Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 1 Apr 2010 18:36 On Apr 1, 5:53 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. The delta function and multiple integrals of the below derivation seems a safer bet for 21st century students of physics. Weber's[1] force would have been cool to include because of its plausible relation to gravity and inertia. It seems doubtful Maxwell would of taken a 100 year vactaion from his equations waiting for someone to invent molecular dynamics, however. But ya never know. Some women go nuts over facial hair so he may have had plenty of potential vacation partners to help burn up 100years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity > > 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? Sue... [1](who measured speed of light on a conductor for Maxwell) > > > > 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
From: Peter Webb on 1 Apr 2010 19:47 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:21e3c2bc-2608-468d-8839-f9a4f9766d95(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yes, it has. > 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. > Ohh, you want an "interpretation". That is completyely different to asking if it is "real" or "apparent". For an interpretation, you need to learn about Minkowski space time. > > >> > 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. > Nobody takes me or Einstein "at his word". I believe SR because it matches experiment. And if the claims of the Bible could be experimentally reproduced, I would believe them as well. > > >> 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. > Nevertheless, you do lack understanding of SR, obviously, you have obviously never studied it or learned about it in any detail. > > >> > 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. > All do now. > 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. The Doppler shift is real. Frequencies really do change. > My question with SR remains the same: is it > "real", or is it an apparent effect. > Like the Doppler shift, it is both real and apparent. As I said already. > Unfortunately, the simple fact is that some people here don't really > know, Some people = you, > 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). Enter Minkowski space time. This does exactly what you ask.
From: Sue... on 1 Apr 2010 20:01 On Apr 1, 7:47 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> ======================== > Nobody takes me or Einstein "at his word". I believe SR because it matches > experiment. Could you please name two or three experiments that you find most supportive of Einstein's Special Relativity? I may have overlooked some of the better examples. Sue...
From: Ste on 1 Apr 2010 20:14 On 2 Apr, 00:47, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > 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. > > Ohh, you want an "interpretation". That is completyely different to asking > if it is "real" or "apparent". I was using the word "interpret" to mean "gain meaningful understanding of", not "offer a subjective and highly-contentious account of", which I think is how you interpreted the word, as it were. > > 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. > > The Doppler shift is real. Frequencies really do change. Yes, but it involves no change in the frequency generated by the source. > > My question with SR remains the same: is it > > "real", or is it an apparent effect. > > Like the Doppler shift, it is both real and apparent. > > As I said already. It is not "real" in the sense that it involves a change in the attributes of the source - it is "apparent" in the sense it involves a change in the relationship between the source and receiver.
From: Peter Webb on 1 Apr 2010 20:25
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:5b7b99cd-6a9e-4db1-9589-03a48bf3ff55(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Apr 1, 7:47 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> ======================== > Nobody takes me or Einstein "at his word". I believe SR because it matches > experiment. Could you please name two or three experiments that you find most supportive of Einstein's Special Relativity? ___________________________________ There are hundreds. I do not find any one of them "more supportive" than any of the others; all experimental tests of SR support it completely. It would be like asking a physicist in the 19th century which experiments they find most supportive of Newton's theory of gravity. The fact that apples fall to the ground? That planets follow elliptical orbits? That spiral galaxies exist and are stable? The periods of double stars? Synthetic experiments measuring gravitational attraction in a laboratory? *All* of these completely support Newton's theory (at least to the limits of 19th Century understanding and measurement). You can't get "more supportive" than "completely supports". All of the above experiments "completely support" Newton's theory of gravity. Similarly, http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html lists about 500 experiments which "completely support" SR. Perhaps if you were to supply some objective measure of how one experiment which completely supports a theory offers more support than some other experiment which also completely supports the theory, I would be in a position to rank them. Perhaps as an example you could say which experiment best supports Newton's theory of gravity, and say why this is the "best"? With that definition in hand of "best", and a worked example of why it is the "best", I could offer in the same spirit a few experiments that do the same for SR? |