Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Mar 2010 10:57 On 3/2/10 9:39 AM, JT wrote: > > Now ***third*** object C must be able to travel at free velocity > relative A and B emitting simultaneously light laser pulses towards A > and B. Now A and B have to time the moment each pulse reach them. > Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they tick at the same rate. Now let us suppose that A and B have NO motion, such that their velocity with respect to each other, v = 0, and that dv/dt = 0 . Let's further assume that C is "able to travel at free velocity relative A and B, i.e., v > 0, and that dv/dt = 0 . Disregarding any Doppler shift, C measures B's time interval as ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B and C measures A's time interval as ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity between C and (A or B), and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html More: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html
From: JT on 2 Mar 2010 17:45 On 2 mar, 13:04, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > If SR is wrong, how come particle accelerators like CERN work properly? If SR is wrong how come bananas is yellow, cars run on gasoline tell me, tell me. I tell you it is not relevant. JT
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 21:21 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:571f9a7e-1180-48b9-9d9b-8e47dd553ab2(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 2 mar, 13:04, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> If SR is wrong, how come particle accelerators like CERN work properly? > > If SR is wrong how come bananas is yellow, cars run on gasoline tell > me, tell me. > SR makes no predictions about the colour of bananas. > I tell you it is not relevant. > > JT SR does make very specific predictions as to what happens to particles accelerated near the speed of light. We do that every day in particle accelerators all over the earth. If SR is wrong, how come particle accelerators work properly?
From: spudnik on 3 Mar 2010 17:48 are you imaginng the "pulses of light" to be photons? thus: yeah, like the UNIPCC *says* that it includes a fudge-factor to account for "urban heat islands," but it never seems to appear to be used in any actual study (in general). also, this is belied by what happenned to a mere dataset, the US Reference Climate Network (28 continental stations that were still rural since their creation, circa '80s .-) > That at least helps, but to avoid one common objection, he should also > avoid stations in areas that have become more urbanized during the > period in question. thus: that was a nice essay on bears!... of course, there are more polar bears, now, then in the past 40 years -- I think, I read, some recent time -- perhaps because there are more "eskimos" (Inuit, BP employees etc.) and more gahbage; do bears really like gahbage? as for AGW, or just GW, or let me put it as, as for "global" warming, that is primarily one of three things, based mainly upon a) computerized simulacra and b) very selective reporting. (the three things are a) misnomer, b) nonsequiter, c) oxymoron, although there does appear to be actual data to support equitorial warming, possibly even anthropogenic equitorial warming.) what I prefer is a new nomenclature; not only do we live in the Holocene interglacial of the Quaternary period, but we also live in the Anthropocene. > I'm not actually a fan of most of the positions taken by the Sierra > Club, but AGW happens to be the mainstream consensus of the scientific > community. You know, like relativity or evolution. thus: isn't the platypus a nonplacental mammal, as in, What does her milk taste like?... please, don't bother with the pro-hominemania of your supposed status as a practicing and/or trained physicist, or netdoggy! proabably most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results, a la Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon, in assinging all of the energy of the wave-front as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence the wave-energy was somehow collected by the photoeletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a) just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b) show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned to absorb a particular frequency of light. so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just one cycle of the frequency? > > with 'Heat is radiated by photons'. What is physically occurring in > > nature to cause 'heat' to exist and to be radiated? None of that is > > answered with meaningless statements like 'Absorbed photon'. What does --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ --The Ides of March Are Coming: Pro-Impeachment Democrat Wins Nomination in Texas! http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.html
From: JT on 3 Mar 2010 20:39
On 3 mar, 23:48, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > are you imaginng the "pulses of light" to be photons? > > thus: > yeah, like the UNIPCC *says* that it includes a fudge-factor > to account for "urban heat islands," but it never seems > to appear to be used in any actual study (in general). also, > this is belied by what happenned to a mere dataset, > the US Reference Climate Network (28 continental stations > that were still rural since their creation, circa '80s .-) > > > That at least helps, but to avoid one common objection, he should also > > avoid stations in areas that have become more urbanized during the > > period in question. > > thus: > that was a nice essay on bears!... of course, > there are more polar bears, now, then in the past 40 years > -- I think, I read, some recent time -- perhaps because > there are more "eskimos" (Inuit, BP employees etc.) and more gahbage; > do bears really like gahbage? > > as for AGW, or just GW, or let me put it as, > as for "global" warming, that is primarily one of three things, > based mainly upon a) > computerized simulacra and b) > very selective reporting. (the three things are a) > misnomer, b) > nonsequiter, c) > oxymoron, although there does appear > to be actual data to support equitorial warming, > possibly even anthropogenic equitorial warming.) > > what I prefer is a new nomenclature; > not only do we live in the Holocene interglacial > of the Quaternary period, but > we also live in the Anthropocene. > > > I'm not actually a fan of most of the positions taken by the Sierra > > Club, but AGW happens to be the mainstream consensus of the scientific > > community. You know, like relativity or evolution. > > thus: > isn't the platypus a nonplacental mammal, as in, > What does her milk taste like?... please, don't bother > with the pro-hominemania of your supposed status > as a practicing and/or trained physicist, or netdoggy! > > proabably most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results, > a la Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon, in assinging > all > of the energy of the wave-front as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) > of a particle, whence the wave-energy was somehow collected > by the photoeletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a) > just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b) > show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned > to absorb a particular frequency of light. > > so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period of the sound, and > like-wise, is the photon just one cycle of the frequency? > > > > with 'Heat is radiated by photons'. What is physically occurring in > > > nature to cause 'heat' to exist and to be radiated? None of that is > > > answered with meaningless statements like 'Absorbed photon'. What does > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com > > --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ > > --The Ides of March Are Coming: > Pro-Impeachment Democrat > Wins Nomination in Texas!http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.html Wrong thread............ |