MMx math
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What molecular arrangment leads to transperency?
Next: Vibrating in time and probability of particle location
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 14:41 On Jul 26, 1:03 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [Tom's "out-of-context" complaint is silly - the prior thread was > fully cited] > > On Jul 20, 9:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Indeed, without any definition of "absolute synchronization" your > > statement is meaningless (of course you really need to make a definitive > > statement, not that word salad above). If you try to state such a > > definition, be sure it actually corresponds to the world we inhabit. > > Note that zillions of measurements show that is not possible. > > First of all, no definition of absolute synchronization is needed in > this > case; second, I do have such a definition, and it definitely > "corresponds > to the world we inhabit"; Then it'd be good to demonstrate that two clocks can be so synchronized. > third, since, as you should well know, it is > not > possible to prove a negative, *no* experiment, much less zillions of > them, > can "show that it is not possible." OK, then what is understood is that the laws of physics as we know them prohibit absolute synchronization, and these laws are supported by zillions of experiments. Thus a demonstrated procedure to absolutely synchronize clocks would invalidate some laws of physics -- primarily the laws of electrodynamics, but others as well -- and it would be important to show why the modifications of those laws would not produce disagreement with those zillions of experiments. > > > "Being simultaneous" depends on which frame is used, which is > > why it has no aspect of being "absolute". > > So we agree that SR does not have absolute simultaneity or > synchronization. > > Can we now agree that a correct measurement of the length of a > passing > rod requires absolute synchronization? No, it does not. > > ~RA~
From: Tom Roberts on 28 Jul 2010 14:02 harald wrote: > Tom makes > contrary assertions about physical reality which he cannot prove > either. Go back and READ WHAT I WROTE. I made contrary assertions about SPECIAL RELATIVITY, not "physical reality". I can prove them (because SR is a well-defined and known mathematical system in which proof is possible; no "proof" is possible about any aspect of "physical reality"). The difference is profound, and important. We humans can only understand the world we inhabit via models, and it's important to use the best models to do that. At present, within its domain SR is the best model we have, which is why I discuss it. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 28 Jul 2010 14:10 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > First of all, no definition of absolute synchronization is needed in > this case; Not true. You said explicitly "truly or absolutely simultaneously", which requires a definition. > second, I do have such a definition, and it definitely > "corresponds to the world we inhabit" So you claim. Without support such claims are worthless. What is this definition, and how does it "correspond to the world we inhabit"? > third, since, as you should well know, it is > not > possible to prove a negative, *no* experiment, much less zillions of > them, > can "show that it is not possible." It is not experiments that do so, it is our current best models of the world that do so. In mathematics we prove negatives like this all the time. As I said, "In SR your claims are indeed just plain wrong." >> "Being simultaneous" depends on which frame is used, which is >> why it has no aspect of being "absolute". > > So we agree that SR does not have absolute simultaneity or > synchronization. Sure. > Can we now agree that a correct measurement of the length of a > passing > rod requires absolute synchronization? No. In part because you have not defined "absolute synchronization", and in part because there is nothing "incorrect" about measuring the length of a passing rod by marking its endpoints simultaneously and then ascribing the distance between marks as the length of the rod. After all, that is what we mean by those words. Tom Roberts
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 29 Jul 2010 14:34 On Jul 28, 2:10 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> Can we now agree that a correct measurement of the length of a >> passing rod requires absolute synchronization? > No. In part because you have not defined "absolute synchronization", > and in part because there is nothing "incorrect" about measuring the > length of a passing rod by marking its endpoints simultaneously and > then ascribing the distance between marks as the length of the rod. > After all, that is what we mean by those words. It's odd that we can agree that special relativity does not have absolute simultaneity (or synchronization) without even mentioning a definition of absolute synchronization, much less being forced to supply such. This proves that in order to merely agree or to disagree about the existence of absolute synchronization, there is no need to produce an absolute synchronization procedure. This takes care of the first part of your "in part" above. We shall now concentrate on the second part. As you shall soon see, not only is SR's passing-rod length measure- ment incorrect, but even it's "stationary" measurement is bogus. The length of a "stationary" rod is euphemistically called "the proper length." This is a meaningless appellation unless one can prove that one's ruler was not physically contracted during the measurement process. I see no such proof in SR. Now on to the passing rod case. I notice that you unhesitatingly fell into the same euphemistic mode in this case by saying "marking its endpoints simultaneously." And this was just after you had agreed that SR does not have true or absolute simultaneity! It's either simultaneous or not. And in SR, it's not. You need to fully describe SR's procedure for measuring the length of a passing rod. To do this, you must start with two clocks which have not yet been "synchronized" per Einstein's definition. Then you must fully justify and/or prove the validity of each step. That is, you must justify Einstein's definition, you must prove that your "at-rest" ruler is not physically contracted, and you must prove that your clocks are not physically slowed. (This is not to say that such physical distortions occur, but only that they could, which of course means that this must be taken into account by any theory.) The entire burden of proof lies on your shoulders because you are claiming to have a correct measurement system. I need do nothing but beg for the proofs. ~RA~
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 29 Jul 2010 17:50
Da Do Ron Ron aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T aks <ron_aikas(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message dc5ae51c-3ad0-4a96-9958-8bc6825b2b03(a)q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com > On Jul 28, 2:10 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > >>> Can we now agree that a correct measurement of the length of a >>> passing rod requires absolute synchronization? > >> No. In part because you have not defined "absolute synchronization", >> and in part because there is nothing "incorrect" about measuring the >> length of a passing rod by marking its endpoints simultaneously and >> then ascribing the distance between marks as the length of the rod. >> After all, that is what we mean by those words. > > It's odd that we can agree that special relativity does not have > absolute > simultaneity (or synchronization) without even mentioning a definition > of > absolute synchronization, much less being forced to supply such. > This proves that in order to merely agree or to disagree about the > existence of absolute synchronization, there is no need to produce > an absolute synchronization procedure. > > This takes care of the first part of your "in part" above. > > We shall now concentrate on the second part. > > As you shall soon see, not only is SR's passing-rod length measure- > ment incorrect, but even it's "stationary" measurement is bogus. > > The length of a "stationary" rod is euphemistically called "the > proper length." This is a meaningless appellation unless one can > prove that one's ruler was not physically contracted during the > measurement process. I see no such proof in SR. > > Now on to the passing rod case. > > I notice that you unhesitatingly fell into the same euphemistic > mode in this case by saying "marking its endpoints simultaneously." > And this was just after you had agreed that SR does not have true > or absolute simultaneity! > > It's either simultaneous or not. And in SR, it's not. > > You need to fully describe SR's procedure for measuring the length > of a passing rod. > > To do this, you must start with two clocks which have not yet been > "synchronized" per Einstein's definition. > > Then you must fully justify and/or prove the validity of each step. > > That is, you must justify Einstein's definition, you must prove that > your "at-rest" ruler is not physically contracted, and you must prove > that your clocks are not physically slowed. (This is not to say that > such physical distortions occur, but only that they could, which of > course means that this must be taken into account by any theory.) > > The entire burden of proof lies on your shoulders because you are > claiming to have a correct measurement system. I need do nothing > but beg for the proofs. > > ~RA~ Brian, have you ever counted the number of times you have repeated this rant during to last ten years? Probably not. Anyway, I have counted the number of fake names you have been using: 16. Have I missed some? Dirk Vdm |