Prev: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a blackhole
Next: A Property of Convex Sets
From: glird on 4 Aug 2010 13:15
On Aug 3, 5:51 am, harald wrote:
>On Jul 30, 10:31 pm, Da Do Ron Ron
> wrote:
>
>>< Therefore, SR's "length contraction," "time dilation," and "mass variance" are all irrelevant to physics. (Because they do not pertain to physical phenomena.)>

Since time dilation and mass variance (in grams) have been
experimentally verified, they DO pertain to physical realities.

snip

>>< Not only that, but the above stupid, irrelevant and meaningless "effect" utterly disappears when (absolutely) synchronous clocks are used. >

See my prior posting re that.

>< To the contrary: in that hypothetical case, "time dilation" becomes a measure of real (or "absolute") process slowdown. And the above-mentioned effects remain the same. >

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.

>>< Any theory whose clocks are not synchronized (absolutely) is worthless, but that is not the only problem with SR. >

Though SR has MANY problems, this isn't one of them. (See "Esynched
versus esynched" for details.)

>><SR uses physically-slowed clocks and physically-contracted rulers, and does not even admit this >
>
> You are lying:
http://www. John’s “fourmilab”
Section 4, "Physical Meaning" >
>
>>< Not lying. It's not a full admission by any standard. No
mention of anything but relative velocities. >

No symbol dxi/dx for the ratio of size of units of length appears
either! (Nowhere in his entire paper is there a mathematical symbol
for a length contraction; whether physical or only as viewed by
differently moving systems.)

>< I agree that it is only implicit. No mention of the fact that only absolute motion through space can physically slow a clock. Indeed, SRT does on purpose not make any such claims. >

Correct insofar as “it is only implicit”. Wrong insofar as the next
sentence is concerned. (Motion through *empty* space couldn’t
physically affect anything at all.
Indeed, there is no such thing in the universe as an "empty space".)
Although SRT doesn't admit it, only absolute motion through a
material medium could physically slow a clock.

>< Tom makes contrary assertions about physical reality which he cannot prove either. Such assertions about unobservable reality are not part of SRT.>

Tom is wrong and you are right. (The relevant assertions were made
by Minkowski, several years after 1905.) They are mathematically valid
but inapplicable to reality.

>< On purpose, SRT only concerns phenomena; this allowed Lorentz, Einstein and Minkowski (and physicists today) to promote the theory together. >

Please define “phenomena”.

>> And there was no mention at all
>> of a physical length contraction.

That’s not true, though it is! (E did "mention" a length change;
but deleted the demo of how it would be found or how much it would
physically be.)

>< It is true that his explanation would have been better if he had added the clear explanation (which I have not seen anywhere) that while the observations of the effects are "relative" (so that the description is observer dependent), the effects are physical nevertheless. >

Tom disagrees with the latter phrase. He is wrong.

>>< And no admission that only such a contraction can cause the MMx null result. >

A length expansion could cause it too. (See me next comment.)

>< That is a direct consequence of his description. Einstein was a little bit clearer two years later in an overview of the theory as presented by Lorentz and himself. When he discussed the negative result of MMX he pointed out that (I rearrange):
"H. A. Lorentz's and FitzGerald's hypothesis [according to which
moving bodies experience a certain contraction in the direction of
their motion] appear [..] as a compelling consequence of the theory."

Regardless of whether lengths contract or expand, what is needed is
that those in the direction of motion physically end up (c^2-
v^2)^.5 shorter than those in the perpendicular directions.

>>< 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.
You surely mean that when considering that the interferometer moves
at different speeds at different times of the year (which is the
essence of MMx), the legs may not be said to be of equal physical
length all the time. >
>
><Einstein made no such wrong statement, but suggested the same as cited above. >

He did suggest that; but deleted any demonstration. Lorentz
demonstrated why it would (and does) happen. See his 1904 paper re
that.

>>< 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. ...
You cannot 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. >
>
> Yes, if the theory is correct; it
> is a logical consequence of SRT.

You have that upside down inside out and backward. (SRT, which is
NOT logical or correct, is a consequence of the M&M experiment.)
Although Einstein neither derived nor understood them, the LTE rest
on an impose an entirely different metaphysics than Einstein's theory
does. Accordingly, every experiment that confirms Poincare's Lorentz
equations proves Einstein's theory is wrong.

><That should not be surprising as SRT is largely based on the 1895 Lorentz Electron Theory:
"It is by no means self-evident that the assumption made here which
we call "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" is
actually realized In nature, but -- at least for a coordinate system
in a certain state of motion -- it is made plausible by the
confirmation of the Lorentz theory[1885], which is based on the
assumption of an ether that is absolutely at rest, through
experiment." >

Lorentz was right, as usual. But “plausible” is not the same as
“true”. (The LTE apply even though the ether is NOT at rest anywhere
at all, let alone everywhere.

glird
From: harald on 4 Aug 2010 16:02
On Aug 4, 7:15 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 5:51 am, harald wrote:
>
> >On Jul 30, 10:31 pm, Da Do Ron Ron
> > wrote:
>
> >>< Therefore, SR's "length contraction," "time dilation," and "mass variance" are all irrelevant to physics. (Because they do not pertain to physical phenomena.)>
>
>  Since time dilation and mass variance (in grams) have been
> experimentally verified, they DO pertain to physical realities.
>
>   snip
>
> >>< Not only that, but the above stupid, irrelevant and meaningless "effect" utterly disappears when (absolutely) synchronous clocks are used. >
>
>   See my prior posting re that.
>
> >< To the contrary: in that hypothetical case, "time dilation" becomes a measure of real (or "absolute") process slowdown. And the above-mentioned effects remain the same. >
>
>  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."

Right.

> 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.

[..]
> >><SR uses physically-slowed clocks and physically-contracted rulers, and does not even admit this >
>
> > You are lying:
>
> http://www. John’s “fourmilab”
> Section 4, "Physical Meaning" >
>
> >>< Not lying. It's not a full admission by any standard. No
> mention of anything but relative velocities. >
>
>  No symbol dxi/dx for the ratio of size of units of length appears
> either! (Nowhere in his entire paper is there a mathematical symbol
> for a length contraction; whether physical or only as viewed by
> differently moving systems.)

Beta (nowadays gamma).

> >< I agree that it is only implicit. No mention of the fact that only absolute motion through space can physically slow a clock. Indeed, SRT does on purpose not make any such claims. >
>
>   Correct insofar as “it is only implicit”.  Wrong insofar as the next
> sentence is concerned. (Motion through *empty* space couldn’t
> physically affect anything at all.

"empty" space commonly means a perfect vacuum: that is, free of
molecules.

> Indeed, there is no such thing in the universe as an "empty space".)
>   Although SRT doesn't admit it, only absolute motion through a
> material medium could physically slow a clock.

Most people will understand with "material medium" something like a
Stokes ether; that is incompatible with SRT.

> >< Tom makes contrary assertions about physical reality which he cannot prove either. Such assertions about unobservable reality are not part of SRT..>
>
>    Tom is wrong and you are right. (The relevant assertions were made
> by Minkowski, several years after 1905.) They are mathematically valid
> but inapplicable to reality.

Yes.

> >< On purpose, SRT only concerns phenomena; this allowed Lorentz, Einstein and Minkowski (and physicists today) to promote the theory together. >
>
> Please define “phenomena”.

I mean natural phenomena: Observed appearances of nature.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenomena:
"a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study
the phenomena of nature. " -> Origin: Gk phainómenon = appearance,)

> >> And there was no mention at all
> >> of a physical length contraction.
>
>   That’s not true, though it is!  (E did "mention" a length change;
> but deleted the demo of how it would be found or how much it would
> physically be.)

As I pointed out to him, it's still in the *title*.

> >< It is true that his explanation would have been better if he had added the clear explanation (which I have not seen anywhere) that while the observations of the effects are "relative" (so that the description is observer dependent), the effects are physical nevertheless. >
>
>  Tom disagrees with the latter phrase.  He is wrong.

Yes, Einstein and Lorentz called the effects "physical" with good
reason.

> >>< And no admission that only such a contraction can cause the MMx null result. >
>
>  A length expansion could cause it too. (See me next comment.)

Yes, I discussed that in his original thread.

> >< That is a direct consequence of his description. Einstein was a little bit clearer two years later in an overview of the theory as presented by Lorentz and himself.  When he discussed the negative result of MMX he pointed out that (I rearrange):

I forgot to clarify that "the theory" there does not refer to
Lorentz's Electron Theory but to the theory which Einstein later
called SRT. Thus, with a little expansion:

"a theory [..] which is based on the principle of relativity [..] H.
A. Lorentz's and FitzGerald's hypothesis [according to which moving
bodies experience a certain contraction in the direction of their
motion] appears [..] as a compelling consequence of the theory."

>   Regardless of whether lengths contract or expand, what is needed is
> that those in the direction of motion physically end up       (c^2-
> v^2)^.5 shorter than those in the perpendicular directions.

If only considering MMX.

> >>< 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.
>  You surely mean that when considering that the interferometer moves
> at different speeds at different times of the year (which is the
> essence of MMx), the legs may not be said to be of equal physical
> length all the time. >
>
> ><Einstein made no such wrong statement, but suggested the same as cited above. >
>
>   He did suggest that; but deleted any demonstration. Lorentz
> demonstrated why it would (and does) happen. See his 1904 paper re
> that.

Sure. I am just defending Einstein against accusations of wrongdoing
while basically his only "sin" was to omit some clarifications to
which we attach a certain importance.

> >>< 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.  ...
>  You cannot 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. >
>
> > Yes, if the theory is correct; it is a logical consequence of SRT.
>
>   You have that upside down inside out and backward.  (SRT, which is
> NOT logical or correct, is a consequence of the M&M experiment.)

I did not intend to suggest a causal effect of theory on nature!
Instead, I rephrased Einstein's clarification that from SRT (= assume
Maxwell's theory to be correct AND the PoR to be valid) we are
compelled to logically deduce Lorentz contraction - of the MMX arms in
particular.

>  Although Einstein neither derived nor understood them,

Actually you don't follow his derivation; Lorentz apparently did, for
he promoted Einstein's approach instead of his own earlier approach.

> the LTE rest
> on an impose an entirely different metaphysics than Einstein's theory
> does.  

Did you STILL not check out sam's link to "metaphysics"??! Einstein's
theory HAS no metaphysics, and neither has Lorentz's theory.

> Accordingly, every experiment that confirms Poincare's Lorentz
> equations proves Einstein's theory is wrong.

Poor Lorentz - promoting a wrong derivation of his own theory. ;-)

> ><That should not be surprising as SRT is largely based on the 1895 Lorentz Electron Theory:
>
>  "It is by no means self-evident that the assumption made here which
> we call "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" is
> actually realized In nature, but -- at least for a coordinate system
> in a certain state of motion -- it is made plausible by the
> confirmation of the Lorentz theory[1885], which is based on the
> assumption of an ether that is absolutely at rest, through
> experiment." >
>
>   Lorentz was right, as usual. But “plausible” is not the same as
> “true”. (The LTE apply even though the ether is NOT at rest anywhere
> at all, let alone everywhere.

It is not possible to prove a hypothesis absolutely true. Physicists
rarely claim upfront that their hypotheses are true; instead they work
them out if they look promising, and the proof of the pudding is in
the eating (more experiments). Moreover, we prefer to make it not
needlessly complicated (Occam).

Regards,
Harald
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>

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a blackhole
Next: A Property of Convex Sets