Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 02:03 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. Well and i forgot to say that even ***Einsteins*** implementation of the rubberband stress tensors of course can not deal your fishline setup. Due to the stress put on the molecules, if you accerlerate it slow enough though....... I must say that i have no idea. But i think Lorentz aether theory did not deal with tensor stress and propagation delay as seen in an accelerated homogenus media. It dealt with quite the opposite he beleved we moved thru homogenous a rubberfabric or a chaotic fabric that built up a pressure wave as response to the acceleration and that was the reason you could not exceed c. JT
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 02:07 On 19 mar, 06:49, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(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/experime... > > 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.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Well it do not deal with the suggested setup, and since what you say will happen simply will not happen in the setup. Either you PD and INERTIAL have the wrong interpretation of special relativity ***and this is the most plausible*** or special relativity is simply wrong. The C and D particle will not be 4.2 km apart if measured they will be 300 000 km just as the accelerators. And if you had half the brain you seem to think you exhibit, you would see the impossible in what you suggest. JT
From: Peter Webb on 19 Mar 2010 02:12 > > > 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/experime... > > 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.- D�lj > citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Well it do not deal with the suggested setup, and since what you say will happen simply will not happen in the setup. Either you PD and INERTIAL have the wrong interpretation of special relativity ***and this is the most plausible*** or special relativity is simply wrong. ____________________________________ Changing stories again, I see. Either you believe SR is correct or you don't. Make up your mind. The C and D particle will not be 4.2 km apart if measured they will be 300 000 km just as the accelerators. And if you had half the brain you seem to think you exhibit, you would see the impossible in what you suggest. JT ____________________________________ No.
From: Peter Webb on 19 Mar 2010 02:13 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:783f8feb-6a66-46f7-8f2a-375e5e9093ab(a)l25g2000yqd.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. > > Well and i forgot to say that even ***Einsteins*** implementation of > the rubberband stress tensors of course can not deal your fishline > setup. Due to the stress put on the molecules, if you accerlerate it > slow enough though....... > I must say that i have no idea. > Correct. > But i think Lorentz aether theory did not deal with tensor stress and > propagation delay as seen in an accelerated homogenus media. > > It dealt with quite the opposite he beleved we moved thru homogenous a > rubberfabric or a chaotic fabric that built up a pressure wave as > response to the acceleration and that was the reason you could not > exceed c. > > JT So you have an alternate theory, but you have no idea what it predicts. Gee, that's convincing.
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 02:27
On 19 mar, 07:13, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:783f8feb-6a66-46f7-8f2a-375e5e9093ab(a)l25g2000yqd.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. > > > Well and i forgot to say that even ***Einsteins*** implementation of > > the rubberband stress tensors of course can not deal your fishline > > setup. Due to the stress put on the molecules, if you accerlerate it > > slow enough though....... > > I must say that i have no idea. > > Correct. > > > But i think Lorentz aether theory did not deal with tensor stress and > > propagation delay as seen in an accelerated homogenus media. > > > It dealt with quite the opposite he beleved we moved thru homogenous a > > rubberfabric or a chaotic fabric that built up a pressure wave as > > response to the acceleration and that was the reason you could not > > exceed c. > > > JT > > So you have an alternate theory, but you have no idea what it predicts. > > Gee, that's convincing.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - No i do not beleive in aether, i beleive in emission theory. But i do say that Einstein created the theory after the aether was gone, and replaced the wavefront of aehter against the accelerated object, with a propagation delay within the media, a rubberband tension theory. JT |