Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Physics]
|
From: Sue... on 3 Apr 2010 09:25 On Apr 3, 9:19 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > 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. That will be clear when this causes a Damascus moment for you: << * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications Happy preying, Sue...
From: J. Clarke on 3 Apr 2010 09:42 On 4/3/2010 9:19 AM, Sue... wrote: > 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 So you buy general relativity but prefer the Lorentz Ether Theory to Special Relativity. That's like claiming you're a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus. It's official. You're a loon. <plonk> > > Sue... > > >
From: Ste on 3 Apr 2010 10:17 On 3 Apr, 04:11, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> > Yes, but it involves no change in the frequency generated by the > >> >> > source. > > >> >> The frequency of the sound depends entirely on the reference frame in > >> >> which > >> >> it is measured. > > >> > No, the *received* frequency of sound depends on the reference frame. > > >> How can you measure a frequency without receiving it? What is this > >> supposed > >> to mean? > > > You could measure the emitted sound frequency, in this case, by using > > an electromagnetic (i.e. something like LADAR) measurement of the > > vibration of the source (and it is that vibration that we know to be > > the generator of the sound). In this way, we measure the frequency of > > the sound source, without receiving any sound. > > Well, you aren't measuring the frequency of the sound, you are measuring the > frequency with which an object vibrates. Yes, which is the frequency of the sound to any sane person! I think I can finally be sure that you're someone who subscribes to the philosophy that "a tree does not make a sound if there is no one around to hear it", but that's not materialism, it's clearly an idealistic approach. > That will allow you to work out the frequency of the sound in the rest > freame of the emitter, but so what? You could just as easily do this with a > microphone and an oscilloscope next to the speaker, and measure the > frequency directly. Indeed, but the important thing here is that the LADAR measurement is *invariant* under changes of velocity, and so we can clearly say that if the receiver changes relative velocity, it is *not* the source that has changed frequency. Indeed, one can exceed the speed of sound completely, and therefore by your logic the source is no longer making a sound at all, and yet a LADAR measurement verifies that the sound source is in fact working normally, and emitting sound in the same consistent way (in other words, "time" has not stopped or slowed down at all for the source, any more than "time stops" if you put your fingers in your ears). > The same principle applies in SR, by the way. You can look at an atomic > clock in some other reference frame and work out the rate at which it is > ticking in its rest frame. Let's stick to sound for now, because I need you to understand the meaning of my questions first, because there is clearly a disconnect of understanding. > If you are trying to develop an argument that there is some special > reference frame for measuring frequency in which it is invariant, then you > are completely correct. Exactly the same applies in SR; there is a reference > frame for measuring length in which it is invariant, and that is the rest > frame of the object. No, I'm trying to develop an argument that when a person asks "has time really slowed down", they're not asking you to issue a crude report of what you detect with your senses (in other words, report simply what *appears* to be the case), but on the contrary they are asking you to employ your powers of thought, your knowledge of theory, your years of learning and experience, to make a meaningful *interpretation* of what is already apparent to everyone. Ironically, I was expecting you to react harshly to my "spaceship on the monitor" question, but in the event you accepted that what appears on the monitor is not necessarily a representation of "real objects" with "real attributes", but is a cunning visual trick which merely makes it *appear* that a spaceship is in the sky. The same is true of my questions about special relativity. When I ask "does time really slow down", I'm asking you to interpret the crude observations, and hypothesise about what is *really* happening, independent of our ability to measure what is happening. In developing this argument, the analogy with sound is a brilliant analogy from my perspective, because sound manifests the same Dopper shifting and time dilatory effects. But the ace is that we still have LADAR to fall back on in order to make measurements of the source, and even though the sound source time dilates when measured with the ear (or a microphone), we can verify with LADAR that it is indeed still vibrating at the same frequency, so we *know* that "time itself" has *not* slowed down at all (and the effect is merely due to propagation delays in the sound medium). (Also, for the sake of completeness, in GR there *is* a real time dilation effect, but that is a discussion for another day, and after we have nailed down SR.) > >> > At the nub of this is the fact that the audio source, if it is > >> > oscillating at say 500Hz a second, continues to do so *no matter what* > >> > its relative velocity (at least if we disregard relativistic effects > >> > at high velocities for now, for the simplicity of the argument which > >> > applies nevertheless). > > >> Yes. > > >> Similarly, an atomic clock travelling at 0.9c continues to tick at > >> exactly > >> the same rate in its own inertial frame of reference. > > > Lol. No no no. The sound source continues to oscillate at 500Hz > > according to *all* observers, no matter what speed they are travelling > > at. (For the sake of this argument, we are confining possible speeds > > to within the speed of sound). > > "Sound source" ? > > Do you by that mean the frequency of the sound measured by an observer > stationary with respect to the train? If so, the same applies in SR. > > If "sound source" does not mean that, what does it mean? The "frequency of the sound source" means "the frequency of oscillation at the source". The beauty with a sound source is that we can measure the oscillations (and hence, the "sound source frequency") with light instead of sound. (And to hedge my bets for the umpteenth time, at relativistic speeds, even the LADAR method would fall down, because electromagnetic propagation delays would also start to become dominant. But the point of the argument is merely to illustrate that what is "apparent" is not the same as what is "real".) > >> >> Changing the relative speed of the train definitely changes the > >> >> frequency > >> >> of > >> >> the sound. > > >> >> You can easily verify this yourself. > > >> > You clearly still don't understand the significance of my argument, > >> > which is that the *apparent* frequency, as measured by a receiver, can > >> > be affected by the receiver's *own* circumstances, as much as by an > >> > actual change of frequency at the source. > > >> That is correct, except that the effect is not just "apparent", it is > >> real, > >> as can be easily verified by measuring it. > > >> A tone which is emitted in a moving trains reference frame at 100 Hz > >> might > >> be measured in a stationary frame as being 120 Hz. This is as real as a > >> tone > >> of 120 Hz directly emitted from a stationary train. There is not test > >> which > >> can tell them about; none. > > > You mean except a test that measures the oscillation of the sound > > source with light instead of sound? You lack imagination Peter. > > No. I mean a test of the frequency of the sound that is received. But we're not interested in what is received, because what is received is a product of more than one variable. What we are interested in is ascertaining the sound source frequency, and isolating it as an invariant. If we know that the sound source is invariant, then we know that the cause of the Doppler shifting is the propagation delay. But if we *didn't* know that the sound source was invariant, then the apparent Doppler shifting it could just as easily be (the usual kind of) Doppler shifting, or it could easily be a change in the source frequency caused by some unknown mechanical interaction between the source and receiver that causes the source to change frequency when the receiver moves. Or to put it another way, imagine I am stood at the side of the road singing. You are approaching me in a car at a constant speed. You notice that on your approach, my voice has a certain tone. But as you pass, the tone drops. Now, did the tone of my voice "really" drop, or is it Doppler shifting? Or in other words, did I intentionally drop the tone of my voice as you passed, or did I keep the tone of my voice constant and the "drop" you heard was the Doppler effect? > >> > It is significant, to any > >> > scientific investigation or understanding, to establish what the > >> > *cause* is of the change of received frequency. > > >> Relative motion. We all know that already. > > > Yes, but with sound it's easy to understand (in common sense > > mechanical terms) *why* relative motion causes Doppler shifting, and > > it's also clear (at least to me) that the effect is apparent, and does > > not involve a change in the frequency of the source. > > Its not just "apparent", its also real. As I keep saying - and is easily > verified - the frequency of the sound really does change. You can measure > the frequency using an oscilloscope and easily verify this for yourself. It is as "real" as the spaceship on the monitor - in other words, you can see it, and everyone else watching the monitor can see it, but it is not "real" at all. > > The problem with > > SR is I keep getting told that there *is* an actual change at the > > source. > > I don't know what other people have told you, and I would be saddened if > anybosy used these exact words, as they are so vague as to be meaningless. > > What you *should* have been told is that: > > 1. Length is a relative concept, as it depends upon the frame of reference > in which it is measured. > > 2. Frequency is a relative concept, as it depends on the frame of reference > in which it is measured. But when I ask "does the length *really* contract?", I keep getting told either "yes", or I keep getting asked "what do you mean 'real'?". And when I speculate that, in SR, the time dilation and length contraction effects are a product of propagation delays (like they are with sound), I keep getting told "no, no, no, it is nothing to do with electromagnetic propagation delays". And indeed, some posters have even gone as far as saying that an 80 foot ladder would fit in a 40 foot barn with both doors closed (and again, they insist that it is not an optical illusion, it *really* would fit inside). So, I'm sure you can understand my confusion. > >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> That is not what "apparent" vs "real" means, at least in common usage. > > >> > I concede in this particular analogy that the words are not entirely > >> > apt, but it is really a sideshow to the real question about "length > >> > contraction", where I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask "is the > >> > contraction real, or merely apparent". But if you prefer, I can phrase > >> > it as "is the contraction mechanical, or visual". > > >> Mechanical. It does not depend on visually observing objects. The twin > >> who > >> stays at home ages faster; its not some optical illusion they have > >> wrinkles > >> when the travelling twin does not. Every day SR is tested in particle > >> accelerators; AFAIK none of these depend upon "seeing" a particle being > >> emitted and "seeing" it smash into a target and then measuring the > >> difference in time of visual observations. They use mechanical > >> processes - > >> eg interactions with physical matter - to measure times. > > > Yes, but I'm still not sure this is true, not least because you either > > don't understand what I mean by the difference between "real" and > > "apparent", or at any rate you don't see the significance of the > > question. > > Correct. I don't understand what you mean by "real" and "apparent". My > "apparent" height - as measured at rest with a tape measure - is 178 cms. > What is my "real" height? How is it different? No, your *real* height is 178cms, and it is mechanically invariant. However your apparent height, measured visually (i.e. electromagnetically), can be manipulated in all sorts of ways. If I step back from you, you appear to shrink. If one of us lies down on the floor, you appear to shrink. If your image goes through a refracting lens, your apparent height can change in all sorts of ways. Indeed, I recall hearing the other week that a handful of blind people who have been given rudimentary brain implants that give them sight for the first time, struggle at first because they are not accustomed to correcting for the "apparent" effects of perspective, as objects of fixed size appear to visually grow and shrink. > >> >> The frequency of a sound generated by a moving train definitely does > >> >> really > >> >> change as its speed changes. Measure it for yourself if you don't > >> >> believe > >> >> it. > > >> > The frequency generated doesn't change - an observer onboard could > >> > attest to that. > > >> The frequency in an inertial frame is constant. Same as lengths and times > >> in > >> SR. > > >> > It is the frequency *received* that changes, depending > >> > on the circumstances of the observer. > > >> Yes. Frequency depends on the frame of reference in which it is measured. > > > No, the *received* frequency depends on the relative velocity. The > > *source* frequency doesn't. > > The length of an object in SR in its rest frame doesn't vary either. The > length in other frames does. How is this different to the frequency of a > sound? It isn't different from sound, as far as I can tell. The point is that it's real length does not change at all, and hence the 80 foot ladder *never* fits in the barn with both doors *really* closed, although it can be made to *appear* to do so.
From: Sue... on 3 Apr 2010 10:17 On Apr 3, 9:42 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 4/3/2010 9:19 AM, Sue... wrote: > > > > > 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 > ================== > So you buy general relativity For the most part, yes. The energy accounting gets unwieldy in the gravity solutions but there is nothing better. > but prefer the Lorentz Ether Theory to > Special Relativity. No... The URL is offered to help the reader discern the difference. It seems through in that respect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory That's like claiming you're a Christian who doesn't > believe in Jesus. Faith and belief has nothing to do with it. > > It's official. You're a loon. <plonk> > Thank you. I have no interest in writing for folks that can't read. Sue... > > > Sue... > >
From: Peter Webb on 3 Apr 2010 21:11
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:6919728f-49be-40ef-8552-c7cccfef9675(a)u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... 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 _________________________________ Welol, you certainly seem confident ... Read your C.V. (About the 2nd sentence you posted to this thread) _______________________________ I didn't post my CV to this thread. Again. you are confusing me with somebody else. |