Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 21 Mar 2010 23:52 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7bfe020e-95c7-4c50-9947-2b64f70b1134(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 22 mar, 03:24, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/21/10 9:19 PM, JT wrote: >> >> > There is no conspiracy i said just low budget IQ brains. >> >> > JT >> >> Regardless of what your IQ is JT, you have not educated yourself >> in physics. Saying that the well tested physics is wrong without >> any justification is simply stooopid behavior on your part. >> >> 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 > > Then we take it again Sam slow. Here we go again > Two accelerators X-> and later Y-> are placed 300 000 km apart, in a > frame called AB. Fine > The accelerators fire two particles simultaneous at moment T in AB. > The particle C from X and D from Y move at 0.9999999999 within frame > of AB. As they both have the same velocity profile in frame AB (ie they are simultaneously co-moving at every time in frame AB) the distance between them in that frame remains 300000km. > Now 600 000 km ahead of last accelerator is first sensor placed we > call it E, Is this detector at rest in AB? > 4.2 km from E is next sensor we call it F Is this detector at rest in AB? > 300 000 km from E is a third sensor we call it G Is this detector at rest in AB? > Now at moment U in frame of AB the particle from X(C) is aligned with > the sensor E. > > Now my question where is Y(D) particle at moment U is it at sensor F > or at sensor G. If the sensors are at rest in AB, then as the particles are 300000km apart in AB, they would get detected by E and G simultaneously.
From: JT on 22 Mar 2010 00:19 On 22 mar, 04:52, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7bfe020e-95c7-4c50-9947-2b64f70b1134(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 22 mar, 03:24, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/21/10 9:19 PM, JT wrote: > > >> > There is no conspiracy i said just low budget IQ brains. > > >> > JT > > >> Regardless of what your IQ is JT, you have not educated yourself > >> in physics. Saying that the well tested physics is wrong without > >> any justification is simply stooopid behavior on your part. > > >> 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 > > > Then we take it again Sam slow. > > Here we go again > > > Two accelerators X-> and later Y-> are placed 300 000 km apart, in a > > frame called AB. > > Fine > > > The accelerators fire two particles simultaneous at moment T in AB. > > The particle C from X and D from Y move at 0.9999999999 within frame > > of AB. > > As they both have the same velocity profile in frame AB (ie they are > simultaneously co-moving at every time in frame AB) the distance between > them in that frame remains 300000km. > > > Now 600 000 km ahead of last accelerator is first sensor placed we > > call it E, > > Is this detector at rest in AB? > > > 4.2 km from E is next sensor we call it F > > Is this detector at rest in AB? > > > 300 000 km from E is a third sensor we call it G > > Is this detector at rest in AB? > > > Now at moment U in frame of AB the particle from X(C) is aligned with > > the sensor E. > > > Now my question where is Y(D) particle at moment U is it at sensor F > > or at sensor G. > > If the sensors are at rest in AB, then as the particles are 300000km apart > in AB, they would get detected by E and G simultaneously.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - That is not according to relativity ask your friends Sam and PD, according to them the spatial distance of C and D is 4.2 km at moment U within frame AB. I can replace the particles with a pole 300 000 km long, and let the back be at sensor E at moment U and ask you where is the front at F or G. You remember your stupid spatial length contraction, that was so silly only PD and Sam dared to use it in this setup. Well you see *YOU* told me according to SR there is no difference between a spatial separation or a pole, when it comes to length contraction. It seems like INERTIAL is no longer the honest one about SR, PD and Sam are. JT
From: Peter Webb on 22 Mar 2010 02:32 Well you see *YOU* told me according to SR there is no difference between a spatial separation or a pole, when it comes to length contraction. ____________________________________ I told you that as well. It is a standard part of SR. But I still don't understand why you want an SR solution to an experiment when you don't believe in SR. All you have done when similar questions have been asked and answered in the past is to say you don't believe the answer. If SR is used to answer your question, then you won't believe that answer either, because you don't believe in SR. So, why are you bothering to ask for the predictions of a theory you claim is "obviously false" ? If you have some valid reason, happy to help, but if the only purpose is to try and claim the answer is wrong, why should I or anyone else bother?
From: Inertial on 22 Mar 2010 02:43 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba70f1c$0$5421$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > Well you see *YOU* told me according to SR there is no difference > between a spatial separation or a pole, when it comes to length > contraction. Which is correct. Of course, the material structure of an object (in its own frame) can ALSO be affected by acceleration. Eg. if you 'push' an object from behind (eg a rocket engine pushing the rocket) then that puts the object under compression .. pulling on a rope stretches the rope .. etc. There is no such thing as a perfectly rigid object. So, in reality, if you are ACCELERATING an object, then there are other factors at play in addition to SR. > ____________________________________ > > I told you that as well. It is a standard part of SR. > > But I still don't understand why you want an SR solution to an experiment > when you don't believe in SR. > > All you have done when similar questions have been asked and answered in > the past is to say you don't believe the answer. Of course he doesn't .. and that is, to him, all that is required for it to be wrong. > If SR is used to answer your question, then you won't believe that answer > either, because you don't believe in SR. Nor does he understand SR enough to even know what an SR answer is :) > So, why are you bothering to ask for the predictions of a theory you claim > is "obviously false" ? If you have some valid reason, happy to help, but > if the only purpose is to try and claim the answer is wrong, why should I > or anyone else bother?
From: JT on 22 Mar 2010 07:57
On 22 mar, 07:43, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4ba70f1c$0$5421$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > Well you see *YOU* told me according to SR there is no difference > > between a spatial separation or a pole, when it comes to length > > contraction. > > Which is correct. > > Of course, the material structure of an object (in its own frame) can ALSO > be affected by acceleration. Eg. if you 'push' an object from behind (eg a > rocket engine pushing the rocket) then that puts the object under > compression .. pulling on a rope stretches the rope .. etc. There is no > such thing as a perfectly rigid object. > > So, in reality, if you are ACCELERATING an object, then there are other > factors at play in addition to SR. > > > ____________________________________ > > > I told you that as well. It is a standard part of SR. > > > But I still don't understand why you want an SR solution to an experiment > > when you don't believe in SR. > > > All you have done when similar questions have been asked and answered in > > the past is to say you don't believe the answer. > > Of course he doesn't .. and that is, to him, all that is required for it to > be wrong. > > > If SR is used to answer your question, then you won't believe that answer > > either, because you don't believe in SR. > > Nor does he understand SR enough to even know what an SR answer is :) > > > > > So, why are you bothering to ask for the predictions of a theory you claim > > is "obviously false" ? If you have some valid reason, happy to help, but > > if the only purpose is to try and claim the answer is wrong, why should I > > or anyone else bother?- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Yes i do i just notice the smell of your ECDT dropings all over the frame. JT |