| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Igor
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
 |
|
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1.
[/quote]
It is? Maybe you should show all your work and not just assume things
and make an ass out of yourself.
[quote]It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.
[/quote]
Ditto. Your work seems to be no show again.
[quote]The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.
[/quote]
This would indeed reveal an inconistency in SR, provided your previous
statements were indeed correct. But since you failed to back them up,
you come out on the short end of the length contracted stick. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
doug
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
strich.9993@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.
No, the obvious conclusion is that you misunderstand both the[/quote]
world and relativity. Experiment says this is not true. You
are wrong. Starting new thread does not change the fact that
you are still wrong.
[quote]
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
[/quote]
You start by assuming that the Lorentz transformation is not needed
and then you come to the conclustion it is not needed. This is
not logic even in your world.
[quote]2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
[/quote]
It showed there was time dilation consistent with SR.
[quote]3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.
When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.
Thanks.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
doug
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
papa_rios@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 9 oct, 14:48, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.
When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.
Thanks.
Your problem Strich is that you do not want to study physics. You are
here just to troll, to entertain yourself while wasting the time of
everybody else. You are unable to read the references which are
provided to you, as well as the direct demonstration that are spoon
fed to you, but with zero response.
Miguel Rios
[/quote]
He has a choice. He can do his work or sit at a computer and waste time.
That is simpler so he trolls. When he is shown to be completely wrong,
he just starts a new thread with the same arguments. Somehow he thinks
new threads will make him correct. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
herbzet
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:58 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
strich.9993@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.
[/quote]
A google groups poster.
--
hz
sci.logic subscriber |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Uncle Al
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
strich.9993@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]
The premise was simple...
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
[snip crap][/quote]
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
empirical idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
Igor wrote:
[quote]snip rantings of lune tune
[/quote]
FYI:
M2=M1 was already shown in the thread "Relativity = Stupidity"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d6a4f6357ea39352?scoring=d&
Everybody agreed. Ask your buddy PD. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 9:18 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]Igor wrote:
snip rantings of lune tune
FYI:
M2=M1 was already shown in the thread "Relativity = Stupidity"http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d6a4f635...
Everybody agreed. Ask your buddy PD.
[/quote]
Actually, even I pointed out that you can>t claim M1 = M2.
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 9, 6:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]confused
[/quote]
Let me rephrase the problem. Since most of the physicists seem to
have difficulty grasping an esoteric concept such as time, we will use
length. This is a geometric concept and it is easier to picture for
abstract-challenged minds. This is a valid analogy, as SR postulates
time changes with velocity as well as length changes.
Let me start with a simple example:
Dirk is standing in space. He extends his index finger in the +x
direction. There is a wart at the end of his finger, which is
stationary with the finger. The wart measures his finger as 10cm.
Now a neutrino passes by with v=0.995c going in the +x direction.
Using the Lorentz Transformation Equations, the neutrino measures
Dirk>s finger and notes it has contracted to 1cm. The wart makes
measurements at time=2,4,6,8,10 seconds. The neutrino makes
measurements at time=1,3,5,7,9 seconds.
Question: What happens to Dirk>s finger, does it alternate in size
from 1cm to 10cm to 1 cm to 10cm etc, as the neutrino and the wart
alternately make their measurements? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 10:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Actually, even I pointed out that you can>t claim M1 = M2.
In frame M, M1=M2. You agreed right here:[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ce5779aedbda1b95 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 9:31 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 6:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
confused
Let me rephrase the problem. Since most of the physicists seem to
have difficulty grasping an esoteric concept such as time, we will use
length. This is a geometric concept and it is easier to picture for
abstract-challenged minds. This is a valid analogy, as SR postulates
time changes with velocity as well as length changes.
Let me start with a simple example:
Dirk is standing in space. He extends his index finger in the +x
direction. There is a wart at the end of his finger, which is
stationary with the finger. The wart measures his finger as 10cm.
Now a neutrino passes by with v=0.995c going in the +x direction.
Using the Lorentz Transformation Equations, the neutrino measures
Dirk>s finger and notes it has contracted to 1cm. The wart makes
measurements at time=2,4,6,8,10 seconds. The neutrino makes
measurements at time=1,3,5,7,9 seconds.
Question: What happens to Dirk>s finger, does it alternate in size
from 1cm to 10cm to 1 cm to 10cm etc, as the neutrino and the wart
alternately make their measurements?
[/quote]
No, of course not. Length is not an inherent property of the finger.
It is frame dependent.
Here, let>s take another simple example to see how boneheaded your
question is.
There are three cars on the street, A, B, and C, where A and B are
headed in one direction and C is headed in the opposite direction.
The driver of car A looks at car B and makes a measurement of the
speed of car B, according to the frame of reference of that driver. He
measures car B>s speed to be 5 mph at times 2 s, 4 s, 6 s, 8 s.
The driver of car C looks at car B and makes a measurement of the
speed of car B, according to the frame of reference of that driver. He
measures car B>s speed to be 45 mph at times 1 s, 3 s, 5 s, 7 s.
Does this mean that car B alternates speed from 5 mph to 45 mph as the
drivers of car A and car C make their measurements?
Idiot.
Spectacular idiot.
Sanguinely self-immolating, spectacular idiot.
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 9:35 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 10:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> Actually, even I pointed out that you can>t claim M1 = M2.
In frame M, M1=M2. You agreed right here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ce5779aedbda1b95
[/quote]
Back atcha
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3fb5b754ea35cb5e? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 11:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 9:35 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> Actually, even I pointed out that you can>t claim M1 = M2.
In frame M, M1=M2. You agreed right here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ce5779aedbda1b95
Back atchahttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3fb5b754ea3...
[/quote]
Your link points to E2=M2.
My link points to M2=M1.
Do you need an refresher on the alphabet? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 10:53 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 9:31 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 9, 6:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
confused
Let me rephrase the problem. Since most of the physicists seem to
have difficulty grasping an esoteric concept such as time, we will use
length. This is a geometric concept and it is easier to picture for
abstract-challenged minds. This is a valid analogy, as SR postulates
time changes with velocity as well as length changes.
Let me start with a simple example:
Dirk is standing in space. He extends his index finger in the +x
direction. There is a wart at the end of his finger, which is
stationary with the finger. The wart measures his finger as 10cm.
Now a neutrino passes by with v=0.995c going in the +x direction.
Using the Lorentz Transformation Equations, the neutrino measures
Dirk>s finger and notes it has contracted to 1cm. The wart makes
measurements at time=2,4,6,8,10 seconds. The neutrino makes
measurements at time=1,3,5,7,9 seconds.
Question: What happens to Dirk>s finger, does it alternate in size
from 1cm to 10cm to 1 cm to 10cm etc, as the neutrino and the wart
alternately make their measurements?
No, of course not. Length is not an inherent property of the finger.
It is frame dependent.
[/quote]
Your answer is self-contradictory.
You say two things:
1) the finger length does not change.
2) the finger length is a frame dependent quantity.
The second implies finger length changes, which contradicts the first
statement.
Do you need: a) memory medication b) review of basic logic or c) help? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 10:26 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 11:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:35 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> Actually, even I pointed out that you can>t claim M1 = M2.
In frame M, M1=M2. You agreed right here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ce5779aedbda1b95
Back atchahttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3fb5b754ea3...
Your link points to E2=M2.
My link points to M2=M1.
Do you need an refresher on the alphabet?
[/quote]
No, my link points to a discussion about when you can say M1=M2 and
when you cannot. Can you not read?
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Y.Porat
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 4:31 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 6:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
confused
Let me rephrase the problem. Since most of the physicists seem to
have difficulty grasping an esoteric concept such as time, we will use
length. This is a geometric concept and it is easier to picture for
abstract-challenged minds. This is a valid analogy, as SR postulates
time changes with velocity as well as length changes.
Let me start with a simple example:
Dirk is standing in space. He extends his index finger in the +x
direction. There is a wart at the end of his finger, which is
stationary with the finger. The wart measures his finger as 10cm.
Now a neutrino passes by with v=0.995c going in the +x direction.
Using the Lorentz Transformation Equations, the neutrino measures
Dirk>s finger and notes it has contracted to 1cm. The wart makes
measurements at time=2,4,6,8,10 seconds. The neutrino makes
measurements at time=1,3,5,7,9 seconds.
Question: What happens to Dirk>s finger, does it alternate in size
from 1cm to 10cm to 1 cm to 10cm etc, as the neutrino and the wart
alternately make their measurements?
[/quote]
--------------
even if you intended to bypass the time problem
you cant get away with it
so the reality problem remains in the 'Time'
measurment!!
because time is always relative to some
chosen motion reference
and motion depends technically on 'time'
(the relative motion reference)
that its measuement is motion dependant!!
(it is not constant )!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
