sci.physics.foundations rejected this.
in [Physics]
|
From: glird on 7 May 2010 12:46 This topic really should be discussed on the relativity group. - fd Your message has been rejected because it is off topic of the moderated group sci.physics.foundations. On Mar 20, 3:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > glird wrote: > > > As of now, no gravitational waves have ever been detected. > > Why, then, are most physicists sure they exist? > > This is not true. Hulse and Taylor received a Nobel Prize for the detection of the emission of gravitational waves by a distant binary pulsar. That is an indirect detection, and lends plausibility to their existence, and implies that GR is a good model of them. > Although "an indirect 'detection'" did lend "plausibility to the existence" of g-waves, my statement holds good. TR: We aren't "sure" they exist, we just think it is quite likely and merits the effort [= $$$$$] required to detect them directly. If, as you implied, the emission of gravitational waves has been detected, then why aren't our physicists sure they exist? g: < As Lorentz pointed out, because the arms of an interferometer shrink by Q, q, q in the X, Y, Z directions -- where Q = q^2 = c^2 - v^2 and X is the direction of motion, a beam of light will take the same amount of time to round-trip the arms even though the arms are different lengths than each other AND the speed of light is similarly different relative to each such leg. Tom Roberts will disagree, of course. He believes that the length contractions don't physically happen, but are due to rotations of the X axis of a moving system, as Minkowski assumed. > TR: It's not just me, it's everybody who understand SR. That includes tens of thousands of physicists. If you were right, then (as proved below) that EXcludes Albert Einstein! g: Even so, we have a right to assume that the axes of any moving system are and remain parallel to each other. TR: No, you have no such "right" -- you must follow the structure of the model. You can follow Minkowski's model, but I will follow E's SR model. E wrote, "Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks. To any time of the stationary system K there then will correspond a definite position of the axes of the moving system, and ... we are entitled to assume that the motion of k may be such that the axes of the moving system are [and remain] ... parallel to the axes of the stationary system." TR: In SR, the rotation is in a space-time plane -- in 3-space they remain parallel (for the usual simple situation of a moving ruler aligned along the x and x' axes moving inertially along those same axes).> In fantasy land there might be an xyz;t plane. In reality, a plane is an imaginary mathematical construction with TWO dimensions, not three or four. In normal space, as in Einstein's world -- in which time was NOT a dimension -- all three spatial axes are and remain parallel despite Minkowski's mythical delusions. glird
From: Marvin the Martian on 7 May 2010 13:09 On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:46:15 -0700, glird wrote: > This topic really should be discussed on the relativity group. - fd > > Your message has been rejected because it is off topic of the moderated > group sci.physics.foundations. You've discovered that moderated groups are really private little social cliques, and they don't want to play with you. At least they told you they weren't going to let you in the club.
From: porky_pig_jr on 7 May 2010 17:12 On May 7, 1:09 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:46:15 -0700, glird wrote: > > This topic really should be discussed on the relativity group. - fd > > > Your message has been rejected because it is off topic of the moderated > > group sci.physics.foundations. > > You've discovered that moderated groups are really private little social > cliques, and they don't want to play with you. > > At least they told you they weren't going to let you in the club. or, put it in a different way, a moderated group is a village closed to village idiots.
From: Dono. on 7 May 2010 17:15 On May 7, 2:12 pm, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com" <porky_pig...(a)my- deja.com> wrote: > > > At least they told you they weren't going to let you in the club. > > or, put it in a different way, a moderated group is a village closed > to village idiots. Right on !
From: harald on 7 May 2010 17:24 On May 7, 6:46 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > This topic really should be discussed on the relativity group. - > fd > > Your message has been rejected because it is off topic of the > moderated group sci.physics.foundations. > > On Mar 20, 3:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > glird wrote: [..] > g: < As Lorentz pointed out, because the arms of an interferometer > shrink by Q, q, q in the X, Y, Z directions -- where Q = q^2 = c^2 - > v^2 and X is the direction of motion, a beam of light will take the > same amount of time to round-trip the arms even though the arms are > different lengths than each other AND the speed of light is similarly > different relative to each such leg. > Tom Roberts will disagree, of course. He believes that the length > contractions don't physically happen, but are due to rotations of > the X axis of a moving system, as Minkowski assumed. > > > TR: It's not just me, it's everybody who understand SR. That > includes tens of thousands of physicists. > > If you were right, then (as proved below) that EXcludes Albert > Einstein! > > g: Even so, we have a right to assume that the axes of any moving > system are and remain parallel to each other. > > TR: No, you have no such "right" -- you must follow the structure of > the model. > > You can follow Minkowski's model, but I will follow E's SR model. > E wrote, > "Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant > velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the > other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated > to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and > the clocks. To any time of the stationary system K there then will > correspond a definite position of the axes of the moving system, > and ... we are entitled to assume that the motion of k may be such > that the axes of the moving system are [and remain] ... parallel to > the axes of the stationary system." > > TR: In SR, the rotation is in a space-time plane -- in 3-space they > remain parallel (for the usual simple situation of a moving ruler > aligned along the x and x' axes moving inertially along those same > axes).> > > In fantasy land there might be an xyz;t plane. In reality, a plane > is an imaginary mathematical construction with TWO dimensions, not > three or four. In normal space, as in Einstein's world -- in which > time was NOT a dimension -- all three spatial axes are and remain > parallel despite Minkowski's mythical delusions. > > glird Yes there are, as far as we know, only three spatial (physical) dimensions. Note that Poincare introduced rotations around (x,y,z,t*sqrt(-1)) as follows: "space of 4 dimensions. We see that the Lorentz transformation is merely a rotation in this space about the origin". http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/hp1906rpen.xml Evidently, just like Einstein he was well aware that a rotation in "this" mathematical 4D space - a drawing on a piece of paper representing a mathematical transformation - is something entirely different from the motion of objects in 3D space. Regards, Harald
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Next: i will play the part of Androcles. |