Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Inertial on 30 Dec 2009 05:09 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:t73mj596lseqjb6vipl797h5i12gp1htl1(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:49:21 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:k5llj51jnm0p6gkk6r2t6jc7f2nf2f9pu7(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:29:18 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>Its what SR predicts. Do you want me to prove that what SR predicts is >>>>what >>>>SR predicts? If so, I'm not sure exactly what extra information you >>>>require. If you want me to prove that reality behaves in the same way >>>>as >>>>SR >>>>predicts, then the only way to prove it (or at least to not-refute it) >>>>is >>>>to >>>>physically perform the experiment. Be my guest. Also if you want to >>>>show >>>>that there is any self-contradiction in SR, be my guest. >>> >>> just read my latest post and give us the maths that demonstrate how two >>> time >>> intervals which are the same in one frame can be different in >>> another...for >>> that specific case.. >> >>Why do you need math to show that c = c ?? The light is incident at c and >>reflects at c in the mirrors frame of reference .. that comes directly >>from >>SR's 2nd postulate. > > Now tie that in with the fact that t1-t0 =/= t2-t1 What are t0, t1 and t2? You need to define your terms .. I see no mention of them in this post. >> Do you really need math to show that light travelling >>at c from A to B takes the same time as light travelling at c the same >>distance from B to A ?? > > you obviously still cannot understand the question. You obviously can't ask one.
From: Inertial on 30 Dec 2009 05:14 "waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:6a683279-f568-4167-81da-09183fb86d51(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> > p xor q => p or q, dumby? Explain us what this is not true. >> >> Easy as 1,2,3, 4. >> >> 1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE >> 2) (FALSE or FALSE) = FALSE >> 3) (TRUE(from 1) => FALSE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE >> Happy now, moortel's rent boy? > > just for the record: > 1) (TRUE xor TRUE) = FALSE > 2) (TRUE or TRUE) = TRUE > 3) (FALSE(from 1) => TRUE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE (FALSE => TRUE) = TRUE see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_implication Gees .. you guys just don't know your logic.
From: waldofj on 30 Dec 2009 06:36 > The task for relativists is to show how the pulse travel times between the > clocks can be the same in the mirror frame yet different in the source frame . you come close to answering your question with this paragraph. > In the source frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on the forward > trip is d/(c+v). The clocks NUMERICALLY read t0 and t1 as the light passes. > After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 is d/(c-v) and the clocks > record the numbers t1 and t2. Although that should be d / gamma rather then just d. what makes this work is according to Lorentz the clocks C1 and C2 are NOT synchronized in the source frame. Specifically C1 will lag C2 by an offset determined by both d and v. So what happens is this: As seen from the source frame light takes a time d / gamma / (c + v) to go from C1 to C2. This time is less than d / c but because C2 is more advanced than C1 it records a later (larger) value for t1 by just the right amount such that d / (t1 - t0) = c. As seen from the source frame light takes d / gamma / (c - v) to go from C2 to C1. This time is greater than d / c but because C1 lags C2 it records an earlier (smaller) value for t2 by just the right amount such that d / (t2 - t1) = c. Don't bother looking for a physical explanation of this effect (clocks synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in other frames). There is no explanation, this is just what has to be if the principle of the constancy of the speed of light is correct. Remember this is not proof of anything, it's just a description of what SR says about this scenario. If you want proof, well: http://www.cottonexpressions.com/ccp0-prodshow/YouWantProof.html
From: Androcles on 30 Dec 2009 07:36 "waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:ee0312b4-f009-44c3-b06f-4a051a24d103(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >> The task for relativists is to show how the pulse travel times between >> the >> clocks can be the same in the mirror frame yet different in the source >> frame . > > you come close to answering your question with this paragraph. > >> In the source frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on the >> forward >> trip is d/(c+v). The clocks NUMERICALLY read t0 and t1 as the light >> passes. >> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 is d/(c-v) and the >> clocks >> record the numbers t1 and t2. > Although that should be d / gamma rather then just d. > > what makes this work is according to Lorentz the clocks C1 and C2 are > NOT synchronized in the source frame. Specifically C1 will lag C2 by > an offset determined by both d and v. > So what happens is this: > As seen from the source frame light takes a time d / gamma / (c + v) > to go from C1 to C2. This time is less than d / c but because C2 is > more advanced than C1 it records a later (larger) value for t1 by just > the right amount such that d / (t1 - t0) = c. > As seen from the source frame light takes d / gamma / (c - v) to go > from C2 to C1. This time is greater than d / c but because C1 lags C2 > it records an earlier (smaller) value for t2 by just the right amount > such that d / (t2 - t1) = c. > Don't bother looking for a physical explanation of this effect (clocks > synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in other frames). There > is no explanation, this is just what has to be if the principle of the > constancy of the speed of light is correct. > Remember this is not proof of anything, it's just a description of > what SR says about this scenario. > If you want proof, well: > http://www.cottonexpressions.com/ccp0-prodshow/YouWantProof.html 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] Chess boards have 63 squares and squares have 6 sides in relativity. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm Don't bother looking for a physical explanation of this effect, the board area is (8-1) * (8+1) = 63.
From: Cocoon on 30 Dec 2009 07:49
On Dec 30, 9:44 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "YBM" <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message > > news:4b3ab656$0$24751$426a34cc(a)news.free.fr... [snip unread] > > For the record, could you define what you mean by "closing speed"? > > I never use the term without including "opening speed". You define it, rent > boy. this is not an excuse, start a new thread and explain both 1. closing speed 2. opening speed Good Bye |