Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 7 Apr 2010 10:56 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:d4164daa-e436-440a-89a3-06ae4f8a40ad(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 9:37 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7 abr, 09:29, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 7, 9:03 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On 7 abr, 03:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On 7 Apr, 05:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > yes .. just as we would if we said that the barn-frame observer >> > > > > says the >> > > > > pole both fits and doesn't. But, despite you obfuscation and >> > > > > trying to >> > > > > distract from what is actually being discussed .. that is not the >> > > > > case >> >> > > > It's not obfuscation. My arguments are perfectly reasonable. And my >> > > > question is this: "does the ladder fit with both doors shut, or >> > > > not?". >> > > > It cannot fit and not fit at the same time. There are only two >> > > > objects, ladder and barn. You can't say "according to the barn, it >> > > > fits, but according to the ladder, it doesn't", because then you >> > > > have >> > > > two objects that disagree about their relationship with each other, >> > > > and indeed make mutually exclusive and contradictory statements >> > > > about >> > > > their relationship.. >> >> > ================= >> >> > > Again, your problem (as anybody else here and everywhere clearly >> > > understand the gedanken) is that you misunderstand basic physics. "A >> > > nuclear blast happens" ... >> >> > <<The standard model is a gauge theory of the >> > strong (SU(3)) and electroweak (SU(2)�U(1)) >> > interactions with the gauge group (sometimes >> > called the Standard Model symmetry group) >> > SU(3)�SU(2)�U(1). >> >> > It does not take into account gravitation. >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model >> >> > By equivalence, it doesn't not apply to inertia. >> >> > IOW Nuclear reactions do not obey Newtons laws >> > in *any* inertial frame so they can't preserve >> > those laws in a relatively moving frame. >> >> > Sue... >> >> Yeah....right!!! >> >> And quite relevant too!!! >> >> We know your problems are not in the underwear you use, but what is >> inside it. In such a case, more toilet paper is advised... > > <<Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by > scenario. That is, we are told a story, but nothing > else; we have no description of any possible physical > process. For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) > claimed that another planet passing near the earth > caused the earth's spin axis to flip upside down. > This is all he said. He gave no mechanisms. But the > mechanism is all-important, because the laws of > physics rule out the process as impossible. >> > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > See also: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory We are talking SR .. not LET. Try to keep up, quotebot.
From: Sue... on 7 Apr 2010 11:03 On Apr 7, 1:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:6db9453e-2e8f-4738-94c8-5f87db3d3e65(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 7, 12:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:e4994a4b-93da-4ece-bd88-077ab91ec886(a)r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Apr 6, 9:39 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> > wrote: > >> >> <SNIP> > > >> >> > Any change in velocity involves acceleration, because that is what > >> >> > acceleration is. > > >> >> >>> >> > Indeed, a bullet that flies past > >> >> >>> >> > your ear undergoes a dramatic change of relative velocity to > >> >> >>> >> > you > >> >> >>> >> > as > >> >> >>> >> > it > >> >> >>> >> > passes (it approaches and then recedes), > > >> >> >>> >> No .. it doesn't > > >> >> >>> > I would argue that it does, > > >> >> >>> And you'd lose. It has the same velocity the whole time (unless > >> >> >>> you > >> >> >>> include > >> >> >>> slowing due to air-resistance, and acceleration due to gravity ... > >> >> >>> but > >> >> >>> I > >> >> >>> don't think that is what you meant) > > >> >> >> I don't see how this can be true. > > >> >> > Then thingk > > >> >> >> The bullet changes angle, distance, > > >> >> > You get that because it is moving .. not because of acceleration > > >> >> >> and speed, and direction, relative to the head as it passes. > > >> >> > No .. it doesn't. It has the same velocity and direction the whole > >> >> > time > >> >> > in the head's frame of reference. it is moving at a constant speed > >> >> > in > >> >> > a > >> >> > straigh line (we are ignoring air reistance and gravity here) > > >> >> >> Are you sure we aren't arguing over the difference between > >> >> >> "velocity > >> >> >> relative to a coordinate system" (which I think is what you mean), > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> "velocity relative to each other, with no coordinate system in > >> >> >> play" (which is what I mean - if indeed I'm using the right words > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> describe it)? > > >> >> > No .. we are arguing over your completely misunderstanding the > >> >> > motion > >> >> > of a > >> >> > bullet. > > >> >> No, the problem is that Ste does not understand basic concepts like > >> >> acceleration, and hence basic Newtonian physics. > > >> > ==================== > > >> >> A pre-requisite, I would have thought, for understanding SR. > > >> > Actually, if one never learns of Newton's light-corpuscles > >> > SR isn't needed to unlearn them. > > > ============== > >> SR does not depend on whether light is corpuscular or not > > > <<Consider a light wave which propagates along > > the x-axis in S with velocity c. According > > to the Galilean transformation, the > > > --> apparent speed <-- > > > of propagation in S' is c-v, which violates the > > relativity principle.>> > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html > > Yeup .. do you see how it is described as a wave there? Not as corpuscular. > Probably not. ======================> > > Would you care to elaborate how the speed > > of light could acquire the *apperance* > > indicated by the formula? Since you seem a bit challenged in maths, (sums can really be hell, Eh? ) I will give you a huge hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory Sue... > > You think waves cannot have speed? That only corpuscles can? > > SR doesn't depends on any particular means of propagation for light .. only > that the speed at which it does so between any two points where you measure > it is c.
From: Edward Green on 7 Apr 2010 11:21 On Apr 7, 3:01 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <...> > The fact that I can discuss all these examples, and not get a response > along the lines of "Yes, I know exactly what you mean Steven, and > you're quite right about how you describe these effects/scenarios. But > with SR, there is more, on top of those effects you've already > described, and it works like this ...", and for no one to be able to > give an explanation that incorporates the points already raised and > which does not resort to simple affirmations of the truth of their > assertions, leads me to believe that I might be asking the blind to > lead the blind. It's more laziness of thought. That's why jem only hears me repeating the same point over and over again, obstinantely, whereas I have been continually refining my arguments. It's the same with you. Once a person knows how a subject works, on some level, he is loath to devote time to disecting detailed non-standard arguments. He is simply eager to explain his understanding.
From: PD on 7 Apr 2010 11:57 On Apr 6, 7:12 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 6 Apr, 18:28, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 6, 12:14 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 6 Apr, 17:02, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 6, 10:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 6 Apr, 16:28, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 6:41 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 5 Apr, 22:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 3:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm happy to make concessions, but I have to be able to ask questions > > > > > > > > > and get meaningful answers. The ladder in the barn is a prime example. > > > > > > > > > I'm told "the ladder contracts to fit in the barn". > > > > > > > > > It contracts to fit the barn in the rest frame of the barn, which is > > > > > > > > why the ladder makes no marks on the barn doors when the doors are > > > > > > > > shut at the same time. In the rest frame of the ladder, the ladder > > > > > > > > does not contract and indeed does not fit inside the barn at all. In > > > > > > > > the rest frame of the ladder, the reason why there are no marks on the > > > > > > > > barn doors when they are shut is that they were not shut at the same > > > > > > > > time in this frame. > > > > > > > > This logic is easily defeated Paul, because if we contracted the > > > > > > > ladder's length *just* enough so that it marked the door in the barn > > > > > > > frame (in other words, the ladder has contracted just enough to manage > > > > > > > an interference fit with both doors shut), then this cannot be > > > > > > > accounted for in the ladder frame (because, in the ladder frame, if > > > > > > > the ladder is *even larger* relative to the barn than when it started, > > > > > > > then the ladder could not possibly mark the doors in the same way). > > > > > > > I'm not sure what the fuss is. The observation is that the doors are > > > > > > shut and open without striking the pole, and this is true in both > > > > > > reference frames examined (as well as any other inertial reference > > > > > > frame). The account in the ladder frame is, however, not because the > > > > > > ladder fits inside the barn. It is exactly as I described above.. Why > > > > > > is this difficult? > > > > > > It isn't difficult for me. I can explain it, in its entirety, in terms > > > > > of a "visual effect" and the careful timing of the doors. It's other > > > > > people here who keep insisting that it is not a visual effect, and > > > > > hence the fuss. > > > > > I don't believe it's a "visual effect" at all. The doors are closed > > > > and opened by a common trigger, electronically. > > > > > Is it your claim that the doors are "really" closed and opened > > > > simultaneously, but they only visually appear to close and open > > > > nonsimultaneously in the ladder frame? Then how does the 80 foot > > > > ladder fit into the 40 ft barn without the doors striking the ladder, > > > > if the doors are "really" closed simultaneously? > > > > I would contend that the ladder never does fit, and even though it > > > would *appear* observationally to be small enough to fit, any attempt > > > to actually shut the doors while the ladder is inside will produce > > > catastrophe. > > > This is inconsistent with experiment. > > We've had this one before Paul. No experiment of this kind (i.e. > trying to confine objects moving at relativistic speeds) has ever been > performed. I even gave sources last time for this statement. That is simply not true. At RHIC, for example, where nucleus-nucleus collisions are done, the density of the quarks and gluons goes up precisely because of this Lorentz contraction. The nucleus is "squashed" and the density goes up. This is essential to both the design and the operation of this multimillion dollar facility. Furthermore, secondary particle emission from particle collisions have been done in both fixed target and collider facilities. Under both circumstances, relativity predicts the uniform distribution of those secondaries according to a variable called rapidity. In experiments, calorimeters are then arranged around the collision point and segmented in regular rapidity bins. Naturally, because the two experiments are viewing the same collisions from two different reference frames, the length binning for equal rapidity bins is considerably different, precisely because of Lorentz contraction. Thus, the distribution by rapidity, as shown by the particle deposits in the calorimeter, is an indirect but definitive check on Lorentz contraction. Experimentally, the match-up is exquisite. It's unfortunate that your web references are not accurate on this score, and have led you to the impression that Lorentz contraction is all hypothetical and without experimental support. I will just attribute this to the lack of depth of experimental information you've been able to lay your hands on. > > > As I mentioned before, the first thing one must do in the case of an > > observational science, is to not deny what is actually seen in > > experiment, just because you do not immediately understand how that > > outcome could arise. > > No one is denying what is seen. The ladder and barn paradox has never > been "seen". We have merely reasoned, using the tenets of SR, that > this is what we *would* see, if we were able to perform an experiment. And equivalent experiments, those that demonstrate this effect, have indeed been done. > But as I've said previously, even if this *is* what we would "see", > seeing is not necessarily believing. And this is what I'm telling you is a bad policy in science. If experiment comes in conflict with common sense -- that is, if what you see is in conflict with what you understand -- then it is common sense that should properly give way. I understand fully that you say you just don't operate that way, and don't see why you should have to. > > Incidentally, I seem to remember Terrell ruled out any real > observation of this contraction. > > > As indicated above, the doors are closed and then opened by a single > > trigger and equal-length, exchangeable cables. There is no catastrophe > > observed. > > You're asserting this. There is no experimental evidence of this being > the case. You are wrong.
From: PD on 7 Apr 2010 11:59
On Apr 6, 7:27 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 6 Apr, 19:44, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 10:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You still haven't answered why 'fitting' must be absolute > > > > Because of the obviousness of the concept. A thing cannot fit and at > > > the same time not fit, because there is a logical contradiction in the > > > meaning of those words. And nor can the state be subjective for each > > > observer, otherwise that isn't materialism (and it isn't causal > > > either). Or to repeat my earlier analogy, you can't hit a person over > > > the head with a hammer, and merely daze him *at the same time as* > > > cracking his skull wide open. > > > This business about a thing fitting and not fitting being a > > contradiction... > > > A penny on the armrest of a plane is at rest in one reference frame > > and not at rest in another reference frame. Is it not obvious to you > > that there is a logical contradiction in those claims? > > No, because *everyone* agrees about how the penny is moving with > respect to any other object. But motion is not defined with respect to another object. It is defined with respect to a coordinate system, a reference frame. > > > How does the > > penny change from being at rest in one frame to not being at rest in > > another frame, without there being some physical interaction with the > > penny to cause that change? > > Because it *doesn't* change from being "at rest" to "not at rest". > There is no "change" at all. Both the man on the plane, and the man on > the ground, agree that the penny is stationary relative to the flyer, > and moving relative to the man on the ground. The penny does not > "change" from being stationary to moving. What changes is the object > to which you are making reference. I'm not making reference to any object. The motion of an object is with regard to a coordinate system, a reference frame. This is basic, high school physics. > > > Penny dropping from the armrest of the plane falls down in a straight > > line to the floor of the plane in one reference frame, but in another > > reference frame its path is a parabolic arc. Is it not obvious to you > > that there is a logical contradiction in those claims? How does the > > path change from being in a straight line to a parabolic arc? > > It doesn't change. Both observers agree that the penny moves in the > same way, with respect to any reference object. So for example, the > man on the ground agrees that if the penny is dropped in the middle of > the plane, then the penny maintains its position relative to each end > of the plane (and, obviously, moving closer to the floor). And the man > on the plane agrees with this: the penny maintained it's position > relative to each end of the plane. There is no contradiction. > > > You see how easy it is to fool yourself with statements you believe > > are contradictory... > > I'm not fooled Paul. |