Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 3 Apr 2010 01:09 On Apr 3, 12:45 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:8af8a843-617b-4a4c-943d-096b712a9626(a)n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 3, 12:31 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:e9522292-a675-45e8-86d7-441848765ed4(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 3, 12:05 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >news:eb6af071-e07b-4771-8722-d5f20fc9a0ac(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Apr 2, 11:30 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > Again, that must have been somebody else. If you think it was me, you > > > > should > > > > dig up the quote from me. I am happy to defend what *I* say in this > > > > newsgroup, but I cannot be held responsible for things I didn't say.. > > > > We will entertain the possibly that someone else > > > is smart enough to know the difference in > > > moving a grocer and moving mile-markers > > > on the road to the grocer but the difference > > > escapes you. That is consistent with your > > > misrepresentation of Einstein's relativity. > > > > ____________________________________ > > > Huh? Where did I misrepresent "Einstein's relativity"? > > > Where did you say: > > > "All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > for the performance of all physical experiments" > > > Sue... > > > ________________________________ > > I didn't. > > Thank you. > > ______________________________ > Your welcome. > > Where did you say the speed of light is > independent of the motion of the emitter > and absorber? > > __________________________________ > I'm not sure I did, at least not that in that form. > > Are you actually going to post where I misrepresented SR, argued in favour > of Lorentz over SR, talked about grocery shops, or talked about moving > mile-markers? No point in that. You just denied addressing either of SR's postulates. This is more consistent with your postings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory If you took a class in Einstein's relativity and that is what they taught you, I'll do gladly do whatever I can to help you get a refund. Sue...
From: Peter Webb on 3 Apr 2010 01:53 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:138753a8-93f4-457e-a8ce-9ac66356b0d0(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Apr 3, 12:45 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:8af8a843-617b-4a4c-943d-096b712a9626(a)n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 3, 12:31 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:e9522292-a675-45e8-86d7-441848765ed4(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 3, 12:05 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >news:eb6af071-e07b-4771-8722-d5f20fc9a0ac(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > On Apr 2, 11:30 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > Again, that must have been somebody else. If you think it was me, > > > > you > > > > should > > > > dig up the quote from me. I am happy to defend what *I* say in this > > > > newsgroup, but I cannot be held responsible for things I didn't say. > > > > We will entertain the possibly that someone else > > > is smart enough to know the difference in > > > moving a grocer and moving mile-markers > > > on the road to the grocer but the difference > > > escapes you. That is consistent with your > > > misrepresentation of Einstein's relativity. > > > > ____________________________________ > > > Huh? Where did I misrepresent "Einstein's relativity"? > > > Where did you say: > > > "All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > for the performance of all physical experiments" > > > Sue... > > > ________________________________ > > I didn't. > > Thank you. > > ______________________________ > Your welcome. > > Where did you say the speed of light is > independent of the motion of the emitter > and absorber? > > __________________________________ > I'm not sure I did, at least not that in that form. > > Are you actually going to post where I misrepresented SR, argued in favour > of Lorentz over SR, talked about grocery shops, or talked about moving > mile-markers? No point in that. You just denied addressing either of SR's postulates. ____________________________________________ There are a million things I didn't say about SR. You did not claim that I "did not explain it fully", you claimed I "misrepresented SR". I did no such thing. I did not make a single "representation" of SR which was wrong, unless you can provide some evidence ???? This is more consistent with your postings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory ______________________________________ Huh? What exactly did I say which is "more consistent" with Lorentz than SR? Have you got a quote, or did you invent this as well? If you took a class in Einstein's relativity and that is what they taught you, I'll do gladly do whatever I can to help you get a refund. ______________________________________ When you say "that", what do you mean? You mean Lorentz ether theory? I don't recall them teaching me Lorentz ether theory, they may have mentioned it, but it was well over 30 years ago. If the "that" is something else, what are you referring to? And how come I keep asking for you to supply evidence that I said the things you claim, and you have yet to provide a single quote of what I said that you think is wrong? Is it because you can't actually find anything I said which is wrong, and you have simply lied when you claimed I said those things? Again, why do you have to lie? If there is anything at all that I have said in this thread which you think is wrong, produce the quote and say why you think its wrong. If there is nothing at all that I have said in this thread which you think is wrong, then I don't know why you keep trying to pretend otherwise. Now, got a quote from me which you think is wrong?
From: Edward Green on 3 Apr 2010 09:17 On Mar 31, 10:32 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 31 Mar, 13:28, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1a763a4d-f2be-4d9c-b38e-75432d145743(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > On 29 Mar, 22:40, 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. > > > Unfortunately, this explanation has previously foundered when I've > > asked whether this "contraction" is real or apparent. > > > ____________________________ > > > 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. It seems more > believable 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. I'd say the contraction is both real and reciprocal. There is an idea which I like to call concept splitting, which happens when two concepts which seemed to form an indivisible whole are suddenly found to be separable. You feel that the contraction cannot be both real and reciprocal, but I assert that it is. For each observer, the contraction of relatively moving matter is as real as any effect can be -- including an observer moving at near light speed wrt almost everything else in the universe.
From: Sue... on 3 Apr 2010 09:19 On Apr 3, 1:53 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:138753a8-93f4-457e-a8ce-9ac66356b0d0(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 3, 12:45 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:8af8a843-617b-4a4c-943d-096b712a9626(a)n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 3, 12:31 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >news:e9522292-a675-45e8-86d7-441848765ed4(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Apr 3, 12:05 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > > >news:eb6af071-e07b-4771-8722-d5f20fc9a0ac(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Apr 2, 11:30 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > Again, that must have been somebody else. If you think it was me, > > > > > you > > > > > should > > > > > dig up the quote from me. I am happy to defend what *I* say in this > > > > > newsgroup, but I cannot be held responsible for things I didn't say. > > > > > We will entertain the possibly that someone else > > > > is smart enough to know the difference in > > > > moving a grocer and moving mile-markers > > > > on the road to the grocer but the difference > > > > escapes you. That is consistent with your > > > > misrepresentation of Einstein's relativity. > > > > > ____________________________________ > > > > Huh? Where did I misrepresent "Einstein's relativity"? > > > > Where did you say: > > > > "All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > > for the performance of all physical experiments" > > > > Sue... > > > > ________________________________ > > > I didn't. > > > Thank you. > > > ______________________________ > > Your welcome. > > > Where did you say the speed of light is > > independent of the motion of the emitter > > and absorber? > > > __________________________________ > > I'm not sure I did, at least not that in that form. > ================= > > Are you actually going to post where I misrepresented SR, argued in favour > > of Lorentz over SR, talked about grocery shops, or talked about moving > > mile-markers? You may have noticed that the less I know about a subject the more confidence I have, and the more new light I throw on it. - A Bibliography of Mark Twain, Johnson,1935 Read your C.V. (About the 2nd sentence you posted to this thread) <<...one of Einstein's two main reasons for abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological in the context of the general theory. >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm You need to learn enough GR so you have some basis to formalise what is real and what is imaginary before you can convey anything but nonsense to another person. This is specifically the subject you are trying to help Ste with and you are failing miserably. Nearly all your statements are wrong in this regard. Start here: http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Sue...
From: Edward Green on 3 Apr 2010 09:19
On Mar 30, 6:18 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 30, 5:28 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: <...> > > Better watch it. You are starting to give relevant quotes. :-) :-) :-) > > My parents were the same way. Just as > I was putting adolescence behind they > got smarter almost overnight. Or most of your citations really are almost completely irrelevant. |