. The same ruler at rest in another frame is 1 metre > > long. A clocks ticking once per second at rest in one frame will tick once > > per second at rest in another frame > > > > If not you are just juggling words when claiming > > > invariant. v'<>v in two frames all though the ratio d/t=d'/t'. > > > No .. If the ratios are the same, the speeds are the same .. because (as you > > said) speed is the ration d/t. Or are you contradicting yourself? > > Well since ratios of two dependent units have their own physics > definition as a unit. However when the ratios use other physical > magnitudes to deliver the ratio. You will be dependent upon that those > physical magnitudes really represent invariant units. > Otherwise your delivered ratios are just a ratio without any physical > substance. > > > > Similar one must ask in my example where we had a lightpulse > > > travelling from relative stationary C to D at 0,9999999999c > > > Light does not travel at 0,9999999999c .. it travels at c. > > No idiot it was the system [C and D] that travelled at 0.9999999999c > light travel at c. [C and D] are relative stationary, please try to > stay honest no trolling. > > > > separated > > > by 300 000km. > > > That took 300 years at the clock at A and B at 0 c. > > > 0 c ?? > > Yes the system [A and B] travels at 0c that is 0 km/s, 0 km/h etc etc. > In Euclidian 3D space using a Cartesian cordinate system it would be > at rest. To make things easy for you we put A in Origo. > > > You really do say some bizarre things when trying to explain scenarios ... is > > English not your first language? > > Well what really is bizarre is your tries to obfuscate and trolling, > but enough about that. > > > > So lightpulse was > > > fired when C and D passed A and B. > > You'd better draw some diagrams .. they are hopefully les confusing than > > your twisted English > > No i do not need to draw any diagrams in ASCII you need to draw them > at paper, it is very simple examples. > > > > But the lightpulse will not reach D until A and B 300 lightyears away > > > 300 years later. > > Another serve of word soup. > > That you snip and take words out of context does not make them > wordsoup. > > 1. [A] and [B] relative at rest worth eachother 300 000 km apart, > denoted system [A and B] > 2. [C] and [D] relative at rest worth eachother 300 000 km apart, > denoted system [C and D] > 3. System [C and D] travels at 0.9999999999c towards and relative > system [A and B] > 4. When [C] is parallel with [A].........[C] fire lightpuls toward [D] > > So i will claim once again that lightpulse fired when [C] was parallel > with [A] will take 300 years to travel from [C] and reach [D], when > you use the clock at [A and B]. > > So light travel at 3 cm/second within frame [C and D] using clocks at > system [A and B]. It is also perfectly clear from this that system [C > and D] will be 300ly away from [A and B] when light reach [D]. > > But right now, we are not interested in the time it take for light to > travel single way between [C and D], we want the roundtrip of light > between [C and D]. > > And here is the conundrum again, we do now that light fired when [C] > was parallel with [A] took 1 second to reach [B] at clocks within [A > and B]. > > Now when lightpulse reached [D] to be able to travel ***back*** from > [B] to [A] at same time 1 second when lightpulse fired from > ***[D]***. > > The lightpulse must travel at 1.9999999999c relative [C] at clocks of > system [A and B]. > > This make the roundtrip however somewhat unbalanced.......... > roundtrip=300 years from [C to D] + 0,5 seconds from [D to C] > > ***Notice*** that this roundtrip is the same if you let C be the point > of origin in Euclidian 3D space using a Cartesian cordinate system. > > Now [A] will pass Origo [C] at 0,9999999999 and [C] fire lightpulse > toward [D], but when light from [C] ***finally*** reach [D]. Somehow > mysteriously system [A and B] is 300 ly away?????????? > > That is 300 years passed within [A and B] for light from [C] to reach > [D]...piuuuuuh > > And system [A and B] incredible velocity moving 300 ly relative > inertial system [C and D] in one second, > > Yes you can calculate the velocity of system [A and B] relative Origo > [C] from this. > We know that 1ls=300 000 km. > So first we calculate distance in km and second velocity. > distance=60*60*24*365*300*300 000 km > velocity=60*60*24*365*300*300 000 km/1 second..... > > Piuh quite a fast system [A and B] > > And now to the even bigger conundrum again, when light reach [D] and > is fired back to [C]. This will take the amazing.............. 0.5 > seconds, that is system [A and B] that is 300 ly away only will move > 300 000 km*1.9999999999 relative system [C and D] before light > travelled back to [C] from [D] > > So we have the distances relative system [A and B] for > roundtrip........ > [60*60*24*365*300*300 000 km]+[150 000 km] Sorry typo sneaked in here 150 000 km is of cource 1.9999999999*300 000 km that is 600 000 km sincle light travelled 300 000 km in one second. SORRY!!!!! > And we have the velocities for each part of roundtrip relative [A and > B]........ > [60*60*24*365*300*300 000 km/1 second] from [C] to [D] > [1.9999999999*300 000 km] from [D] to [C] > > Anyone can confirm all this by just plotting in the numbers in a > Cartesian cordinate system in Euclidian space. > > > [ snip more that is no point reading until you can explain your scenario > > either in English sentences that make some sort of sense, or draw an > > unambiguous diagram ] > > Well you can not snip the context of reality. > > JT- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -
From: Inertial on 15 Mar 2010 05:24
"JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:265eaa66-f7b7-4bab-b076-ccd9f5c73a98(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 15 mar, 04:14, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:30328257-8768-4499-9469-da6e4d2f1a34(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 8 mar, 02:14, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 3/7/10 5:27 PM,JTwrote: >> >> >> > I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try >> >> > to lie. You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse >> >> > backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c have a spatial separation >> >> > to >> >> > the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial >> >> > separation bacward that is 299 999.9997 km backwards. >> >> >> Photon propagate at c for all inertial observers. Empirically >> >> verified. >> >> > Since c is a velocity and velocity is the ratio of d/t ,you better >> > make sure that your d/t really are invariant units of same magnitudes >> > between frames. >> >> Every frame uses well defined units. A metre long ruler at rest in one >> frame is a meter long. The same ruler at rest in another frame is 1 >> metre >> long. A clocks ticking once per second at rest in one frame will tick >> once >> per second at rest in another frame >> >> > If not you are just juggling words when claiming >> > invariant. v'<>v in two frames all though the ratio d/t=d'/t'. >> >> No .. If the ratios are the same, the speeds are the same .. because (as >> you >> said) speed is the ration d/t. Or are you contradicting yourself? > > Well since ratios of two dependent units have their own physics > definition as a unit. since that what? > However when the ratios use other physical > magnitudes to deliver the ratio. They don't > You will be dependent upon that those > physical magnitudes really represent invariant units. > Otherwise your delivered ratios are just a ratio without any physical > substance. They do have >> > Similar one must ask in my example where we had a lightpulse >> > travelling from relative stationary C to D at 0,9999999999c >> >> Light does not travel at 0,9999999999c .. it travels at c. > > No idiot it was the system [C and D] that travelled at 0.9999999999c That's not what you said. Try to be more careful. You said we had a light pulse travelling at 0.9999999999c > light travel at c. [C and D] are relative stationary, please try to > stay honest no trolling. I am being honest. You are being sloppy. >> > separated >> > by 300 000km. >> > That took 300 years at the clock at A and B at 0 c. >> >> 0 c ?? > > Yes the system [A and B] travels at 0c that is 0 km/s, 0 km/h etc etc. That's not what you said .. what you said didn't make sense. > In Euclidian 3D space using a Cartesian cordinate system it would be > at rest. To make things easy for you we put A in Origo. 'Origo'? >> You really do say some bizarre things when trying to explain scenarios .. >> is >> English not your first language? > > Well what really is bizarre is your tries to obfuscate and trolling, > but enough about that. I don't need ot obfuscate .. you're doing just fine on your own with that >> > So lightpulse was >> > fired when C and D passed A and B. > >> You'd better draw some diagrams .. they are hopefully les confusing than >> your twisted English > > No i do not need to draw any diagrams in ASCII you need to draw them > at paper, it is very simple examples. WEll. when you give a sensible description of your scenario, I will. But it appears you aren't able to (at least not without some help) >> > But the lightpulse will not reach D until A and B 300 lightyears away >> > 300 years later. >> Another serve of word soup. > > That you snip and take words out of context does not make them > wordsoup. I didn't take it out of context. It was what you wrote. It was nonsense. > 1. [A] and [B] relative at rest worth eachother 300 000 km apart, > denoted system [A and B] So we have [A and B] system .. A B > 2. [C] and [D] relative at rest worth eachother 300 000 km apart, > denoted system [C and D] So we have [C and D] system .. C D > 3. System [C and D] travels at 0.9999999999c towards and relative > system [A and B] .. C D -> v .. A B Where v = 0.9999999999c. I'm guessing you that C and D are heading toward A and B (you can't really have systems heading toward each other) Note that the distance C to D is length contracted as measured in system [A and B] by the appropriate factor of ~1/70710 which makes it about 4.24 km > 4. When [C] is parallel with [A].........[C] fire lightpuls toward [D] I think you mean "perpendicular to" or "adjacent to" .. not "parallel with". You really are not very good with English. Is it not your first language? .. C D -> v .. - .. A B where '-' is the light pulse > So i will claim once again that lightpulse fired when [C] was parallel > with 'adjacent to' > [A] will take 300 years to travel from [C] and reach [D], when > you use the clock at [A and B]. .. C.D -> v .. - .. A B Well .. it probably won't take that long, as the distance between C and D (as measured by A and B) is highly length contracted to 4.24km. So it would take (if I calculated correctly) around 141400 seconds (so a bit over 1 1/2 days) So your figures will need some adjusting if you are attempting to say what SR says will happen. [ snip rest that use wrong figures .. you'll need to fix it up ] |