Prev: What makes a formula - to be relativistic??
Next: Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
From: Edward Green on 3 Jul 2010 12:59
On Jul 2, 1:10 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Why did you filter out other newsgroups in the reply?  Why are you so
> scared of posting to other newsgroups?

You are confusing courtesy with fear. If anybody primarily posting to
those newsgroups really wants to follow interminable arguments about
relativity they can read it here. The rest will appreciate the
marginal drop in noise level.
From: Paul Stowe on 3 Jul 2010 14:01
On Jul 3, 9:44 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners.
>
> > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED.
>
> > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of
> > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is
> > not required.
>
> Would you extend that courtesy to Lorentz's postulate of an aether?
> You may object that is has correct consequences but is unnecessary,
> but to that objection may be countered that it has greater explanatory
> power than the postulate of the constant speed of light with respect
> to all inertial observers, which miracle I believe it explains, along
> with the constancy of the speed of light independent of the motion of
> the source.
>
> <snipped sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.math>

There is another aspect that it explains (which while inherent in his
model he did not recognize), inertia... To go from one inertial state
to another one must change their absolute speed wrt (or within) the
aether. Since all material objects primarily consist of charged
matter which, in turn, have electric fields (which as 'assumed' to
extend to infinity) and, according to Lorentz's concept the radii of
which takes the form of,

R' = R(Sqrt(1 - (v'/c)^2))

Where

v' = v Cos @

And

@ = the angle relative to the vector direction of travel.

Thus, for any delta v there results a delta r, and in turn, create a
delta E. Thus, the rate at which the E fields change (dE/dt) creates
a counter electromotive force, resisting any departure from an
inertial equilibrium state. The result, inertia...

IOW, Lorentz stumbled upon the very nature of inertia. If, in fact,
the strong equivalence 'principle' is true, then, in turn, the basis
nature of gravity...

OTOH, SR does not and cannot provide for such possibilities. This is
on top of the other rater obvious explanatory aspects like why c isn't
globally constant, requiring the hydrodynamical expression of GR to
explain the larger picture.

Regards,

Paul Stowe
From: Esa Riihonen on 3 Jul 2010 14:18
Androcles kirjoitti:

> "Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2010.07.03.15.04.38(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | Follow ups
> to: sci.physics.relativity |
> | Koobee Wublee kirjoitti:
> |
> | > On Jul 2, 5:23 am, Esa Riihonen wrote: | >> Androcles kirjoitti:
> | >
> | >> > Go ahead, the most of the cranks, quit babbling and start using |
> >> > mathematics.
> | >>
> | >> Why should I? I was not doing physics here - and natural language
> seems | >> to be much superior for this kind of meta discussion. | >>
> | >> And regarding the specific problems Colp is having with the
> "symmetric | >> twin paradox", the mathematical walk through has already
> been given by | >> someone (McCullogh, PD - don't remember) in a much
> clearer form than I | >> believe I can do myself. As far as I have seen
> Colp didn't respond to | >> that at all.
> | >
> | > So, you don't know what math is involved with the problem. You
> don't | > know what the issues are with relative simultaneity. You
> don't know | > anything about the Lorentz transform. You are easily
> bedazzled by the | > mathemagic shows where all these mathemagic shows
> contradict each other. | > That is a fine trait of Einstein
> Dingleberrism. <shrug> |
> | The math involved is the math of SR - specifically regarding the twin
> | "paradoxes" (symmetric or not) it is more or less just Lorentz |
> Transforming the coordinates of the events between different inertial |
> frames. But perhaps I really don't know anything about this stuff - |
> however I hope you won't reveal this to my current employer or former |
> teachers that let me pass the exams.
>
> Neither you, your teachers or your employers will ever make any use of
> your garbage.

How sad then - well what can one do.

> |
> | But perhaps you could now show how the solution of the symmetric twin
> | paradox provided earlier was flawed?
>
> Easy:
> The Einstein malformations use two frames, not three. In the coordinate
> system of the car the road moves. Moving roads have slow clocks.
> Any so-called "symmetric twin paradox" requires a third coordinate
> system. A moves relatively to C and B moves relatively to C in the
> opposite direction.
> Without the third coordinate system we are left with A moving relatively
> to B.

Strange - the standard twin paradox uses at least three inertial frames:

1: The stay home frame 0
2: Outward frame 1, speed v_01 relative to the home frame
3: Inward frame 2, speed v_02 (usually v_02 = -v_01) relative to the
home frame

The symmetric twin paradox uses either the same three frames or just two
(frames 1 and 2) but considers explicitly the transforms between the
frames 1 and 2 with relative velocities v_12 = -v_21.

Either of us is clearly somewhat confused.

Esa(R)

--
Time flies like an arrow,
Fruit flies like a banana.
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 16:32
On Jul 3, 11:44 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:53 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > > A postulate is just an assumption with better table manners.
>
> > Yes, indeed. By DEFINITION, a postulate is something that is ASSUMED.
>
> > In science, the test of a postulate is based on experimental check of
> > the *consequences* of postulates. A direct test of the postulate is
> > not required.
>
> Would you extend that courtesy to Lorentz's postulate of an aether?

Yes.

> You may object that is has correct consequences but is unnecessary,

No, that's really not the deciding figure of merit. The figure of
merit is that relativity explains the Lorentz covariance of all the
fundamental forces, where the Lorentz ether does not. Therefore the
theory that has the broader explanatory reach wins.

> but to that objection may be countered that it has greater explanatory
> power than the postulate of the constant speed of light with respect
> to all inertial observers, which miracle I believe it explains, along
> with the constancy of the speed of light independent of the motion of
> the source.

I don't see how it has any greater explanatory power than the
structure of spacetime, which accounts for the miracle quite
straightforwardly.

>
> <snipped sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.math>

From: Androcles on 3 Jul 2010 16:45

"Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.07.03.18.18.28(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid...
| Androcles kirjoitti:
|
| > "Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2010.07.03.15.04.38(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | Follow ups
| > to: sci.physics.relativity |
| > | Koobee Wublee kirjoitti:
| > |
| > | > On Jul 2, 5:23 am, Esa Riihonen wrote: | >> Androcles kirjoitti:
| > | >
| > | >> > Go ahead, the most of the cranks, quit babbling and start using |
| > >> > mathematics.
| > | >>
| > | >> Why should I? I was not doing physics here - and natural language
| > seems | >> to be much superior for this kind of meta discussion. | >>
| > | >> And regarding the specific problems Colp is having with the
| > "symmetric | >> twin paradox", the mathematical walk through has already
| > been given by | >> someone (McCullogh, PD - don't remember) in a much
| > clearer form than I | >> believe I can do myself. As far as I have seen
| > Colp didn't respond to | >> that at all.
| > | >
| > | > So, you don't know what math is involved with the problem. You
| > don't | > know what the issues are with relative simultaneity. You
| > don't know | > anything about the Lorentz transform. You are easily
| > bedazzled by the | > mathemagic shows where all these mathemagic shows
| > contradict each other. | > That is a fine trait of Einstein
| > Dingleberrism. <shrug> |
| > | The math involved is the math of SR - specifically regarding the twin
| > | "paradoxes" (symmetric or not) it is more or less just Lorentz |
| > Transforming the coordinates of the events between different inertial |
| > frames. But perhaps I really don't know anything about this stuff - |
| > however I hope you won't reveal this to my current employer or former |
| > teachers that let me pass the exams.
| >
| > Neither you, your teachers or your employers will ever make any use of
| > your garbage.
|
| How sad then - well what can one do.
|
| > |
| > | But perhaps you could now show how the solution of the symmetric twin
| > | paradox provided earlier was flawed?
| >
| > Easy:
| > The Einstein malformations use two frames, not three. In the coordinate
| > system of the car the road moves. Moving roads have slow clocks.
| > Any so-called "symmetric twin paradox" requires a third coordinate
| > system. A moves relatively to C and B moves relatively to C in the
| > opposite direction.
| > Without the third coordinate system we are left with A moving relatively
| > to B.
|
| Strange - the standard twin paradox uses at least three inertial frames:

|
| 1: The stay home frame 0

That's one.


| 2: Outward frame 1, speed v_01 relative to the home frame


Speed is neither a coordinate system nor a frame of reference.


| 3: Inward frame 2, speed v_02 (usually v_02 = -v_01) relative to the
| home frame

Speed is neither a coordinate system nor a frame of reference.

1: The stay home frame 0, speed v wrt frame 2
2: The other twin frame 1, at rest by the PoR.

Let f be a transformation from frame 0 to frame 1, f(x) = x-vt
Translatory coordinate transformation done, stupid.

I conclude your mother never taught you to count to two.

Answer a question, fuckwit:
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?





First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: What makes a formula - to be relativistic??
Next: Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics