MMx math
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What molecular arrangment leads to transperency?
Next: Vibrating in time and probability of particle location
From: eric gisse on 31 Jul 2010 01:09 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > 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.) You apparently think covariance and the principle of relativity are the same thing. No wonder you are so persistent, you are clueless. [snip rest, unread]
From: harald on 1 Aug 2010 09:04 On Jul 30, 5:55 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. Sure - and, as you should know, SRT does NOT make any claims about physical reality. Most of our disagreements are about physical reality, and now you pretend that you make no claims about it. > 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. At least we agree on that. :-) > One instance of this > is that any coordinate-dependent effect is "not real", and both "time dilation" > and "length contraction" are coordinate dependent. No, that is NOT an instance of that: here you confuse the effect of a different point of view (no change of state, only a change of its description) with the coordinate dependent observation of a physical effect (a change of state that can be hidden by a simultaneous change of perspective). Kinetic energy for example is coordinate dependent, but the change of state of an accelerated particle is certainly "real" in the sense that something physical happens with it: the impact phenomenon is not coordinate dependent. Similarly is the time dilation phenomenon in a muon ring not coordinate dependent. > [I will not continue this argument over what was said. Discuss > physics, not history. I made a statement of fact which as you here show, still applies: you DO have a different opinion about "physical reality". > And please learn how to read carefully and > accurately -- your sloppiness impedes your ability to understand.] Here my sloppiness and inability to understand dwarfs yours! Regards, Harald > Tom Roberts
From: harald on 1 Aug 2010 09:26 On Jul 30, 10:31 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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.) They are as variant and relevant as kinetic energy; do you cal that "irrelevant"? > Not only that, but the cause of these irrelevant, coordinate-dependent effects > is Einstein's asynchronous clocks (i.e., his lack of > absolute synchronization). Completely wrong: try any synchronization, and you will STILL be able to hold muons in a muon storage ring. And it's not HIS lack of absolute synchronization... > A passing rod can have only one physical length, Probably you mean "absolute"? > 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. Newton's observers will similarly (wrongly) measure different kinetic energies for one and the same passing particle. Now what? > 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, You are lying: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Section 4, "Physical Meaning" > 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. Langevin gave his original "twin" example to illustrate how from SRT we can deduce some "absolute" effects from motion relative to the ether. > 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, It is a silly theory that has clocks that nobody can make! > and can > therefore correct for these physical distortions, and you can see why > anyone with half a brain would prefer the latter. That "half brain" can be read in another way. ;-) Harald
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 2 Aug 2010 15:06 On Aug 1, 9:26 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 30, 10:31 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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.) > They are as variant and relevant as kinetic energy; do you cal that > "irrelevant"? Kinetic energy is relevant because it tells how hard something will hit you due to relative motion, but the above stuff is of no more importance to physics than the trivial fact that we both "get smaller" as we separate. Not only that, but the above stupid, irrelevant and meaningless "effect" utterly disappear when (absolutely) synchronous clocks are used. Next time, please don't mouth off unless you have something worthy to state. >> 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, > You are lying: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > Section 4, "Physical Meaning" Not lying. It's not a full admission by any standard. No mention of anything but relative velocities. No mention of the fact that only absolute motion through space can physically slow a clock. Much hemming and hawing about "as viewed from the stationary system," etc., etc., etc. And there was no mention at all of a physical length contraction. And no admission that only such a contraction can cause the MMx null result. Let me put that to you this way: If you recall, prior to the MMx, every physicist firmly predicted a POSITIVE result based on given physically equal legs as constructed both in the lab and on paper. However, the result was NEGATIVE. Thus, the legs could not have been physically equal during the experiment. There were only two critical parts involved, viz., (i) light and (ii) the apparatus, consisting mainly of the two perpendicular legs. Nothing about light changed at any time, so we must blame the legs for the MMx null result. >> 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.) > ? You cannot either mathematically or graphically show the MMx null result without also showing a physical difference between the leg lengths. This proves that - as far as anyone can tell - the null result was physically caused by a physical length change. It also proves that SR's apparent (and meaningless) "length contraction" cannot explain the MMx. Therefore, SR has no explanation, which is another sign that it is a worthless "theory." ~RA~
From: glird on 3 Aug 2010 17:55
On Jul 30, 4:31 pm,Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > ><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 > There are at least two misconceptions there, DDR Ron. I will tell you about one of them now. In Einstein's STR paper, he used a "stationary" system K as observer. Any system at rest in Newton's stationary space would automatically have "absolutely synchronous clocks" even when set by E's defined method! Using THOSE truly synchronous clocks and non-shrunken rulers, the stationary system K DOES correct for the distortions of moving systems, via the GTE -- which E reached on the way to the LTE, ONE of an infinity of possible groups each of which would explain the results of the MMX. glird |