Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 15 Mar 2010 06:00 "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:hnkv8k$sih$4(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:NqCdnS-Gbecq6QDWnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >> On 3/14/10 6:22 PM, JT wrote: >>> 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. If not you are just juggling words when claiming >>> invariant. v'<>v in two frames all though the ratio d/t=d'/t'. >> >> c is the SPEED of light not velocity and distance units are >> define in terms of the speed of light. You seem to be trying >> to argue that light doesn't propagate at c, which will prove >> to be superfluous. > > "Light" obeys Newton's first law, A transverse wave (as you seem to think light is a wave in a medium) doesn't involve anything actually moving in the direction of propagation. So I'm not sure if that makes Newton's first law relevant. > and propagates in a homogenous and non interacting medium Not one that we've been able to find. > at a constant velocity. You got that part right. > And as Maxwell showed, > the speed at which light propagates > is a function of the permittivity and permeability > of the medium. If there is such a medium. > The velocity of "light" varies in glass and other materials > and I suggest that Sammy do a search on "slow glass", > or better yet, permittivity and permeability. Research is always a good idea
From: JT on 15 Mar 2010 06:32 On 15 mar, 10:24, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(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 ]- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - I want everyone to notice that *INERTIAL* so far refused to answer the question. What is the distance between C and D, at the moment [T1] when [C is adjacent to A] and [B is adjacent to D]. The clocks at A and B shows same timing for C respective D, but inertial seems to think that the distance between A and B have some special properties within C and D. So come on inertial tell us the distance between C and D at [T1]? Or have you chickened out? JT
From: Inertial on 15 Mar 2010 06:38 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:588ed451-5c0e-41d0-a072-296a1e4ff8a8(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On 15 mar, 10:24, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(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 ]- D�lj >> citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text - > > I want everyone to notice that *INERTIAL* so far refused to answer the > question. Nope .. I answered it. > What is the distance between C and D, at the moment [T1] when [C is > adjacent to A] and [B is adjacent to D]. I did answer. But not in the earlier reply you are dishonestly quoting now. My answer was that there is *NO* moment T1 as you describe, when both C is adjacent to A and D is adjacent to B (in system A and B, or in system C and D). There is a time moment what C is adjacent to A, and another when D is adjacent to B. I also told you the distance between C and D in the A and B system is approx 4.24km The distance between A and B in the C and D system is also approx 4.24km > The clocks at A and B shows same timing for C respective D, but > inertial seems to think that the distance between A and B have some > special properties within C and D. Nothing special about them > So come on inertial tell us the > distance between C and D at [T1]? > > Or have you chickened out? Of course not .. why would I be afraid of you? I answered you already. And repeated it again here.
From: Inertial on 15 Mar 2010 06:42 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:588ed451-5c0e-41d0-a072-296a1e4ff8a8(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On 15 mar, 10:24, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message [ snip for brevity] >> > 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 ]- D�lj >> citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text - > > I want everyone to notice that *INERTIAL* so far refused to answer the > question. Nope .. I answered it. > What is the distance between C and D, at the moment [T1] when [C is > adjacent to A] and [B is adjacent to D]. I did answer. But not in the earlier reply you are dishonestly quoting now. My answer was that there is *NO* moment T1 as you describe, when both C is adjacent to A and D is adjacent to B (in system A and B, or in system C and D). There is a time moment what C is adjacent to A, and another when D is adjacent to B. I also told you the distance between C and D in the A and B system is approx 4.24km The distance between A and B in the C and D system is also approx 4.24km > The clocks at A and B shows same timing for C respective D, but > inertial seems to think that the distance between A and B have some > special properties within C and D. Nothing special about them > So come on inertial tell us the > distance between C and D at [T1]? > > Or have you chickened out? Of course not .. why would I be afraid of you? I answered you already. And repeated it again here.
From: Inertial on 15 Mar 2010 06:44
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b9e0f3c$0$27817$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:588ed451-5c0e-41d0-a072-296a1e4ff8a8(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... >> On 15 mar, 10:24, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [ snip for brevity] > >>> > 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 ]- D�lj >>> citerad text - >>> >>> - Visa citerad text - >> >> I want everyone to notice that *INERTIAL* so far refused to answer the >> question. > > Nope .. I answered it. > >> What is the distance between C and D, at the moment [T1] when [C is >> adjacent to A] and [B is adjacent to D]. > > I did answer. But not in the earlier reply you are dishonestly quoting > now. Actually the reply above already had the answer .. 4.24 km. But it came BEFORE you answered the question about [T1] that I had already answered in another subsequent reply |