From: Jeckyl on 20 Dec 2007 20:59 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:227a69ca-8553-4802-9602-7fbfc4bbbded(a)l32g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >That is Newton's way. >Einstein said we take the heavnly bodies as an >*inertial* reference. >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html Yet another irrelevant reply from Sue. She is such a distraction, like flies at a picnic. And probably of less value.
From: Bryan Olson on 21 Dec 2007 01:46 Daryl McCullough wrote: > Bryan Olson says... > >> Sue... wrote: >>> <<From the scientific point of view, the important >>> thing is to understand the clearly defined meaning >>> of "proper time", based on the concept of an >>> "ideal clock" corrected for all local sensible >>> conditions, justified by the empirical fact that >>> all physical phenomena are affected identically - >>> including their rates of temporal progression - >>> by their state of inertial motion (which is not a >>> locally sensible condition). >> >>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm >> I believe that by "not a locally sensible condition" >> he means it is not what we would expect. > > I think it is an awkward translation. What I believe > he means is that it is not locally *observable*. The > word "sensible" is being used in the following > sense: > > (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sensible) > > 4. capable of being perceived by the senses; material: > the sensible universe. Ah, O.K. That's even more, uh, sensible. -- --Bryan
From: bz on 20 Dec 2007 23:36 G <gehan_ameresekere(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:a13eaf0d-83cf-4573-8d15- dd457c545af0(a)s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > Surprising. If you take the timeline of all three there must be a > point that coincides on all three timelines? t=0 is coincident (we assume they start with their clocks synchronized). -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Bryan Olson on 21 Dec 2007 01:53 Sue... wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: >> Sue... wrote: >>> <<From the scientific point of view, the important >>> thing is to understand the clearly defined meaning >>> of "proper time", based on the concept of an >>> "ideal clock" corrected for all local sensible >>> conditions, justified by the empirical fact that >>> all physical phenomena are affected identically - >>> including their rates of temporal progression - >>> by their state of inertial motion (which is not a >>> locally sensible condition). >> >>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm >> I believe that by "not a locally sensible condition" >> he means it is not what we would expect. I do not think >> he is saying the theory is logically inconsistent, or >> even absurd. I'm not clear on what Sue was trying to >> show with this quote. > > That is your *belief*. > If you read the whole webpage, you *belief* may change. I had done that much, but reading Daryl's response, I see I had misread that bit. It means sensible as in detectable by sensors, not as in making sense. It's another of your quotes that is against your position. >>> What is the factual material you were introduced to >>> where two experiments did not have identical results >>> (temporal aspects as well) and the difference could be >>> traced to inertial motion between the experiments? >> The same theory that implies the twins paradox rules >> out two experiments differing in the way you ask. Sue, >> by now you should have noticed that I am on side of >> Einstein's theory of relativity, which I would not be >> had I such "factual material" as you request. If you >> want to ask a relativity denier, you are a distance of >> zero from one, regardless of the frame from which we >> measure it. > > I have never heard of those experiments. > You did not answer my question. No idea what you are on about. You asked if I had factual material that would contradict my position. I explained that I do not. Of course I don't; wouldn't be my position if I had facts refuting it. > You are not taking Einstein's position if you > have to slice and dice the clear meaning of PoR. Don't know how to slice and dice it, or why, so I'm going with Einstein and not Sue. "Einstein considered this to be a natural consequence of Special Relativity, not a paradox as some suggested" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox [...] > PoR is about inertia, not time. Sue, I know to you it's all into "YOUR interpretation", but still, how could you omit all that stuff about time in SR? -- --Bryan
From: Sue... on 21 Dec 2007 05:42
On Dec 21, 1:53 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: [...] > > That is your *belief*. > > If you read the whole webpage, you *belief* may change. > > I had done that much, but reading Daryl's response, I see > I had misread that bit. It means sensible as in detectable > by sensors, not as in making sense. You have a URL to Einstein's lecture (~page8) You can decide for youself if Daryl gives a fair interpretation of Einstein's view of Mach's principle. If you are selling Newton's inertial ether you might say the inertial ather is "affected". If you are selling Einstein's GR you have to say <<the gm v -field shall be completely determined by the [distant] matter. >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html > > It's another of your quotes that is against your position. My position is against Newton's inertial ether. Einstein's position is the same. Daryly, Jeckly, Bz, Paparios have taken a position suggesting violations of PoR and other effects that can only occur in the inertial ether of Newton which was undeteced by MMX and undetetected to date. I have taken Einstein's position using his own words and the two most widely accpeted experiments supportive of his theory. << As Einstein said: The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by t he fact that it moves without acceleration. >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm GPS and Pound-Rebka demonstrates that clocks slow near a mass. Einstein and Mach say gravity there causes inertia here. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html If you are traveling far from any mass, half the masses that could slow your clock are moving toward you; half the masses that could slow your clock are moving away from you; Net change in the inertial field is 0. (+1/2) + (-1/2) = 0 There is no inertial/gravitational force that can alter an experiment or clock. (Spatially or temporally) That is consistiant with Einstein's *stronger* interpretation of the Principle of Relativity "ALL inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of *ALL* physical experiments. " [spatially and *temporally* as mathpages points out] http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html > > > I have never heard of those experiments. > > You did not answer my question. > > No idea what you are on about. You asked if I had factual > material that would contradict my position. I explained > that I do not. Of course I don't; wouldn't be my position > if I had facts refuting it. Citing what you were taught in a class carries no weight in science. I was asking you to cite real experiments to support your position. Forget it. I already knew you nor no-one else could offer such experiment because there is none. > > > You are not taking Einstein's position if you > > have to slice and dice the clear meaning of PoR. > > Don't know how to slice and dice it, or why, so I'm going > with Einstein and not Sue. > > "Einstein considered this to be a natural consequence > of Special Relativity, not a paradox as some suggested" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox That page describes a *PARADOX*. IOW its maths are wrong. > > [...] > > > PoR is about inertia, not time. > > Sue, I know to you it's all into "YOUR interpretation", but > still, how could you omit all that stuff about time in SR? SR 1905 thru ~~1920 uses particle light to resolve the *apparent* conflict of PoR and c and earns the young patent examiner a Nobel prize to boot. It was convincing in 1905. It is NOT convincing with 100 years of electromagnetic experience on the bookshelves. Just a sample of some of the better material: http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html Today a different view is taken. Feynman's QED is the standard for particle light models because it includes the classical light paths. <<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply that the Academy recognised the particle nature of light? The Nobel Committee says that Einstein had found that the energy exchange between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv . As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta (in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the law that an electron emitted from a substance by monochromatic light with the frequency has to have a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however, found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange. The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology, photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on which the prize decision rested only in connection with emission and absorption processes. The Committee says that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >> http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html The so-called addition of velocitites formula collapses without a particle propagation model for light. So we don't use it as Einstein did ~1905 but as Feynman did to harness the power of probability and statististic that QM could offer. Sue... > > -- > --Bryan - |