Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 29 Mar 2010 17:10 On Mar 29, 5:03 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >> How come someone with an IQ of 178 can make such a basic error? :-) > > >> Look up Bell's paradox. > > >> -- > >> Paul > > >>http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-D�lj citerad text - > > >> - Visa citerad text - > > > There is no error on my part, only ambivalence on SRIANS part. > =============== > I see you didn't look up Bell's paradox, so you have still > no clue about what your basic error is. > > Actually he has a post in another thread and responses from some ether theorists to indicate he has some familiarity with that paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Sue... > > > > > Euclidian restspace AB, have two particle accelerators A and B 300 000 > > m apart. > > sensor X 300 000 meter in front of B, > > sensor Y 300 004.2 meter in front of B, > > sensor Z 600 000 meter in front of B. > > > [AB space] > > > A---------->B---------->X->Y---------Z > > > At moment T0 in AB, A will fire particle C at 0.9999999999c and B will > > fire particle D. > > > ***Now*** at moment T1 in AB, C is aligned next to X, ***where is > > particle D*** at sensor Y or sensor Z? > > > It turns out that PD and Sam who apply SR beleive that particle D > > actually will be 4.2 meter in front of C(within AB at sensor Y) due to > > length contraction of the spatial space between C and D bwahahahaha. > > > I claim it will be at Z, 300 000 meter ahead of C and so do Inertial > > the ambivalent and logical bot. However he claim Sam and PD to be > > right suggesting 4.2 meter bwahahahahah. > > > We can not have to much ambivalence within the SR camp, comeon throw > > some sticks on the fire, we want to know your mojo where in the world > > is Carmen Diego. > > > Notice though inertials claim that it will be at both places at T1 > > within frame AB is disqualified as bullshit. One place will do. > > > JT > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: spudnik on 29 Mar 2010 17:20 Bell Epoque d'EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe, that the "quantum of light" has to be a massive point of no dimensions -- just polarities & frequency/period. no rocks o'light, "period." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ thus: neat idea; how'd it be tested, if possible, or is it just S & FS? > Possibly our universe has an event horizon that's keeping us from thus: when I first began doing "thus ****," is used "thus quoth" for others and "thus spake" for myself -- for about a day. possibly in part due to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism. > thus, thus, thus...? thus: what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; Young et al completely rid us of that theory, which also had that denser media had faster light). maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means "particle," your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah!... come on: there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. thus: I think, therefore Eisntein wasn't as great as he is depicted in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept. > impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: Edward Green on 29 Mar 2010 17:40 On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <...> > As I say, I don't think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works - or at > least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no > one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions > in physical terms - such as the constant speed of light no matter what > the velocity of the observer. That's easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively moving observe measure the "constant" speed of light concludes that the second observer's matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the situation is completely reciprocal. Mind you I haven't explained in detail how the dependence of the cohesion of matter on the speed of light causes this relative shrinking and slowing, but that's the gist of the physical argument why, against all odds, observers in relative inertial motion measure an invariant speed of light. I can't completely explain it, but to each observer the speed of light looks isotropic and constant because it is the speed of light which governs the behavior of all matter in his vicinity. That this works out exactly amounts to the assumption of Lorentz invariance.
From: Sue... on 29 Mar 2010 17:53 On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > <...> > > > As I say, I don't think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works - or at > > least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no > > one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions > > in physical terms - such as the constant speed of light no matter what > > the velocity of the observer. > > That's easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the > speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter > together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively > moving observe measure the "constant" speed of light concludes that > the second observer's matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and > his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant > speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the > situation is completely reciprocal. ============== > > Mind you I haven't explained in detail how the dependence of the > cohesion of matter on the speed of light causes this relative > shrinking and slowing, but that's the gist of the physical argument > why, against all odds, observers in relative inertial motion measure > an invariant speed of light. <<In 1907 Einstein criticized the "ad hoc" character of Lorentz's contraction hypothesis in his theory of electrons, because according to him it was only invented to rescue the hypothesis of an immobile ether. Einstein thought it necessary to replace Lorentz's theory of electrons by assuming that Lorentz's "local time" can simply be called "time", and he stated that the immobile ether as the theoretical fundament of electrodynamics was unsatisfactory.>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... > > I can't completely explain it, but to each observer the speed of light > looks isotropic and constant because it is the speed of light which > governs the behavior of all matter in his vicinity. That this works > out exactly amounts to the assumption of Lorentz invariance.
From: Inertial on 29 Mar 2010 18:52
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1c359663-a7fd-4226-a063-6625cc066feb(a)l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 29, 5:03 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> How come someone with an IQ of 178 can make such a basic error? :-) >> >> >> Look up Bell's paradox. > > >> >> >> -- >> >> Paul >> >> >>http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-D�lj citerad text - >> >> >> - Visa citerad text - >> >> > There is no error on my part, only ambivalence on SRIANS part. >> > =============== > >> I see you didn't look up Bell's paradox, so you have still >> no clue about what your basic error is. >> >> > Actually he has a post in another thread and > responses from some ether theorists to > indicate he has some familiarity with that > paradox. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > Sue... Off topic again Sue .. we are discussing SR. |