MMx math
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What molecular arrangment leads to transperency?
Next: Vibrating in time and probability of particle location
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 10 Aug 2010 14:00 from Harald: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann_%28physicist%29 Relativistic "mass variance" does not support SR because it is merely an observer-dependent triviality. It cannot physically exist because it is reciprocal (i.e., each of two passing objects cannot both be truly more massive than each other). On the other hand, any actual or physical mass variance would contradict SR due to the fact that it involves true or absolute motion. >- the effect of speed on clocks (Einstein 1905; applied in the GPS > system). Relativistic "time dilation" does not support SR because it is merely an observer-dependent triviality. It cannot physically exist because it is reciprocal (i.e., each of two passing clocks cannot both be truly slower than each other). On the other hand, any actual or physical time dilation would contradict SR due to the fact that it involves absolute motion. Harald quoted: "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2tv² second slow." The problem with this is that acceleration is involved. I have eliminated this problem with the following simple experiment: clock A -----------------------------------<---[0]--- ---------------------------------------[0]---> clock B1 clock A -------------------<---[4]--- clock B2 ------------------------------------------------------<---[4]--- ----------------------------------------------------------[4]---> clock B1 clock A ---<---[8]--- ---<---[10]--- clock B2 (Ref.: clocks B1 and B2 both move at 0.6c relative to clock A) The above extremely simple experiment directly proves that clocks in different inertial frames run at physically different rates. It also proves that people in different such frames age differently. SR has no explanation for these facts. SR makes no physical predictions re any fundamental physical phenomena. ~RA~
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 10 Aug 2010 14:12 I will try only once more to explain the scientific process: It is incumbent upon any scientist who uses any instrument during any scientific experiment to show that the instrument is in no way (significantly) physically distorted. In the case of the MMx experiment, a very small difference in the physical lengths of the rods is all it takes to invalidate the experiment by causing a false null result. Given truly equal rods, the result would be positive. Roberts wrote: > SR accurately models the MMX without any physical > difference in rods' lengths. SR says exactly nothing about the cause of the MMx null result, so it cannot "accurately model the MMx." Similarly, SR has no cause for the simple experimental fact that clocks in different inertial frames run differently physically. Here is the pertinent experiment: clock A -----------------------------------<---[0]--- ---------------------------------------[0]---> clock B1 clock A -------------------<---[4]--- clock B2 ------------------------------------------------------<---[4]--- ----------------------------------------------------------[4]---> clock B1 clock A ---<---[8]--- ---<---[10]--- clock B2 (Ref.: clocks B1 and B2 both move at 0.6c relative to clock A) ~RA~
From: PD on 10 Aug 2010 14:30 On Aug 10, 1:00 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > from Harald: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann_%28physicist%29 > > Relativistic "mass variance" does not support SR because it is merely > an observer-dependent triviality. It cannot physically exist because > it is reciprocal (i.e., each of two passing objects cannot both be > truly > more massive than each other). On the other hand, any actual or > physical > mass variance would contradict SR due to the fact that it involves > true > or absolute motion. > This kind of "property-comparisons-must-be-frame-independent" assertion is just full of hoo-ha. It leads to obvious nonsense right away even in simple cases. Let's use the comparison "faster than" in the following example. There's observer O that is sitting on a park bench, tied to the surface of a moving earth. There's observer P that is sitting on a bus that is driving along a street. Observers O and P both note the motion of two cars, a Ford F and a Chevy C. For observer O, F is moving at 10 mph and C is moving at 25 mph. C is *faster than* F. For observer P, F is moving at 35 mph and C is moving at 20 mph. F is *faster than* C. Now, this is an everyday example that a child could illustrate with a couple of scrawled sketches. Yet, in your mind, it is impossible for C to be faster than F and F to be faster than C, because that is a contradiction. PD
From: Tom Roberts on 10 Aug 2010 15:50 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > I will try only once more to explain the scientific process: First you should TRY to understand what has been said before. Your "explanation" misses many important aspects. And the one aspect you attempt to discuss is irrelevant - figments of your imagination are not part of the scientific process. > It is incumbent upon any scientist who uses any instrument during > any scientific experiment to show that the instrument is in no > way (significantly) physically distorted. Sure. But there is no need to show that figments of YOUR imagination don't affect the apparatus. The "physical distortion" you have in mind _IS_ merely a figment of your imagination. > In the case of the MMx experiment, a very small difference in the > physical lengths of the rods is all it takes to invalidate the > experiment by causing a false null result. Hmmm. To do that the variations on the physical lengths of the arms would have to be correlated to their orientations, and good experimenters make sure that does not happen. That is, they make sure that the arms are solid and rigid enough to remain of fixed length while rotating the apparatus. That's why Michelson and Morley mounted their mirrors rigidly on a solid sandstone block -- to make sure they remained a fixed distance apart. > Given truly equal rods, > the result would be positive. But the arms of the MMX apparatus are TRULY EQUAL in length. That is, when one measures their lengths one obtains the same value. This _IS_ what we mean by these words. Your attempts to distort the language are hopeless. You seem to have some imaginary process in mind whereby "absolute motion" causes "changes in length". But you have not defined what "absolute motion" means here, and have no quantitative theory to describe this effect. Until you construct such a theory, your word salad is useless (if you had a theory, it could be tested experimentally, but word salad cannot). > Roberts wrote: >> SR accurately models the MMX without any physical >> difference in rods' lengths. > > SR says exactly nothing about the cause of the MMx null result, > so it cannot "accurately model the MMx." You clearly do not understand the meanings of the words. In particular "cause" has no place here, what is needed is a MODEL of the world in a domain that includes the MMX, and SR is such a model, and it accurately models the experiment. > Similarly, SR has no cause for the simple experimental fact that > clocks in different inertial frames run differently physically. Because in SR they do not "run differently physically". In SR, a standard clock at rest in any inertial frame ticks at its standard rate. This is observed in the world we inhabit (the various standards laboratories around the world occupy different inertial frames at different times of the day and year). > Here is the pertinent experiment:[...] Your diagram is opaque to me. Note, however, that in general comparing clocks at rest in different frames cannot possibly show that they "tick at different rates", at most it can show that SIGNALS between such clocks suffer Doppler shifts. Remember that "time dilation" in SR is NOT due to clocks "ticking at different rates", it is due to the geometrical projections of clocks ticking at their standard rate in their rest frame. Tom Roberts
From: glird on 10 Aug 2010 17:09
On Aug 4, 4:02 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > glird wrote: > >> < No symbol dxi/dx for the ratio of size of units of length appears either! (Nowhere in his entire paper is there a mathematical symbol for a length contraction; whether physical or only as viewed by differently moving systems.) > > > Beta (nowadays gamma). Though it is true that in the LTE, though not in general, dxi/dx = beta = 1/q; but beta = gamma = 1/q is NOT a symbol for a length contraction; it is a symbol for a quantity. In the LTE, though not in general, that quantity is the amount by which the ratio of lengths does change as measured by the viewing system; but that quantity might or might not apply to anything at all! snip > I am just defending Einstein against accusations of wrongdoing > while basically his only "sin" was to omit some clarifications to > which we attach a certain importance. Though not a "sin", he also failed to understand some of his own equations, and never did accurately derive the LTE. Wanna bet!! ?? glird |