Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Mar 2010 02:39 On 3/19/10 1:27 AM, JT wrote: > 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 ILLUCID
From: Inertial on 19 Mar 2010 02:42 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c5373333-3148-47df-8ca0-574157bed95c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > 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 >> >> ... >> >> l�s mer �- D�lj citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text -- D�lj 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. As usual, you are wrong > The Lorentz transform "length contraction" take standpoint in that the > acceleration of the pole, What pole? > is pointlike and do take place in the frame > of C and D thereof the contraction. Everything happens in every frame > The pointlike acceleration There is no 'pointlike acceleration' .. its not a physics term .. so what do you mean by this made-up term? > take it > start at C and there is a hidden assumption of an electromagnetic > field that prevents C from exceed c. What on earth are you talking about now? What is 'it'? > 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. What ARE you on about now? > So it turns of you was wrong to begin with, Nope. > the length contraction can > not be applied to spatial separation between two objects. Yes .. it can and is. You are (as usual) wrong > The length contraction can only be applied upon a homogenus media or > wave that is accelerated. Wrong > I think i have exceeded you regarding the understanding of special > relativity. Nope .. you are nowhere near understanding it at all > 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. It doesn't require any media. But, as I have said before, contraction is the results of differences in clock sync between frames. > 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. You are talking nonsense > I do not think Lorentz ideas about accelerated and length contracted > objects, is applicable on macro objects. Wrong. Again.
From: Inertial on 19 Mar 2010 02:45 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c1431e45-3041-4a5b-813a-e22d6fc78362(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > 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. No .. I use SR. If you understood it you would know. But you don't .. you criticise from a point of ignorance, and it shows.
From: Inertial on 19 Mar 2010 02:46 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d245db62-3395-4a9c-ac4c-38a752c6ceb8(a)m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > 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.- D�lj citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text - > > No i do not beleive in aether, i beleive in emission theory. Then you are a fool, as emission theory has been refuted experimentally for decades > But i do > say that Einstein created the theory after the aether was gone, Nope > and > replaced the wavefront of aehter against the accelerated object, with > a propagation delay within the media, a rubberband tension theory. Nope
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 02:48
On 19 mar, 07:42, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c5373333-3148-47df-8ca0-574157bed95c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > As usual, you are wrong > > > The Lorentz transform "length contraction" take standpoint in that the > > acceleration of the pole, > > What pole? > > > is pointlike and do take place in the frame > > of C and D thereof the contraction. > > Everything happens in every frame > > > The pointlike acceleration > > There is no 'pointlike acceleration' .. its not a physics term .. so what do > you mean by this made-up term? > > > take it > > start at C and there is a hidden assumption of an electromagnetic > > field that prevents C from exceed c. > > What on earth are you talking about now? What is 'it'? > > > 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. > > What ARE you on about now? > > > So it turns of you was wrong to begin with, > > Nope. > > > the length contraction can > > not be applied to spatial separation between two objects. > > Yes .. it can and is. You are (as usual) wrong > > > The length contraction can only be applied upon a homogenus media or > > wave that is accelerated. > > Wrong > > > I think i have exceeded you regarding the understanding of special > > relativity. > > Nope .. you are nowhere near understanding it at all > > > 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. > > It doesn't require any media. But, as I have said before, contraction is > the results of differences in clock sync between frames. > > > 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. > > You are talking nonsense > > > I do not think Lorentz ideas about accelerated and length contracted > > objects, is applicable on macro objects. > > Wrong. Again. No you are wrong two particle accelerators 300 000 km apart firing particle C and D simultaneous in frame A and B will not be measured 2 seconds later as 4.2 km apart in frame A and B. They will still be 300 000 km apart there is no spatial length contraction in reality, only in Lorentz transformation interpretated of Einstein as a propagation delay due to tension in media. Interpretated by idiots as magic. JT |