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 6 Aug 2010 14:56 On Aug 4 2010, Tom wrote: >You are confused. Nobody has any intention of "proving" such assertions. >This is the DEFINITION of "proper". We use rulers as measurement tools, and >they measure what they measure. This ruler I hold in my hand is CLEARLY AND >VISIBLY "not physically contracted" -- it measures 1 foot long, as it should. On Aug 4 2010, Tom also wrote: >When at rest in any inertial frame, a standard clock ticks at its standard >rate IN THAT FRAME. So clocks do NOT "run at different physical rates in >different inertial frames" -- they run at their standard physical rate. >The world is more complicated than your expectations. ~RA~ replies: As everyone but Tom knows, the Lorentzian physical length contractions would not be directly observable, but this is beside the point that they COULD exist, and so must be taken into account by any valid scientific theory, and yet SR does not take this into account by - as it must - proving that its rulers are NOT physically contracted or expanded or whatever. And, as I mentioned, we have proof of a physical length variance via the simple fact that the MMx null result cannot occur mathematically, graphically, or in reality (as it certainly did) UNLESS the rods are physically different in length during the experiment. (As I also mentioned, all physicists fully and firmly predicted a positive MMx result based on their assumption of physically identical leg lengths, and yet the result was negative, so this proves that their identical-leg-length assumption was wrong. The only other possibility was the ballistic theory of light, but this is wrong.) As for clocks in different frames, the following very simple scenario is experimental proof that such clocks run at physically different rates: 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) None of the standard SR "explanations" work for this scenario because (1) there are no accelerations, (2) no asymmetries, (3) no E-synch, (4) no history (clock B2 is not even started until it meets B1), and (5) no odometer analogy because clocks do not register distances, only times. The above simple experiment proves that, contrary to Tom, clocks do in fact run at different physical rates in different inertial frames. This is the only possible explanation of the experimental results. Now all we have to worry about is why, and SR has no answer because this would involve absolute motion. ~RA~
From: harald on 6 Aug 2010 15:10 On Aug 6, 8:02 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Harald generously listed *two* allegedly supporting experiments: > > > - exact deflection of electron beams (Lorentz 1904, Einstein 1905). > > - the effect of speed on clocks (Einstein 1905; applied in the GPS > > system). > > I will simply ignore the first because it is not even listed here:http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Really? That is funny, as it was the oldest and first support. Here's a better link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann_%28physicist%29 (also interesting for me: I did not know that it took so long to be really sure). > As for the second, can Harald define "speed"? (Is it a relative speed > or an absolute speed?) Predictions of SRT concern phenomena related to speed relative to inertial reference systems; I already gave an elaborate explanation in the part that you snipped without comment last time. The following prediction by Einstein has been verified: "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." Harald
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Aug 2010 19:21 glird wrote: > On Aug 4, 11:27 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: >> < In SR, "time dilation" and "mass variance" do not affect the object >> ITSELF, they are artifacts of measuring a moving object. > > > In SR they do. In Minkowski's mathematics (Minky-math) they don't. Not true. You attempt to make a distinction without a difference. >> < And we no longer say "mass variance", we call the quantity that varies >> "energy", not "mass". > > > Given that the equation e = mc^2 (energy equals mass times {the speed of > light in vacuo} squared) has been experimentally verified, explain how the > quantity of energy can vary if the m and c do not. You do not understand what E=mc^2 means. It means the REST ENERGY of an object is proportional to its mass. For moving objects, their mass remains fixed but their energy is increased. >> < 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. > > > In SR, Einstein assumed that the axes of differently moving systems do NOT > rotate. You don't understand. In SR, relative velocity is ANALOGOUS to a spatial rotation, but is not the same. It is a rotation in a space-time plane, not in a space-space plane like the ladder. >> 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 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. > > True. It was, however, implicit that clocks set by his method would be > synchronous if and BECAUSE the given system (K) was physically at rest in his > “empty space”. That is just plain not true. Einstein never mentioned "at rest in empty space", and in SR there is no way to define it. > [... too much nonsense for me to deal with] Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Aug 2010 19:29 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > the Lorentzian physical length contractions > would > not be directly observable, but this is beside the point that they > COULD exist, > and so must be taken into account by any valid scientific theory, That is complete nonsense. You must learn what science actually is. Invisible blue fairies COULD exist, but science is under no obligation to consider them until they have been observed. > yet SR > does not take this into account by - as it must - proving that its > rulers are > NOT physically contracted or expanded or whatever. I repeat: you must learn what science actually is. SR is a MODEL of the world, and it MODELS rulers and their use as measuring instruments. And the model is an excellent one within its domain. There is no need to "prove" the absence of figments of your imagination. > And, as I mentioned, we have proof of a physical length variance via > the simple > fact that the MMx null result cannot occur mathematically, > graphically, or in > reality (as it certainly did) UNLESS the rods are physically different > in length > during the experiment. This is just plain wrong. SR accurately models the MMX without any physical difference in rods' lengths. > [... more nonsense] Tom Roberts
From: glird on 6 Aug 2010 20:56
On Aug 6, 7:21 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > glird wrote: > >>< Given that the equation e = mc^2 (energy equals mass times {the speed of light in vacuo} squared) has been experimentally verified, explain how the quantity of energy can vary if the m and c do not.> > >< You do not understand what E=mc^2 means. It means the REST ENERGY of an object is proportional to its mass. For moving objects, their mass remains fixed but their energy is increased. > You're talking about the wrong equation, Tom. The ones you refer to seem to be Longitudinal mass = m/q, Transverse mass = m/Q, in which Q = q^2 = c^2 - v^2, mass is the weight-is-a-form-of-energy of moving objects, and m is your "REST ENERGY" of a body, i.e. its energy when at rest on Earth. glird |