MMx math
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What molecular arrangment leads to transperency?
Next: Vibrating in time and probability of particle location
From: artful on 29 Jul 2010 21:32 On Jul 30, 4:34 am, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. It is not odd at all, Given his postulate, Einstein's clock sync procedure produces sync between clocks. One then has to show whether that is absolute or relative, and it is clearly and easily shown (as is done in the 1905 paper) that that sync is no absolute, but is indeed relative. > 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, Its not > but even it's "stationary" measurement is bogus. Nope > 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. It doesn't need a 'proof' that the length of a rod you measure when it is at rest is its rest length. One doesn't need to prove that applying the standards for length and time units in a given frame gives you standard length and time units in that frame. They are so by definition. > 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." Of course, otherwise it could not be regarded as a length measurement. > And this was just after you had agreed that SR does not have true > or absolute simultaneity! Lie. It has 'true' simultaneity .. but that simultaneity is frame dependent. > It's either simultaneous or not. And in SR, it's not. Wrong. For a given frame you can determine what is simultaneous. > You need to fully describe SR's procedure for measuring the length > of a passing rod. It is well described > To do this, you must start with two clocks which have not yet been > "synchronized" per Einstein's definition. Fine. And first step is to synchrnoize them > Then you must fully justify and/or prove the validity of each step. You synchronise the set of clocks as per definition of the procedure, which comes from the postulates Then at a given time on the clocks you note the position of the end points of the object Measure the distance between them > That is, you must justify Einstein's definition, Its done > you must prove that > your "at-rest" ruler is not physically contracted, No need .. it is defined from the standards applied locally. > and you must prove > that your clocks are not physically slowed. No need .. it is defined from the standards applied locally. > (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. Prove any other measurement is that you propose is correct. If not, then lets just throw away all of physics because we can't prove that strange distortions aren't happening to our rulers and clocks every time we use them
From: harald on 30 Jul 2010 04:46 A few comments: On Jul 30, 3:32 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 30, 4:34 am, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. We know its meaning which is much discussed in old literature. > > 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. > > It is not odd at all, > > Given his postulate, Einstein's clock sync procedure produces sync > between clocks. One then has to show whether that is absolute or > relative, and it is clearly and easily shown (as is done in the 1905 > paper) that that sync is no absolute, but is indeed relative. Right. > > 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, > > Its not > > > but even it's "stationary" measurement is bogus. > > Nope > > > 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. > > It doesn't need a 'proof' that the length of a rod you measure when it > is at rest is its rest length. > > One doesn't need to prove that applying the standards for length and > time units in a given frame gives you standard length and time units > in that frame. They are so by definition. Exactly. > > 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." > > Of course, otherwise it could not be regarded as a length measurement. > > > And this was just after you had agreed that SR does not have true > > or absolute simultaneity! > > Lie. It has 'true' simultaneity .. but that simultaneity is frame > dependent. No, you use non-standard vocabulary here. "true" simultaneity is synonymous with "absolute" simultaneity, just as DDRR indicates here. "relative simultaneity" implies *apparent* simultaneity. > > It's either simultaneous or not. And in SR, it's not. > Wrong. For a given frame you can determine what is simultaneous. > > > You need to fully describe SR's procedure for measuring the length > > of a passing rod. > > It is well described Right. > > To do this, you must start with two clocks which have not yet been > > "synchronized" per Einstein's definition. > > Fine. And first step is to synchrnoize them > > > Then you must fully justify and/or prove the validity of each step. > > You synchronise the set of clocks as per definition of the procedure, > which comes from the postulates > Then at a given time on the clocks you note the position of the end > points of the object Measure the distance between them > > > That is, you must justify Einstein's definition, > > Its done > > > you must prove that > > your "at-rest" ruler is not physically contracted, > > No need .. it is defined from the standards applied locally. Yes. It is not based on any claim about what physically "really" happens. > > and you must prove that your clocks are not physically slowed. > > No need .. it is defined from the standards applied locally. > > > (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. > > Prove any other measurement is that you propose is correct. If not, > then lets just throw away all of physics because we can't prove that > strange distortions aren't happening to our rulers and clocks every > time we use them According to a number of very smart physicists it is implied by SRT that this happens AND that we can deal with it. Regards, Harald
From: oriel36 on 30 Jul 2010 08:38 On Jul 28, 7:02 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: 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 The real fun is knowing how Isaac got everyone to believe that modelling/predictions propaganda - "It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Principia The majority of people here reading that founding principle of Newton's approach to terrestrial and celestial phenomena would gush about its profundity and importance yet at the same time not comprehend what he is attempting to do in that not only is it at complete variance with the antecedent principles of astronomy,it also is against the antecedent empirical approach of his contemporaries. Were people to begin to pick up the pieces it would not be a matter of relativity being seen as wrong but rather as a desperate attempt to escape Newton's modelling based on timekeeping averages as a result of using the stellar circumpolar Ra/Dec system or the 'fixed stars' as he would have known it.The fact that his relative space and motion was actually the modelling part of his agenda although he tried to impose absolute space and motion as the final modelling product,readers here should know that what Newton was actually doing is straightforward and nothing like what is attributed to him by the story relativity wove around it and seen in this forum day in and day out. You come clear on a decisive point of modelling but in fact that is the area that is really the most contentious for on one hand you play along with Newton in promoting the modelling/predictions agenda and then immediately turn him into a prop for relativity which took this modelling to a ridiculous level where fact and fiction are incidental.You can be excused for not seeking a satisfactory 21st century conclusion to all this ,at least one that heads in the right direction,however others and they only be a tiny minority may begin to see that perhaps Isaac was being too intellectually and conceptually greedy in attempting to remove the interpretative distinctions between experimental sciences and astronomy.
From: Tom Roberts on 30 Jul 2010 11:55 harald wrote: > On Jul 28, 8:02 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> harald wrote: >>> Tom makes >>> contrary assertions about physical reality which he cannot prove >>> either. >> Go back and READ WHAT I WROTE. > > I HAVE read the claims that you made the last few years and your > replies in the former thread by DDRR were consistent with those > claims. For example (from a quick Google search), while Lorentz > claimed that length contraction is a "real phenomenon", in answer on > the question "Is Lorentz contraction a real process" you claimed that > time dilation and length contraction are 'not any kind of "real" > phenomenon'. > - http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/islcreal.htm > If you now stopped making such assertions about physical reality, > please inform us! GO READ YOUR OWN REFERENCE!! If you had actually bothered to read that reference, you would see that I began with "In SR...". TWICE. Moreover, while we don't know much about "physical reality", there are some conditions from which we can conclude unequivocally that a given effect is "not real" (even though we don't know what "is real"). For instance, any effect that depends upon arbitrary human choices for description cannot possibly model a real physical phenomenon, and is "not real" in that sense. One instance of this is that any coordinate-dependent effect is "not real", and both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are coordinate dependent. [I will not continue this argument over what was said. Discuss physics, not history. And please learn how to read carefully and accurately -- your sloppiness impedes your ability to understand.] Tom Roberts
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 30 Jul 2010 16:31
On 7-30-2010, T Roberts wrote to Harald, in part: >...any effect that depends upon arbitrary human choices for description cannot >possibly model a real physical phenomenon, and is "not real" in that sense. >One instance of this is that any coordinate-dependent effect is "not real", >and both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are coordinate dependent. Therefore, SR's "length contraction," "time dilation," and "mass variance" are all irrelevant to physics. (Because they do not, as you rightly said, pertain to physical phenomena.) Not only that, but the cause of these irrelevant, coordinate-dependent effects is Einstein's asynchronous clocks (i.e., his lack of absolute synchronization). A passing rod can have only one physical length, but Einstein's observers using differently-set clocks in each frame will of course (wrongly) measure different lengths for one and the same passing rod. Any theory whose clocks are not synchronized (absolutely) is worthless, but that is not the only problem with SR. SR uses physically-slowed clocks and physically-contracted rulers, and does not even admit this, much less know how to correct for these distortions. The 3-clock "Twin Paradox" case proves that clocks physically slow due to motion through space. The MMx null result proves that rulers physically contract due to the same motion through space. (This is because no one can show this null result without also showing a physical length change.) Tom - in the prior thread cited above: >Unknowable quantities such as "absolute motion" cannot participate in >such models. When the twins of the "Twin Paradox" are replaced with clocks, and a third clock is added, then we have direct proof that clocks run at different physical rates in different inertial frames. This can only be due to different clock speeds through space or differences in the clocks' absolute motions. (It cannot be explained away by any of the standard grasping-at-straws attempts because there is no E-synch, no accelerations, no history factor, no asymmetries, and no car odometer analogy (because clocks do not register distances, only times)). Compare a silly theory (SR) that has out-of-synch, slowed clocks and shrunken rulers to one that has absolutely synchronous clocks, and can therefore correct for these physical distortions, and you can see why anyone with half a brain would prefer the latter. ~RA~ |