Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 15 Mar 2010 17:24 On Feb 14, 3:42 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > No takers for this simple question then? > > Consider this setup: > > S1 D2 > > D1 S2 > > We've got sources S1 and S2, paired with detectors D1 and D2. They're > all mechanically connected, so that a movement in one of them > produces > a movement in all the others - in other words, their relative > distances are always maintained. Each source is transmitting a > regular > pulse of light to its counterpart detector (so S1 is transmitting to > D1, etc.), and both sources are transmitting simultaneously with each > other. > > Now, we calculate that a pulse has just been emitted from both > sources, and we suddenly accelerate the whole setup "upwards" (i.e. > relative to how it's oriented on the page now) to near the speed of > light, and we complete this acceleration before the signals reach > either detector. > > Now, do both detectors *still* receive their signals simultaneously, > or does one receive its signal before the other? And are the signals > identical, or do they suffer from Doppler shifting, etc? Just add two more light paths and you will have at least 3 ways to analyse hundreds of real experiments. http://books.google.com/books?id=lA8tgLMRu2kC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA300&vq=Sagnac+interferometer Sue...
From: Sue... on 15 Mar 2010 17:39 On Feb 14, 3:42 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > No takers for this simple question then? > > Consider this setup: > > S1 D2 > > D1 S2 > > We've got sources S1 and S2, paired with detectors D1 and D2. They're > all mechanically connected, so that a movement in one of them > produces > a movement in all the others - in other words, their relative > distances are always maintained. Each source is transmitting a > regular > pulse of light to its counterpart detector (so S1 is transmitting to > D1, etc.), and both sources are transmitting simultaneously with each > other. > > Now, we calculate that a pulse has just been emitted from both > sources, and we suddenly accelerate the whole setup "upwards" (i.e. > relative to how it's oriented on the page now) to near the speed of > light, and we complete this acceleration before the signals reach > either detector. > > Now, do both detectors *still* receive their signals simultaneously, > or does one receive its signal before the other? And are the signals > identical, or do they suffer from Doppler shifting, etc? Just add two more paths and you will have at least 3 ways to analyse hundreds of experiments. http://books.google.com/books?id=lA8tgLMRu2kC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA279&vq=Sagnac+interferometer#v=onepage&q=Sagnac interferometer Sue...
From: Inertial on 15 Mar 2010 19:47 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6bc3d180-7e3f-4916-919d-a3f8a101bb26(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 15 mar, 16:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7b3e2c2a-6b22-4bce-b0e5-f0de882eb415(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 15 mar, 13:37, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 15 mar, 12:56, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> [snip for brevity] >> >> >> > > [T1] remenber? >> >> >> > Eh? >> >> >> > > I draw the ASCII you requested, ***notice*** at moment [T1] A is >> >> > > adjacent to C, and B is adjacent to D do you agree? >> >> >> > Nope. Already told you, that there is no time in the [A and B] >> >> > system >> >> > where >> >> > C is adjacent to A *and* D is adjacent to B. >> >> >> I am sorry but clocks at A and B show the timing [T1] for C passing A >> >> to be the same with D passing B at timing [T1]? >> >> Not according to SR in the scenario we were discussing. We have to >> increase >> the distance between C and D to make that work. > > Well i told you from beginning that it was a cartesian cordinate > system within Euclidian space..... So its not SR. > So... you should draw some conclusions from that. I have .. that you think by showing if you only take one little part of SR, and do not apply the rest of it, then you end up with something not-self-consistent. That doesn't prove anything about SR .. only that you have faulty logic >> >> This is a setup in ASCII , this is what happens in setup? >> >> It depends which setup you mean > > The euclidian space one....... Then SR is not being applied .. so you cannot talk about what it would predict in that situation, because that situation cannot occur in SR. [snip rest of nonsense that has no point wrt discussion on SR]
From: JT on 16 Mar 2010 06:38 On 16 mar, 00:47, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6bc3d180-7e3f-4916-919d-a3f8a101bb26(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 15 mar, 16:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:7b3e2c2a-6b22-4bce-b0e5-f0de882eb415(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 15 mar, 13:37, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 15 mar, 12:56, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> [snip for brevity] > > >> >> > > [T1] remenber? > > >> >> > Eh? > > >> >> > > I draw the ASCII you requested, ***notice*** at moment [T1] A is > >> >> > > adjacent to C, and B is adjacent to D do you agree? > > >> >> > Nope. Already told you, that there is no time in the [A and B] > >> >> > system > >> >> > where > >> >> > C is adjacent to A *and* D is adjacent to B. > > >> >> I am sorry but clocks at A and B show the timing [T1] for C passing A > >> >> to be the same with D passing B at timing [T1]? > > >> Not according to SR in the scenario we were discussing. We have to > >> increase > >> the distance between C and D to make that work. > > > Well i told you from beginning that it was a cartesian cordinate > > system within Euclidian space..... > > So its not SR. > Actually the fabric of reality support Euclidian geometry and cordinates to 100 percent when it comes to simultanity and positional analyse. Actually it do not lead to any paradoxes. > > So... you should draw some conclusions from that. > > I have .. that you think by showing if you only take one little part of SR, > and do not apply the rest of it, then you end up with something > not-self-consistent. That doesn't prove anything about SR .. only that you > have faulty logic. Well Euclidian cordinates is fully possible to transform into a Minkowsky space diagram, you just need to know velocities. So sorry the positional analyse is perfectly valid in Euclidian space using a Cartesian cordinate system and simple logic. It is the suppsedly ***existing*** ECDT that leads to paradoxes in special relativity. And a logical analyse can be used to investigate the sanity of any theory. > >> >> This is a setup in ASCII , this is what happens in setup? > > >> It depends which setup you mean > > > The euclidian space one....... > > Then SR is not being applied .. so you cannot talk about what it would > predict in that situation, because that situation cannot occur in SR. Well the Euclidian space one describe perfectly well where objects are positioned at moments in Euclidian space using a Cartesian cordinate system. So in a real case scenario T1 do really represent where C adjacent to A, D adjacent to B. You can not wiggle out of that question. Moment T1 exist you see. Now according to you the space between C and D is somehow magically distorted thru the relative velocity, so according to your beleif in SR the spatial separation between C and D is not the real spatial separation. I was joking a bit with you, that you used expansion instead of contraction i hope you do not mind. Of course i do understand that you described their spatial separation when they come to rest relative A and B 300000 * 70710 km . I am sure you master the framework of SR, but sometimes you seem to miss the implications. But i said, i am not sure all SRIANS agree with you ***if any*** about contracted space between comoving objects. But i leave it there, most use it for objects. Ok now we can see that as C and D slow down, their spatial separation as per A and B will get bigger and bigger until they stop. I do find that weird but it is SR so... You remember we talked about the spatial separation between system A and B vs system C and D when light reach D i said 300 ly. So turns out that was right. Let us discuss A and B from point of view of C and D, does A and B have same spatial separation as C and D Is it 300 000 * 70710 km or is it 300 000 km? JT > [snip rest of nonsense that has no point wrt discussion on SR]- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -
From: Inertial on 16 Mar 2010 06:54
"JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8390fe00-1e59-4958-8a13-123c04957900(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On 16 mar, 00:47, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6bc3d180-7e3f-4916-919d-a3f8a101bb26(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 15 mar, 16:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:7b3e2c2a-6b22-4bce-b0e5-f0de882eb415(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 15 mar, 13:37, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 15 mar, 12:56, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> [snip for brevity] >> >> >> >> > > [T1] remenber? >> >> >> >> > Eh? >> >> >> >> > > I draw the ASCII you requested, ***notice*** at moment [T1] A >> >> >> > > is >> >> >> > > adjacent to C, and B is adjacent to D do you agree? >> >> >> >> > Nope. Already told you, that there is no time in the [A and B] >> >> >> > system >> >> >> > where >> >> >> > C is adjacent to A *and* D is adjacent to B. >> >> >> >> I am sorry but clocks at A and B show the timing [T1] for C passing >> >> >> A >> >> >> to be the same with D passing B at timing [T1]? >> >> >> Not according to SR in the scenario we were discussing. We have to >> >> increase >> >> the distance between C and D to make that work. >> >> > Well i told you from beginning that it was a cartesian cordinate >> > system within Euclidian space..... >> >> So its not SR. >> > > Actually the fabric of reality support Euclidian geometry and > cordinates to 100 percent when it comes to simultanity and positional > analyse. No .. it doesn't. All experimental evidence to test SR vs Euclidean goemetry favours SR. > Actually it do not lead to any paradoxes. There are no paradoxes in SR. Just people who can't understand it >> > So... you should draw some conclusions from that. >> >> I have .. that you think by showing if you only take one little part of >> SR, >> and do not apply the rest of it, then you end up with something >> not-self-consistent. That doesn't prove anything about SR .. only that >> you >> have faulty logic. > > Well Euclidian cordinates is fully possible to transform into a > Minkowsky space diagram, you just need to know velocities. > > So sorry the positional analyse is perfectly valid in Euclidian space > using a Cartesian cordinate system and simple logic. It is the > suppsedly ***existing*** ECDT that leads to paradoxes in special > relativity. There are no paradoxes in SR. Just people who can't understand it > And a logical analyse can be used to investigate the sanity of any > theory. You haven't used any to analyses SR, because you are not discussing what SR actually says. >> >> >> This is a setup in ASCII , this is what happens in setup? >> >> >> It depends which setup you mean >> >> > The euclidian space one....... >> >> Then SR is not being applied .. so you cannot talk about what it would >> predict in that situation, because that situation cannot occur in SR. > > Well the Euclidian space one describe perfectly well where objects are > positioned at moments in Euclidian space using a Cartesian cordinate > system. > > So in a real case scenario T1 do really represent where C adjacent to > A, D adjacent to B. You can not wiggle out of that question. Moment T1 > exist you see. Nope. Not as you originally described. > Now according to you the space between C and D is somehow magically No magic > distorted thru the relative velocity, so according to your beleif in > SR the spatial separation between C and D is not the real spatial > separation. Both are real > I was joking a bit with you, that you used expansion instead of > contraction i hope you do not mind. > > Of course i do understand that you described their spatial separation > when they come to rest relative A and B 300000 * 70710 km . I am sure > you master the framework of SR, but sometimes you seem to miss the > implications. I miss nothing > But i said, i am not sure all SRIANS agree with you ***if any*** about > contracted space between comoving objects. But i leave it there, most > use it for objects. If *YOU* understood SR, you would know i was right. You are arguing from a position of ignorance. > Ok now we can see that as C and D slow down, They weren't slowing down./ Are you changing your scenario yet again. That smacks of dishonesty. > their spatial separation > as per A and B will get bigger and bigger until they stop. It may of my not get larger, depending on the acceleration profile > I do find > that weird but it is SR so... Yes .. I appreciate that you do not understand SR, so it would seem weird to you. > You remember we talked about the spatial separation between system A > and B vs system C and D when light reach D i said 300 ly. So turns out > that was right. If you change the scenario enough times until it is. > Let us discuss A and B from point of view of C and D, does A and B > have same spatial separation as C and D Which scenario now? > Is it 300 000 * 70710 km or is it 300 000 km? Please explain which of the several scenarios you have discussed you are talking about. Scenario jumping to obfuscate is an obvious trick, so I need to tie you down to a particular scenario so that does not happen. |