MMx math
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Mexican Sweet Potatoes (M.S.P.)
Next: *** Project for New American Unix, Physics, Electronics, Metalworking - TUTORIAL VIDEOS ***
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: Simple Simon on 5 Aug 2010 23:36 Tom Roberts wrote: > 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 I disagree for reasons some something akin to the following (#): The invariant geometric rules that the theory exposes are only accessible by measurement. These invariants are derived from the covariance of inertial symmetries (expressible as laws of conservation). We use the manifestations of these projections (their components in frames), from pushing around electromagnetism for various benefits to observing Doppler shifts to determine the topology of space-time. You yourself seem to acknowledge this with your advocacy of the view that hidden axioms are necessary for the model (of SR) and that these axioms include rules regarding rulers and clocks (and their lack of memories?). # I use language and concepts loosely at best since I am very unsophisticated.
From: GogoJF on 5 Aug 2010 23:04
On Aug 5, 2:31 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 Tom wrote: Nature uses no observers, so valid models of physics must not use observers, or at least be independent of observer. Gogo says: So, you say that all our models should be devoid of the observer, in order to measure nature correctly- that we should, instead, use our devices which are more precise and accurate? At the same time, this statement disqualifies all observational measure. Einstein's description of relativity routinely uses the observer in the thought experiment. Could it be true, that you are correct about this- that Einstein's relativity is better used in quantum mechanics- a mechanics which does not use the observer? In the macro world, the world where we observe, we use thought experiments which involve relativity like the space traveler paradox- but I doubt that illustrations like these are correct. |