Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 1 Apr 2010 11:08 On 1 Apr, 03:58, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real and apparent. Things > >> really > >> do get shorter, clocks run slower, the travelling twin does return > >> younger > >> and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot barn. This is > >> confirmed > >> a thousand times a day in engineering systems that have high velocities > >> and > >> accurate clocks. > > > Yes, but this explanation falls down in failing to explain why the > > rest of the universe would suddenly "really" contract, just because a > > single object begins to move at the speed of light. > > No. The explanation is fine, and has been accepted by physicists for over > 100 years. It is your understanding that is defective. No it hasn't been "accepted by physicists" for over 100 years. Moreover, there is a question as to *what* is being accepted: even I accept that the maths of SR seems to quantify our observations, and indeed I expect almost all physicists will accept that. But the question here is not between SR and nought. It is about how to interpret the mechanisms behind the observations described by SR. > > It seems more > > believable > > To you. Believable to you. Yes, who else? If you're happy to have the backing of a majority who take you at your word, then fine, but ministers of religion the world over can claim that much. > That is because you don't understand it. Then perhaps you didn't explain it properly. But in any case, not every disagreement stems from a lack of understanding. > > that the effect is apparent and something to do with the > > changed interaction between the objects due to their high speeds > > relative to each other. Moreover, if the contraction was "real", it > > could not be a relative effect (i.e. it would have to effect one or > > the other), and there is no plausible explanation for a "real" > > contraction in any case. > > Except for the one provided by SR and more specifically the Minkowskian > model. This is so plausible that every physicist in the world has believed > it for 100 years. Lol, there were few physicists who even understood it at all 100 years ago. And just to move to an easier analogy, I don't care how much you can accurately quantify something like acoustic Doppler shifting with an equation, my question would be this: is the Doppler shift a product of the change of interaction between source and receiver, or is the source "really" changing frequency by some unknown mechanism? The answer, of course, is that the Doppler effect is apparent - there is nothing inherent about the source that needs to change in order to explain the phenomenon. My question with SR remains the same: is it "real", or is it an apparent effect. Unfortunately, the simple fact is that some people here don't really know, and in any event seem to have a philosophical resistence to the question ("For what does it matter", they reason, "whether the effect is real or apparent? The effect on the observer is all the same." And indeed it is, but it helps to know to what to attribute the cause of the effect, so that we can consolidate our learning in a coherent fashion, and then move on to more complex physics having laid down a solid groundwork for further research and understanding).
From: spudnik on 1 Apr 2010 16:58 poor Hermann, to be known foremost for his most junky piece of geometry -- you God-am lightconeheads; just do special rel. with quaternions, and "see" that cones are "degenerate" solutions! "Time is not a dimension; or, it is the onbly dimension, whenby [etc.] --Are Buckafka Fullofit > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html --They didn't follow that money! http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm --Light: A History! http:// 21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: Sue... on 1 Apr 2010 17:38 On Apr 1, 4:58 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > poor Hermann, to be known foremost for his most junky piece > of geometry -- you God-am lightconeheads; > just do special rel. with quaternions, and "see" > that cones are "degenerate" solutions! No mention of light-comes in what I posted. I have seen plenty of "degenerates" try to use them. I don't doubt that quaternions might show what you say. That is what Maxwell worked with. But time dependent Maxwell's equations seem to work just as well and introduce the student to some very useful techniques. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > > "Time is not a dimension; "It is 1/2 hr to Berlin." "It is 100km to Berlin." In a 200km/sec Porche, both are true statements. What I posted says little more than: "~you can't tell if the Porche is moving by performing experiments in the passenger seat~" But the statement is in terms that reference a 4D space. <<A more abstract formalism for the complex numbers was further developed by the Irish mathematician William Rowan Hamilton, who extended this abstraction to the theory of quaternions.>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number Let's debate whether addition is better than multiplication so the outcome has some chance of changing the course of human events. :-)) Sue... > or, > it is the onbly dimension, whenby [etc.] --Are Buckafka Fullofit > ===================== > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > > the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html ========================= > > --They didn't follow that money! http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm > > --Light: A History! > http:// 21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: Sue... on 1 Apr 2010 17:52 On Apr 1, 5:38 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: In a 200km/sec Porche, both are true statements. [hr] Got carried away with the NASCAR rules. >:-)
From: spudnik on 1 Apr 2010 17:53
as I was about to post, before the electricity glitched.... the notes per Maxwell, after eq.515, show that he was essentially using Huyghens wavelets, conceptually; good for him. I don't know how he used them, but Maxwell's eqs. are part of the algebraic programme to avoid the findings of Weber et al, using Ampere's "longitudinal force" experiments as a beginning. yes, the equations are "time-dependent," meaning that time is a dependent variable ... of course; forget Minkowski's infrotunate sophistry- then-he-died. interestingly, Hamilton at first devized complex numbers as a sort of a homogenous time coordinates on the line, I think; haven't studied it, though. > I don't doubt that quaternions might show what > you say. That is what Maxwell worked with. > > But time dependent Maxwell's equations > seem to work just as well and introduce the > student to some very useful techniques.http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > But the statement is in terms that reference a 4D space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number thus: how can you possibly demostrate (or believe in) a "vacuum that is devoid of matter" -- de void; how in Hell do you know that? > > be traveling in some medium. That medium was called aether. > > And since light can travel from across the Universe, ether was > > (WRONGLY) assumed to be located everywhere, equally. > > > When one says 'vacuum' that means space that is devoid of matter. > > Since ether is polar energy rather than matter, the ether can travel > > through the walls of any vacuum chamber and obstruct the flow of > > charged particles. That is why no electrons can be made to travel at > > velocity 'c' inside a vacuum chamber. The polar IOTAs of the ether thus: may be, you did not read the fullerene experiment too much; or, you'd be able to state a difference that waves of fullerenes make in their intereferences, compared to "that which can only *be* a wave-form," light. why cannot we finally bury Newton and his phoney corpuscular theory? if you do not wish to remain a part of the Second (secular) Church of England, look at *21st C. Science & Tech.* website. --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com |