Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Inertial on 3 Jan 2010 18:10 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:ur62k518c0kr32qga314q9s8njgvmhb9vk(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:26:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:6132k5l90k7akhsl4hg1dfns658au2ht5p(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:07:54 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:hhod94$nht$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:19:51 -0800, eric gisse >>>>>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >>> >>>>>> If you accept that these two are fundamental dimensions then that >>>>>> might >>>>>> be >>>>>> OK.... but maybe the two quantities are themselves expressible in >>>>>> terms >>>>>> of >>>>>> other dimension about which we know nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I would stick by my claim that the whole area is pretty vague, >>>>>> wouldn't >>>>>> you agree. >>>>> >>>>> What book did you study E&M from? >>>> >>>>I think we can extend the 'Henry doesn't know, doesn't care, and can't >>>>understand it" principle to many areas of physics, not just SR. He >>>>really >>>>needs a new hobby, one that a knows something about, cares about, and >>>>understands (if there is such a thing) because he is a failure at >>>>physics. >>> >>> Not interested in the two mirror problem, eh? >> >>No .. you're not really .. because we've shown you that it doe not refute >>SR >>nor show any internal or logical inconsistency. All you've done is shown >>that SR says different things to the theory you think is right, and that >>you >>don't know or care what SR actually says anyway (whether it is right or >>not). That does not refute SR. > > What does SR say about two mirrors that are approaching a source at > different > speeds? You don't care what SR says .. if you do, study SR and find out > Better still, what does SR say about two differently moving mirrors that > are > approaching two differently moving light pulse sources? How many pulses > are > reflected? You don't care what SR says .. if you do, study SR and find out > What does SR say about the flashing light that is only visible in one > particular frame? You don't care what SR says .. if you do, study SR and find out > What does SR say about anything that lies outside fairyland? You don't care what SR says .. if you do, study SR and find out None of the questions above highlight any problems with SR at all. They only indicate that you do not understand SR at all, that SR does not claim to say what you mistakenly think it does, and that SR does not say the same things as your pet theory does.
From: Androcles on 3 Jan 2010 18:24 "waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:a2a6a3bf-6b49-475b-9e89-34fbbcb2e35f(a)u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... oops! somehow sqrt dropped out of my copy/paste. Those LTE's should of course be =============================================== rabbits pulled out of a hat, but it was so long ago I don�t remember how I did it. Of course all triangles are isosceles. http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
From: Androcles on 3 Jan 2010 18:31 "waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:baa5daa9-bcb7-43c9-9d9e-6b507eec6852(a)h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... On Jan 3, 3:53 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Jan 3, 3:08 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > >news:ea47baf0-a8f9-4f58-935d-812452ab275d(a)o19g2000vbj.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 30, 7:36 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > > > > > I don't care about physical explanations, there is no mathematical > > > > explanation. Anyone handwaving their precious gamma around > > > > needs to derive it first. > > > > > gamma = sqrt[(c-v)(c+v)/c^2] > > > > actually gamma is the reciprocal of that function and deriving it is > > > easy. What's the big deal? > > > ======================================== > > > Go on then, show and tell. Just remember that the speed of light is > > > c in all frames of reference and so you can't use c+v or c-v without > > > being self-contradictory. > > > I�ll derive it two ways, the first is the way it was taught to me in > > college, the second is a way I came up with myself. > > First: compute gamma by analyzing a light clock, two mirrors with a > > light beam bouncing between them. The mirrors are oriented so the > > light is moving parallel to the Y axis and perpendicular to the X > > axis. I will call the time it takes light to travel from one mirror to > > the other from the point of view of an observer that is stationary > > w.r.t. the clock T and the time from the point of view that is moving > > w.r.t. the clock T�. Gamma is defined as the ratio between these two > > times. > > Gamma = T� / T > > The distance between the mirrors is D and the moving point of view is > > moving with velocity V along the X axis. > > From the stationary point of view the time for the light to bounce > > between the mirrors is just D divided by the speed of light. > > T = D / C > > From the moving point of view the light traces out a diagonal path and > > a right triangle is needed to analyze this motion. The light path is > > the hypotenuse of the triangle and it�s length is the speed of light > > times the time it takes for the light to bounce between the mirrors, > > CT�. The vertical leg of the triangle is the distance between the > > mirrors, D. The horizontal leg of the triangle is the distance the > > moving point of view moves in the time it takes for the light to > > bounce between the mirrors, VT�. So from the Pythagorean theorem we > > have > > (CT�)^2 = (VT�)^2 + D^2 > > (CT�)^2 � (VT�)^2 = D^2 > > T�^2(C^2 � V^2) = D^2 > > T�^2 = D^2 / (C^2 � V^2) > > T� = D / sqrt(C^2 � V^2) > > So > > Gamma = T� / T > > Gamma = (D / sqrt(C^2 � V^2)) / (D / C) > > Gamma = C / sqrt(C^2 � V^2) > > Gamma = 1 / sqrt((C^2 � V^2) / C^2) > > Gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 � V^2 / C^2) > > > The second way I stumbled on to when I tried to derive the LTE from an > > idea I had. The first step was to find transformation equations that > > embodied the principle of the constancy of the speed of light (PCSL). > > It was so long ago I don�t remember how I did it but I came up with > > this: > > X� = X � VT > > T� = T � VX / C^2 > > > So the reverse transform is > > X = X� + VT� > > T = T� + VX / C^2 > > The next step was to see if these equations satisfy the principle of > > relativity (POR) > > In this case it means when the reverse transform is applied to the > > forward transform you should end up with > > X = X > > T = T > > > However when I applied the reverse transform to the forward transform > > I got > > X = X(1 � V^2 / C^2) > > T = T(1 � V^2 / C^2) > > > POR not satisfied. I realized if I could somehow get 1 / (1 � V^2 / > > C^2) into the equations it would divide out. I also realized for the > > equations to satisfy the POR they had to be symmetrical, the forward > > and reverse equations have to have the same form. So I tried > > multiplying everything by 1 / sqrt(1 � V^2 / C^2). This worked. The > > final equations are: > > X� = (X � VT) (1 / (1 � V^2 / C^2)) > > T� = (T � VX / C^2) (1 / (1 � V^2 / C^2)) > > X = (X� + VT�) (1 / (1 � V^2 / C^2)) > > T = (T� + VX� / C^2) (1 / (1 � V^2 / C^2)) > > > These are of course the LTE. They embody the PCSL and satisfy the POR > > and > > gamma is 1 / sqrt(1 � V^2 / C^2). > > From this I realized the role that gamma plays in the LTE is to > > reconcile the PCSL with the POR. > > > Btw I didn�t use c + v or c � v here but you are wrong that the use of > > them (under certain circumstances) is self-contradictory > > oops! somehow sqrt dropped out of my copy/paste. Those LTE's should of > course be > X� = (X � VT) (1 / sqrt(1 � V^2 / C^2)) > T� = (T � VX / C^2) sqrt(1 / (1 � V^2 / C^2)) > X = (X� + VT�) (1 / sqrt(1 � V^2 / C^2)) > T = (T� + VX� / C^2) sqrt(1 / (1 � V^2 / C^2)) I'm getting to old for this. ===================== Yeah, me too. It was so long ago I can't remember how to saw women in half. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawing_a_woman_in_half Something about "M�nage � Trois "... but I don't have the stamina I once had. You kiss one while bonking the other if I recall.
From: Inertial on 3 Jan 2010 18:40 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message news:PE90n.22784$PV.5655(a)newsfe19.ams2... [snip] > The hypotenuse is given by (DT)^2 = (CT)^2 + (VT)^2, > or at least it was when Einstein went to school. > Since (DT)^2 = D^2 T^2, > Dividing by the common denominator T^2, > D = sqrt (C^2 + V^2) > = sqrt ( (C+V)(C-V)). BAHAHA .. so you think C^2 + V^2 = (C+V)(C-V). You're as bad at basic math as you are at basic boolean logic.
From: Lucky on 3 Jan 2010 20:10
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:a8jrj55m5dpeknpvddiqs6ufh40cd122fc(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:59:08 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:lnuqj55tj9b86degjoc486knmiflbuq287(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:22:53 +0100, YBM <ybmess(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>>So you claim that according to PoR (the "correct" one as you said), if >>>>any two physical quantities of the same kind are equal in one frame, >>>>they are equal in all. Right? >>> >>> two quantities that do no contain L/T >> >>So lets consider three colinear objects with A distance L from B and B >>distance L from C >> >>A......B......C >> >>In B's frame of reference, the distance away from origin of C is L and the >>distance away from origin of A is L. >> >>In A's frame of reference, the distance away from origin of C is 2L and >>the >>distance away from origin of A is 0. >> >>Hmm .. same quantity, different values. And no L/T. > > I'm just realising I'm arguing with a real nutcase.. > >>If we assume Newtonian physics, you can have values that include L/T in >>their dimensions that are equal in multiple frames of reference. >> >>Back to the drawing board, Henry. > > You really don't have aclue...even little eric is now brighter than you. >> > Brightness is nondeterminative. I think fireless cigars can be purchased at the practical joke shops and eventually explode |