Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: JT on 16 Mar 2010 08:38 On 16 mar, 11:54, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(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 Well if i told you a litre of milk actually is a velocity dependent unit, and took my exposition in setups from that, i am sure you would claim magic. We should also not forget that SR once was thought to handle mass, and that mass was relative. Now we understand better mass is unchanged it is only energy potential that change due to kinetics. > > 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 Sorry not the rest 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. > > I miss nothing Well i am not that sure, I do not for a moment beleive that if C and D passing same magnetic field and slow down will change their relative separation. You and SR beleive their relative spatial separation change though, i do not. If you placed a second set with A2 and B2 after slow down, i am sure that they still would be C adjacent ato A2 and D adjacent to B2. > > 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. No it is like this when you present some facts from SR, i can take new stands about what SR says. So a hypotetical slowdown would lead to a larger spatial separation, i do not need a new setup for that. It is a conclusion from the fact you give me regarding SR. > > 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 Well i gave you a deacceleration profile above both passes same magnetic field. You claim bigger separation after field i claim the spatial separation remain unchanged in A and B. > > 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. No i understand the SR beleifs, but i do not beleive in them. > > 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. No i gave you correct information, it was a missinterpretation on your behalf but no big deal. > > 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? The same as before C is adjacent to A and D is adjacent to B at [T1] what is the spatial separation of A and B as per by C and D. > > Is it 300 000 * 70710 km or is it 300 000 km? You can put answer under here.... > 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.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -
From: spudnik on 16 Mar 2010 13:50 that's what is known as "over a ton o'math," although i like the philosophie de l'auteur ... if his topologie holds-up! > 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=S... > interferometer --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: Sue... on 16 Mar 2010 14:37 On Mar 16, 1:50 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > that's what is known as "over a ton o'math," That's right. If anyone tells you they got the right answer with a train and couple of lightning strokes and secondary school algebra, then find out what their latest book sells for. Sue... > although > i like the philosophie de l'auteur ... if his topologie holds-up! > > > 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 > > --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: Inertial on 16 Mar 2010 20:08 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ffb119e4-2bf6-4d4b-ae4a-750d61dce344(a)g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 16 mar, 11:54, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(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 > > Well if i told you a litre of milk actually is a velocity dependent It is .. the volume of a moving container (as measured by a non-moving observer) is contracted > unit, and took my exposition in setups from that, i am sure you would > claim magic. > > We should also not forget that SR once was thought to handle mass, and > that mass was relative. Now we understand better mass is unchanged it > is only energy potential that change due to kinetics. It handles it quite fine. nothing has changed. >> > 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 > > Sorry not the rest spatial separation. Of course not .. it is contracted >> > 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 > > Well i am not that sure, That's your problem > I do not for a moment beleive that if C and D passing same magnetic > field and slow down will change their relative separation. It all depends. > You and SR beleive their relative spatial separation change though, i > do not. It has nothing to do with SR (particularly) .. it depends on their individual acceleration profiles > If you placed a second set with A2 and B2 after slow down, i am sure > that they still would be C adjacent ato A2 and D adjacent to B2. It all depends on how you slow them down >> > 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. > > No it is like this when you present some facts from SR, i can take new > stands about what SR says. No .. you can't. Sr says what is says. You should study it sometime > So a hypotetical slowdown would lead to a > larger spatial separation, Not necessarily > i do not need a new setup for that. It is a > conclusion from the fact you give me regarding SR. Not necessarily >> > 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 > > Well i gave you a deacceleration profile above both passes same > magnetic field. Then even without SR, the distances between them will change > You claim bigger separation after field i claim the spatial separation > remain unchanged in A and B. Then you are wrong even without SR. >> > 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. > > No i understand the SR beleifs, but i do not beleive in them. No .. you don't understand. You make incorrect claims about what SR says. So either you don't understand, or you are being deceptive and dishonest. Which is it? >> > 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. > > No i gave you correct information, it was a missinterpretation on your > behalf but no big deal. No it wasn't. YOU ARE A LIAR >> > 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? > > The same as before WHICH ONE > C is adjacent to A and D is adjacent to B at [T1] So the second scenario, where you have increase the separation of C and D in their rest frame. > what is the spatial separation of A and B as per by C and D. 4.24 km >> > Is it 300 000 * 70710 km or is it 300 000 km? > > You can put answer under here.... 4.24 km Really .. you should be able to work this out yourself
From: JT on 17 Mar 2010 12:18
On 17 mar, 01:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ffb119e4-2bf6-4d4b-ae4a-750d61dce344(a)g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 16 mar, 11:54, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "JT" <jonas.thornv...(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 > > > Well if i told you a litre of milk actually is a velocity dependent > > It is .. the volume of a moving container (as measured by a non-moving > observer) is contracted > > > unit, and took my exposition in setups from that, i am sure you would > > claim magic. > > > We should also not forget that SR once was thought to handle mass, and > > that mass was relative. Now we understand better mass is unchanged it > > is only energy potential that change due to kinetics. > > It handles it quite fine. nothing has changed. > > >> > 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 > > > Sorry not the rest spatial separation. > > Of course not .. it is contracted > > >> > 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 > > > Well i am not that sure, > > That's your problem > > > I do not for a moment beleive that if C and D passing same magnetic > > field and slow down will change their relative separation. > > It all depends. > > > You and SR beleive their relative spatial separation change though, i > > do not. > > It has nothing to do with SR (particularly) .. it depends on their > individual acceleration profiles > > > If you placed a second set with A2 and B2 after slow down, i am sure > > that they still would be C adjacent ato A2 and D adjacent to B2. > > It all depends on how you slow them down > > > > > > >> > 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. > > > No it is like this when you present some facts from SR, i can take new > > stands about what SR says. > > No .. you can't. Sr says what is says. You should study it sometime > > > So a hypotetical slowdown would lead to a > > larger spatial separation, > > Not necessarily > > > i do not need a new setup for that. It is a > > conclusion from the fact you give me regarding SR. > > Not necessarily > > >> > 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 > > > Well i gave you a deacceleration profile above both passes same > > magnetic field. > > Then even without SR, the distances between them will change > > > You claim bigger separation after field i claim the spatial separation > > remain unchanged in A and B. > > Then you are wrong even without SR. > > >> > 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. > > > No i understand the SR beleifs, but i do not beleive in them. > > No .. you don't understand. You make incorrect claims about what SR says. > So either you don't understand, or you are being deceptive and dishonest. > Which is it? > > >> > 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. > > > No i gave you correct information, it was a missinterpretation on your > > behalf but no big deal. > > No it wasn't. YOU ARE A LIAR > > >> > 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? > > > The same as before > > WHICH ONE > > > C is adjacent to A and D is adjacent to B at [T1] > > So the second scenario, where you have increase the separation of C and D in > their rest frame. No same as original Euclidian distances. > > what is the spatial separation of A and B as per by C and D. > > 4.24 km Don't you find it interesting that A-------------B 4.24 km apart C-------------D 300 000 km apart Although C parallel with A and D parallel with B. ***knock, knock*** there seem to be something wrong here, some trauma upon logic. Two spatial separation of equal dimensions with two readings within same frame. You really think that both numbers perfectly valid within T1 don't you? > >> > Is it 300 000 * 70710 km or is it 300 000 km? > > > You can put answer under here.... > > 4.24 km Quite baffling. > Really .. you should be able to work this out yourself- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - |