Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 01:01 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 > 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 What i try to tell you here Sam, is that both PD and INERTIAL do not correct interpretate special relativity when the apply it on spatial separated objects. They use some form of quasi aether for their magic. JT
From: Peter Webb on 19 Mar 2010 01:11 A little thought experiment: According you, if two spaceships are at rest 100 kms apart and you fly by at 0.99c, then you see them separated by 100 kms. OTOH, if there are two spaceships at rest 100 kms apart and connected by 100 kms of very thin fishing line, and you fly by at 0.99c, then you will see them separated by only a few kms as it is now one body instead of two. Is that your theory? Because if it is, we are going to have some fun with it.
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 01:44 On 19 mar, 06:11, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > A little thought experiment: > > According you, if two spaceships are at rest 100 kms apart and you fly by at > 0.99c, then you see them separated by 100 kms. > > OTOH, if there are two spaceships at rest 100 kms apart and connected by 100 > kms of very thin fishing line, and you fly by at 0.99c, then you will see > them separated by only a few kms as it is now one body instead of two. > > Is that your theory? > > Because if it is, we are going to have some fun with it. No actually i do not beleive in it at all, i beleive in emitter theory but Lorentz aether theory as applied by Einstein deals with tensor stress and propagation delays. Or are you really that stupid that you do beleive that two particle accelerators separated by 300 000 km that fires two photons simultaneously in frame A and B. Will have them measured as 4.2 km apart a 2 seconds later in frame A and B. Have special relativity taking on such incredible proportions of stupidity or is it just you, PD and INERTIAL who have gone total lunatic? JT
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Mar 2010 01:48 On 3/19/10 12:01 AM, JT wrote: > What i try to tell you here Sam, is that both PD and INERTIAL do not > correct interpretate special relativity when the apply it on spatial > separated objects. They use some form of quasi aether for their magic. > > JT JT--You really need to sit down and learn special relativity. There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and you should take the time to learn it, JT. What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html How do you add velocities in special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html Can special relativity handle acceleration? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
From: Peter Webb on 19 Mar 2010 01:49
"JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:afc9aba5-fc31-4b90-996f-7ffe24d14530(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > On 19 mar, 06:11, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> A little thought experiment: >> >> According you, if two spaceships are at rest 100 kms apart and you fly by >> at >> 0.99c, then you see them separated by 100 kms. >> >> OTOH, if there are two spaceships at rest 100 kms apart and connected by >> 100 >> kms of very thin fishing line, and you fly by at 0.99c, then you will see >> them separated by only a few kms as it is now one body instead of two. >> >> Is that your theory? >> >> Because if it is, we are going to have some fun with it. > > No actually i do not beleive in it at all, i beleive in emitter theory > but Lorentz aether theory as applied by Einstein deals with tensor > stress and propagation delays. > So despite claiming that you only believed length contraction occurred for physical bodies, you are now saying you don't believe it occurs even then? > Or are you really that stupid that you do beleive that two particle > accelerators separated by 300 000 km that fires two photons > simultaneously in frame A and B. Will have them measured as 4.2 km > apart a 2 seconds later in frame A and B. > Have special relativity taking on such incredible proportions of > stupidity or is it just you, PD and INERTIAL who have gone total > lunatic? > > JT The following site contains a list of experimental "proofs" of SR. http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html I tend to believe experimental results over the beliefs of a crackpot who knows nothing about physics, I would advise you to do the same. |