Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 4 Mar 2010 00:45 don't top-post! so, you & the OP were using waves > > are you imaginng the "pulses of light" to be photons? > Wrong thread............- Hide quoted text - thus: don't blame the arbiters of nettikett for your pathological top-posting! > read more »- Hide quoted text -> - Show quoted text - thus: you mean, Kepler's three orbital constraints? now, if you must top-post, don't blame it on some hare-brained proponent of some God-am nettikett -- "read more," Baby! > physical model or explanation for gravity. However there does exist > such a physical model which, from it Newton equation is derived as the thus: "Time shall henceforth be seen on the same footing as space," and then, he died. what a great geometer & numbertheorist, yet he is primarily known for this silly slogan about phase-space -- what every electronics technician uses in the lab, or out in the field, a bit after Minkowski's time, I guess, although ampere's instruments were simple & widely available ... er, Dalembert's?... D'Arsinval?... the Fourth Muskateer, Fresnel? pretty sad, for a teacher of Einstien to be so adumbrated. > >> Minkowksi space time? thus: hey, so did the epicycle for the precession of the equinoxes! http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galileo-QA/Gravity_Effect/Gravity_Assist.1 > and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the > planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no > retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer. thus: "bending of time-space" is nonsequiter, and Latin is a better dead, synthetic langauge than Esperanto! it is a phase-space, the one that is do-able in quaternions (a.k.a. vector mechanics), at least insofar as *special* relativity goes. > That'd be an excellent point, if gravitational (notice the difference) waves > were the only prediction of GR. thus quoth: Danil Doubochinski emphasizes that argumental oscillations had already found wide application in the design of particle accelerators and electron tubes, as well as in investigations of socalled Fermi acceleration of cosmic rays, long before the Doubochinski brothers original work in the late 1960s and 1970s. Argumental oscillations had already appeared, around 1919, in the pioneering work of Barkhausen and Kurz on the generation of microwaves. They noted that oscillating electrons, interacting with the high frequency electromagnetic field in the tubes they had constructed, spontaneously organized themselves into bunches, moving in equal phase with http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 07:53 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2e2fd274-f957-4d5e-b092-9ec061c6ba34(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [snip for brevity[ > No you did not even answer in the simplest scenario with one emitter > and the two receivers, there is two possible answers. > > Either the timings (B-A) for both experiment X and Y is the ***same*** > or ***not***. > And you did not even answer that. Here is a copy /paste from my earlier answer (that you claim I never made) === > there is two spatially > separated object A,B at relative rest Yes .. that's pretty much what you said above > and one emitter C in the common > vector This is new .. you just said it had 'free velocity; whatever that meant. What is this new 'common vector' terminology you have invented? Do you mean it is colinear with A and B and moving in the direction of the vector between them? you really need to learn how to phrase things so they actually make sense. > of objects that fire lightpulses against the two objects at two > different moments, and with two velocities the distance between > objects do not matter at this time. C->-------A-------B > > Will (B-A) moment/emission X be the same as (B-A) moment emisson Y. In that scenario, as long as C remains on the same side of A B, yes .. if the second pulse happens when it gets past A, then no. > Still confused, No .. you are just very sloppy at describing scenarios and make up your own terminology and expect others to work out what it means. Perhaps if you actually study physics (and learn some) you'd avoid the embarrassment of having to re-explain things that you got wrong. It would also help if you actually DID explain things the first time, instead of adding in new conditions each time. > maybe you need help from the kindergarten group Sam > likes to take help from when confronted with examples that SR can not > handle? There is nothing about it the SR does not handle. Light travels at c from C to A and then on to B. So the difference in time is determined by a) the difference in clock settings (as you said they were not synchronized, but assume are ticking at the same rate .. so it would be constant) and b) that light travels at c for the fixed distance between A and B (so that is constant). That makes the difference constant. The velocity of C makes no difference. === AS you can see .. I answered it
From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 08:05 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2e2fd274-f957-4d5e-b092-9ec061c6ba34(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [snip for brevity[ > No you did not even answer in the simplest scenario with one emitter > and the two receivers, there is two possible answers. > > Either the timings (B-A) for both experiment X and Y is the ***same*** > or ***not***. > And you did not even answer that. Here is a copy /paste from my earlier answer (that you claim I never made) === > there is two spatially > separated object A,B at relative rest Yes .. that's pretty much what you said above > and one emitter C in the common > vector This is new .. you just said it had 'free velocity; whatever that meant. What is this new 'common vector' terminology you have invented? Do you mean it is colinear with A and B and moving in the direction of the vector between them? you really need to learn how to phrase things so they actually make sense. > of objects that fire lightpulses against the two objects at two > different moments, and with two velocities the distance between > objects do not matter at this time. C->-------A-------B > > Will (B-A) moment/emission X be the same as (B-A) moment emisson Y. In that scenario, as long as C remains on the same side of A B, yes .. if the second pulse happens when it gets past A, then no. > Still confused, No .. you are just very sloppy at describing scenarios and make up your own terminology and expect others to work out what it means. Perhaps if you actually study physics (and learn some) you'd avoid the embarrassment of having to re-explain things that you got wrong. It would also help if you actually DID explain things the first time, instead of adding in new conditions each time. > maybe you need help from the kindergarten group Sam > likes to take help from when confronted with examples that SR can not > handle? There is nothing about it the SR does not handle. Light travels at c from C to A and then on to B. So the difference in time is determined by a) the difference in clock settings (as you said they were not synchronized, but assume are ticking at the same rate .. so it would be constant) and b) that light travels at c for the fixed distance between A and B (so that is constant). That makes the difference constant. The velocity of C makes no difference. === As you can see .. I answered it
From: Sam Wormley on 5 Mar 2010 15:50 On 3/5/10 2:45 PM, JT wrote: > Nah it was not the puzzle that defeated SR it was inertial, the honest > one about SR, he actually proved the theory incorrect by boldly > stipulating the new term separation velocity and guess!!!! > Wrong -- Nobody has show SR to be incorrect. There has NEVER been an observation that has contradicted a prediction of SR.
From: JT on 5 Mar 2010 17:08
On 5 mar, 21:50, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/5/10 2:45 PM, JT wrote: > > > Nah it was not the puzzle that defeated SR it was inertial, the honest > > one about SR, he actually proved the theory incorrect by boldly > > stipulating the new term separation velocity and guess!!!! > > Wrong -- Nobody has show SR to be incorrect. There has NEVER been > an observation that has contradicted a prediction of SR. http://www.youtube.com/user/JmanNo42?feature=mhw4#p/a/f/1/evcIPAXPhNY The candy man rules... Oooooh it feels just like it should..... JT |