Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 17 Mar 2010 19:40 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fa9246da-0959-4d00-b83c-e03be0abd830(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > 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. So it is not an SR scenario, and you cannot discuss SR in reference to it >> > 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. Not overly interesting, no > ***knock, knock*** there seem to be something wrong here, Nope > some trauma > upon logic. Nope > Two spatial separation of equal dimensions No .. not equal > with two > readings within same frame. Of course two readings when two difference distances > You really think that both numbers perfectly valid within T1 don't > you? If that is a diagram of an SR scenario >> >> > Is it 300 000 * 70710 km or is it 300 000 km? >> >> > You can put answer under here.... >> >> 4.24 km > > Quite baffling. Not if you understood SR. You don't >> Really .. you should be able to work this out yourself- D�lj citerad >> text -
From: JT on 18 Mar 2010 22:50 On 18 mar, 00:40, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:fa9246da-0959-4d00-b83c-e03be0abd830(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > So it is not an SR scenario, and you cannot discuss SR in reference to it > > >> > 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. > > Not overly interesting, no > > > ***knock, knock*** there seem to be something wrong here, > > Nope > > > some trauma > > upon logic. > > Nope > > > Two spatial separation of equal dimensions > > No .. not equal > > > with two > > readings within same frame. > > Of course two readings when two difference distances > > > You really think that both numbers perfectly valid within T1 don't > > you? > > If that is a diagram of an SR scenario > > >> >> > Is it 300 000 * 70710 km or is it 300 000 km? > > >> > You can put answer under here.... > > >> 4.24 km > > > Quite baffling. > > Not if you understood SR. You don't > > > > >> Really .. you should be able to work this > > ... > > läs mer »- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Well i have been thinking a bit more about SR and come to understand that PD's and yours *inertial* understanding of special relativity is flawed. The Lorentz transform "length contraction" take standpoint in that the acceleration of the pole, is pointlike and do take place in the frame of C and D thereof the contraction. The pointlike acceleration take it start at C and there is a hidden assumption of an electromagnetic field that prevents C from exceed c. Now since the assumption is pointlike acceleration from back to forth and also that this will lead to time descrepancies at clocks at end of C and D, because of delay in acceleration. So it turns of you was wrong to begin with, the length contraction can not be applied to spatial separation between two objects. The length contraction can only be applied upon a homogenus media or wave that is accelerated. I think i have exceeded you regarding the understanding of special relativity. The contraction is due to the idea of pointlike acceleration within one end of a media, that together with a discrepancy in simultanity about when the media was accelerated. Of course, i both feel suspicious about the pointlike acceleration and about it being a push, if the pointlike acceleration took place at the frontend by a magnetic field there is more likely to be an expansion due to propagation delay of the acceleration. I do not think Lorentz ideas about accelerated and length contracted objects, is applicable on macro objects. JT
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Mar 2010 00:05 On 3/18/10 9:50 PM, JT wrote: > Now since the assumption is pointlike acceleration... Define pointlike acceleration.
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 00:42 On 19 mar, 05:05, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/18/10 9:50 PM, JT wrote: > > > Now since the assumption is pointlike acceleration... > > Define pointlike acceleration. A rubberband with a single point of tension or a spring with single point of compression will when released be accelerated from one end to the other due to propagatation delay. although it all have same velocity there is a discrepancy about when it was accelerated in each end, also there is deformation of the restlength. Similar an accelerated rubberbullet in a media like water would compress due to pressure building up and this was probably how a Lorentz gedanken would explain aether. Now there was no aether, so this explanation was not plausible. This leaves us with Einstein imainge acceleration as stretched rubberbands released, causing the contraction effect. It is a theory revolving around tension being released. It do ****not however explain why c would be a limit***** that would need an aether. And a spring theory using compression would lead to an expansion at acceleration so that is not plausible either. JT
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 00:43
On 19 mar, 05:42, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 19 mar, 05:05, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 3/18/10 9:50 PM, JT wrote: > > > > Now since the assumption is pointlike acceleration... > > > Define pointlike acceleration. > > A rubberband with a single point of tension or a spring with single > point of compression will when released be accelerated from one end to Should probably said single point of released tension or compression > the other due to propagatation delay. although it all have same > velocity there is a discrepancy about when it was accelerated in each > end, also there is deformation of the restlength. > > Similar an accelerated rubberbullet in a media like water would > compress due to pressure building up and this was probably how a > Lorentz gedanken would explain aether. > Now there was no aether, so this explanation was not plausible. > > This leaves us with Einstein imainge acceleration as stretched > rubberbands released, causing the contraction effect. It is a theory > revolving around tension being released. > > It do ****not however explain why c would be a limit***** that would > need an aether. > > And a spring theory using compression would lead to an expansion at > acceleration so that is not plausible either. > > JT |