MMx math
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What molecular arrangment leads to transperency?
Next: Vibrating in time and probability of particle location
From: Tom Roberts on 4 Aug 2010 23:27 glird wrote: > Since time dilation and mass variance (in grams) have been > experimentally verified, they DO pertain to physical realities. One must define the terms MUCH more carefully. In SR, "time dilation" and "mass variance" do not affect the object ITSELF, they are artifacts of measuring a moving object. And we no longer say "mass variance", we call the quantity that varies "energy", not "mass". When you rotate a ladder to get through a narrow doorway, you do not affect the ladder itself, but the rotation has physical consequences. Similarly in SR, relative velocity is an analogous rotation that does not affect the object itself, but has physical consequences. > Einstein wrote, "It is essential to have time defined by means of > stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined > being appropriate to the stationary system we call it `the time of the > stationary system'." > He was, as usual, rightly wrong. > (Though he was right in that only a stationary esynched system would > have synchronous clocks, he was wrong about it being "essential that > etc." Indeed, since there is no such thing in the universe as a > stationary system, his Special Theory, as he said in his general > theory, is restricted to a hypothetical point. You did not read his paper carefully enough. He EXPLICITLY said that he was using the term "stationary system" as a LABEL, to distinguish it from other inertial systems. It is a label that can apply to ANY inertial frame (see the first paragraph of I.1 of Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K�rper"). In SR there is no need for any stationary system in YOUR sense -- you applied a PUN and read more into his word choice than is actually there. > [... too much nonsense for me to bother with] Tom Roberts
From: Koobee Wublee on 5 Aug 2010 02:43 On Aug 4, 8:27 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > glird wrote: > > Since time dilation and mass variance (in grams) have been > > experimentally verified, they DO pertain to physical realities. > > One must define the terms MUCH more carefully. Who gives a damn? <shrug> > In SR, "time dilation" and "mass variance" do not affect the object ITSELF, they > are artifacts of measuring a moving object. They are merely observer-dependent quantities. <shrug> > And we no longer say "mass variance", we call the quantity > that varies "energy", not "mass". Both invariant and observer-dependent masses of the same object can lead to the same conclusions. However, the concept of observer- dependent mass is more elegantly put and modeled. You can create any mathematical models you want to describe the physical action. This can be seen in the geodesic equation in the interest of the temporal dimension. <shrug> > When you rotate a ladder to get through a narrow doorway, you do not affect the > ladder itself, but the rotation has physical consequences. What physical consequence are you referring to? > Similarly in SR, > relative velocity is an analogous rotation that does not affect the object > itself, but has physical consequences. There is no need to confuse yourself. You can introduce a mathematical model describing any phenomena with speed-dependent variables. <shrug> > > Einstein wrote, "..." > > You did not read his paper carefully enough. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Despite these undesirable physical traits, there seem to be quite a few "zombies" who would worship this nitwit to the very end. <shrug> > He EXPLICITLY said that he was > using the term "stationary system" as a LABEL, to distinguish it from other > inertial systems. It is a label that can apply to ANY inertial frame (see the > first paragraph of I.1 of Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter > Körper"). In SR there is no need for any stationary system in YOUR sense -- you > applied a PUN and read more into his word choice than is actually there. Failed at any mathematical arguments, the self-styled physicists would resort to mundane words that put in capitalized form or quotes would give divine meanings to justify the non-merit (rather stupid cultish) worshipping of a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, namely Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
From: PD on 5 Aug 2010 09:41 On Aug 5, 1:43 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 8:27 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > glird wrote: > > > Since time dilation and mass variance (in grams) have been > > > experimentally verified, they DO pertain to physical realities. > > > One must define the terms MUCH more carefully. > > Who gives a damn? <shrug> > > > In SR, "time dilation" and "mass variance" do not affect the object ITSELF, they > > are artifacts of measuring a moving object. > > They are merely observer-dependent quantities. <shrug> Yes, indeed. Lots of important physical properties in physics are "merely observer-dependent quantities". Kinetic energy and momentum, for instance, both of which play a key role in conservation laws that are considered central to physics. > > > And we no longer say "mass variance", we call the quantity > > that varies "energy", not "mass". > > Both invariant and observer-dependent masses of the same object can > lead to the same conclusions. However, the concept of observer- > dependent mass is more elegantly put and modeled. You can create any > mathematical models you want to describe the physical action. This > can be seen in the geodesic equation in the interest of the temporal > dimension. <shrug> > > > When you rotate a ladder to get through a narrow doorway, you do not affect the > > ladder itself, but the rotation has physical consequences. > > What physical consequence are you referring to? > > > Similarly in SR, > > relative velocity is an analogous rotation that does not affect the object > > itself, but has physical consequences. > > There is no need to confuse yourself. You can introduce a > mathematical model describing any phenomena with speed-dependent > variables. <shrug> > > > > Einstein wrote, "..." > > > You did not read his paper carefully enough. > > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Despite these > undesirable physical traits, there seem to be quite a few "zombies" > who would worship this nitwit to the very end. <shrug> > > > He EXPLICITLY said that he was > > using the term "stationary system" as a LABEL, to distinguish it from other > > inertial systems. It is a label that can apply to ANY inertial frame (see the > > first paragraph of I.1 of Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter > > Körper"). In SR there is no need for any stationary system in YOUR sense -- you > > applied a PUN and read more into his word choice than is actually there.. > > Failed at any mathematical arguments, the self-styled physicists would > resort to mundane words that put in capitalized form or quotes would > give divine meanings to justify the non-merit (rather stupid cultish) > worshipping of a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, namely Einstein the > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
From: Tom Roberts on 5 Aug 2010 15:31 PD wrote: > Lots of important physical properties in physics are > "merely observer-dependent quantities". Kinetic energy and momentum, > for instance, both of which play a key role in conservation laws that > are considered central to physics. I disagree. Kinetic energy and (3-)momentum are not involved in any important conservation laws. Both are merely related to parts of the actual law: conservation of 4-momentum. Note that this law is not observer dependent; nor is it frame or coordinate dependent. Note also that the context here is SR (not GR). For instance, to get conservation of 3-momentum one must project the conservation law for 4-momentum onto an inertial frame. Nature uses no observers, so valid models of physics must not use observers, or at least be independent of observer. Tom Roberts
From: oriel36 on 5 Aug 2010 16:48
On Aug 5, 4:12 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > harald wrote: > > as you should know, SRT does NOT make any claims about > > physical reality. > > SR is a MODEL of physical reality within a specified domain. Within that domain > it is an accurate description of physical phenomena. > > Modern physics makes no "claims about physical reality", but instead MODELS it. > That is, there is no expectation that the mechanisms in the model are "what > nature actually uses"; it is only claimed that the model gives accurate results > within its domain. > > > Most of our disagreements are about physical > > reality, and now you pretend that you make no claims about it. > > You actually have no idea whatsoever about what "physical reality" is, either. > All you have are mental MODELS you think are appropriate. We differ in the > MODELS we use. Mine (SR) has the advantage of extensive experimental support in > its domain; I have no idea what model(s) you are trying to use. > > Tom Roberts Isaac would have probably tried to strangle you for making this much fuss over modelling and as usual it was nothing like he intended.The idea of chopping orbits into little bits and then reassembling them to create a complete orbit using differential equations seems to have allowed investigators to model planetary dynamics directly from observations as though it were an extension of experimental sciences.It was an elaborate scheme by any measure that was far too clever for his followers to trace his reasoning which is why we have all this absolute this and relative that in these forums when Newton's intentions were far more realistic,they may be wrong and distortions of the original astronomical methods and insights,but at least they are understandable in fairly short order. Here is Newton's idea of relative space and motion - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg Here is Isaac's idea of absolute space and motion - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg Hence - "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct.." Newton I have news for each and every one of you who wish to traffic in absolute/relative space,motion and what have you,retrogrades are an illusion due to the direct motion of the Earth around the Sun hence Newton's idiosyncratic take on the main argument for the Earth's orbital motion in terms of creating a hypothetical absolute space and motion are illegal for want of a better word,maybe plain wrong is a closer and more accurate description. |