Prev: Prentice Halls Federal Taxation Individuals 2011 Solutions manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 10:40
On Jun 23, 7:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Every double slit experiment ever performed is evidence of aether. The
> moving particle has an associated aether wave.
>

Hello, Micheal P. Cavedon, QA engineer for Progress Software.
Would you mind telling me what physics training you've had?
From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 10:44
On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:42 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 4:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are no experimental results that would support the aether theory
> > > over relativity, despite attempts to search for them.
>
> > Evidence of something is not limited to direct physical observations -
> > a logical argument based of knowledge of the physical world is a form
> > of evidence.
>
> > An argument which supports that theory is the symmetric twin paradox
> > can be avoided by positing the existence of a preferred frame of
> > reference, which is a concept similar to that of the aether.
>
> > The usual argument against the twin paradox is that frame-jumping is
> > an error, but frame jumping is not prohibited by the premises of SR.
>
> A couple of comments:
> - Your statement that a logical argument based on common experience of
> the physical world is evidence FOR a model is not really
> scientifically sound. Common experience is the practice of taking an
> approximate rule that applies well in a good set of everyday
> circumstances and then extending it to be general rule. This is
> fraught with peril, though it has worked well as an evolutionarily
> advantageous strategy for human survival. When models compete, the
> usual scientific approach is to find out where they DISAGREE in a
> prediction about a measurable observation, and then go and measure
> nature's behavior under those circumstances. This way, there is no
> ambiguity -- the measured result will simply agree with model A and
> disagree with model B. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever
> whether model B is more plausible or appealing to common sense.
>
> - Your contention is that an aether avoids having to absorb a paradox.
> The problem is, there is no paradox in special relativity's account of
> what happens with symmetric twins. There is a paradox present in
> *your* mental idea of what relativity says, which I will call "COLPs
> Oversimplified Relativity", but there is no paradox in relativity. So
> what you are saying is that Colp's Oversimplified Relativity has a
> problem that is alleviated by proposing an aether, but this has no
> bearing whatsoever on the fact that special relativity has no problem
> of the sort you're worried about. It certainly makes sense on the
> basis of the paradox to drop Colp's Oversimplified Relativity in favor
> of an aether model, but it makes no sense to drop special relativity
> in favor of an aether model.
>
>
>
> > > There are experimental results other than the Michelson Morley
> > > experiment that rule out an aether strongly entrained by the Earth.
>
> > Please elaborate.
>
> There are quite a number. You could look up the Hammar experiment,
> which was specifically designed to be sensitive to aether-dragging at
> the Earth's surface. However, the definitive nail in the coffin
> appears to be stellar aberration, a measurable phenomenon which would
> be dramatically different if there were aether entrainment by the
> Earth. Essentially, it would be easy to identify bending that would be
> due to the transition from interstellar aether to entrained aether,
> for the light that traverses both regions (from stars to Earth's
> surface).
>
> The lesson to be learned here is that no one experiment ever serves to
> single out one theory above all others. It takes a *collection* of
> experimental results to rule out other candidates. Any given
> experiment may be compatible with one or more competing models, but
> different experiments rule out different sets of theories, and the one
> that survives all the tests is the scientific winner.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Gee, you're awfully quiet about this, COLP.
From: Daryl McCullough on 24 Jun 2010 12:28
PD says...
>
>On Jun 23, 11:47=A0am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:

>> <quote>
>> 2. An ideal clock traveling at speed v for time period t will show an
>> elapsed time of T = t square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
>> </quote>
>
>I'm not sure what you're quoting. It may be a simplified presentation
>of relativity intended for beginners or laypeople.
>
>A physicist would look at the above statement and say, "Well, that's
>an awfully uncareful sentence which could lead to confusion."

Actually, I'm the one who he is quoting. In what ways is it
uncareful? It is true that SR predicts that if an ideal clock
moves at constant velocity v for a time period t, then the
elapsed time on the clock will be t square-root(1-(v/c)^2),
with the provision that v and t must be measured in the
same inertial coordinate system.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 13:03
On Jun 24, 11:28 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
> PD says...
>
>
>
> >On Jun 23, 11:47=A0am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> >> <quote>
> >> 2. An ideal clock traveling at speed v for time period t will show an
> >> elapsed time of T = t square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
> >> </quote>
>
> >I'm not sure what you're quoting. It may be a simplified presentation
> >of relativity intended for beginners or laypeople.
>
> >A physicist would look at the above statement and say, "Well, that's
> >an awfully uncareful sentence which could lead to confusion."
>
> Actually, I'm the one who he is quoting. In what ways is it
> uncareful? It is true that SR predicts that if an ideal clock
> moves at constant velocity v for a time period t, then the
> elapsed time on the clock will be t square-root(1-(v/c)^2),
> with the provision that v and t must be measured in the
> same inertial coordinate system.

As has been mentioned before, perhaps by you, a more careful statement
specifies two events between which the two clocks are measuring
elapsed time. As it is given above, the events are only loosely
specified. For example, the moving clock has gone a distance vt in the
frame where there is presumably a stationary clock that has read a
time t between events A and B. I take it that event at distance vt
away from B is taken to be simultaneous with event B, but in which
frame is it simultaneous? There is room for ambiguity.

The other point of confusion is that it is gives the impression of
completeness -- that is, that SR makes this statement about moving
clocks of all kinds. But in fact, it is only true for clocks moving
with *constant* velocity v in some particular direction, and does not
apply to clocks with changing speed or changing direction. This is the
difficulty that colp is suffering from -- one of them, at least.
From: waldofj on 24 Jun 2010 13:57
> Coordinate systems are arbitrary conventions which are not required by
> the premises of SR.

Coordinate systems are arbitrary but they are required by the
postulates of SR. Keep in mind that "inertial frame of reference" and
"coordinate system" are interchangeable concepts in the context of SR.
Also, the LTEs (the core of SR) translate from one coordinate system
to another. Their presence in the theory make no sense unless there
are coordinate systems.

> The paradox isn't about events that are
> simultaneous because it occurs when the twins return to the point that
> they started from.
>
>
>
> > Disagreement between coordinate systems is *not* a paradox.
>
> In the symmetric twin paradox, SR predicts that each twin will see the
> other's clock run slow, but it must be seen to run fast in order to
> that the twin's clocks read the same time at the end of the experiment
> and avoid the paradox.
>
> The premises of SR specify observed time dilation, never time
> compression, so the paradox cannot be avoided.
>
> <quote>
> 2. An ideal clock traveling at speed v for time period t will show an
> elapsed time of T = t square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
> </quote>

you are misinterpreting that equation. What it really means is:
If I use my clock to measure the time interval between two events that
take place in my frame of reference and someone co-moving with a
moving clock makes the same measurement the ratio between our two
measurements will be gamma.
This has very little to do with what I will actually see when I look
at the moving clock. To know what SR predicts in this case you have
look at the relativistically corrected Doppler equations. I don't know
them off the top of my head. You can look them up and do the math if
you like but the qualitative answer to this scenario is:
As the two twins are moving away from each other they will see the
others clock running slower than their own and when they're moving
towards each other they will see the others clock running faster than
their own. The time lost on the way out is made up on the way back and
when they get back together they will be the same age.

no paradox.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Prentice Halls Federal Taxation Individuals 2011 Solutions manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete