| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PD
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
 |
|
On Oct 10, 10:32 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 10:53 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Your answer is self-contradictory.
You say two things:
1) the finger length does not change.
[/quote]
I said it does not *alternate*. Alternating means that at any given
instant, the length has a unique value, but that the value changes
from one unique value to another unique value from one instant to the
next.
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference frame, the
length has a constant value. At the *same* time in a different
inertial reference frame, the length has a different constant value.
Is this too difficult? Are you having reading comprehension problems?
Is the difference between "alternating" and "multivalued" lost on you?
Have you had your pills this morning?
[quote]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?
[/quote]
Where is this fabled logic that you speak so highly of? Did you run
across a stranger on the road who offered to buy your car for a
handful of magic logic beans?
PD |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 10:36 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
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.
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?
No, It means that some idiot is not actually measuring the speed of the car
wrt the ground which of course is the proper way to measure a cars speed.
[/quote]
Why is that the proper way to measure speed? After all, the ground is
moving. Do you think that physics references everything in the
universe to the surface of the earth? Why???
Idiot.
Plebian idiot.
Preposterously parisitic, plebian idiot.
[quote]
Idiot.
Yes you are,
You can>t even figure out how fast a car is "really "moving since you are
too stupid to use your relative speeds to figure the actual speed.
If I am driving on the highway at 65 and I see a car staying next to me
the whole time I am driving. I actualy think that car is also doing 65
"because" our relative speed is 0.
It figures that those who support relativity don>t even know how to
use it to find out facts.
LOL[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 7:34 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 10:26 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
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?
No, my link points to a discussion about when you can say M1=M2 and
when you cannot. Can you not read?
PD
[/quote]
I think it is clear he can not. Please stop feeding him. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 11:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference frame, the
length has a constant value. At the *same* time in a different
inertial reference frame, the length has a different constant value.
[/quote]
In summary, you want to assign multiple lengths to one object.
However, Dirk always measures his appendage at 10cm. He can he
sitting, jacking up, falling down, speeding, and his appendage is
always 10cm. Neutrinos and muons can be speeding by him in all
directions, and his appendage is still 10cm. These particles measure
his thing at 0.1cm, 1cm, 5cm, 9cm etc, but Dirk always measures 10cm.
Do you deny that the 10cm is the actual length of the finger? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 11:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 4:31 pm, 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?
--------------
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
-------------------- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
two words: space - time
one conclusion: equivalent
one advice: evolve |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:52 pm 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. 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.
[/quote]
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically or
experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in physical
science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient, since SR claims
something about physical reality. Mathematicians don>t deal with
physical reality, only logic. "Experimentally" because no amount of
experiments can ever prove a theory correct; experiments can only
support or subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it to be
false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 11:34 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 11:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference frame, the
length has a constant value. At the *same* time in a different
inertial reference frame, the length has a different constant value.
In summary, you want to assign multiple lengths to one object.
[/quote]
Of course. Just like there are multiple velocities for one object,
multiple kinetic energies for one object, multiple momenta for one
object -- all at the same time and dependent on reference frame.
Heck, Galileo understood this, even though you find it incredible.
[quote]
However, Dirk always measures his appendage at 10cm. He can he
sitting, jacking up, falling down, speeding, and his appendage is
always 10cm. Neutrinos and muons can be speeding by him in all
directions, and his appendage is still 10cm. These particles measure
his thing at 0.1cm, 1cm, 5cm, 9cm etc, but Dirk always measures 10cm.
Do you deny that the 10cm is the actual length of the finger?
[/quote]
There is no such thing is an "actual length", just like there is no
such thing as Dirk>s "actual velocity", or "actual momentum", or
"actual kinetic energy" or "actual inertia".
These quantities are frame-dependent, with no frame being preferred
over any other, and so the value in no frame being preferred over the
values in any other frame.
There>s not a thing wrong with this. Physics has for *centuries*
recognized that there are some physical properties that are frame-
dependent (which means that there is no "actual" value for that
property), and there are other properties that are frame-independent.
Let me reiterate that science has known this for *centuries*. All that
Einstein did in this regard was figure out that some of the physical
properties that we thought were frame-independent (like length and
duration) are in fact frame-dependent (along with velocity and
momentum), and that there are other properties we didn>t know about
before that are frame-independent (like spacetime interval and
invariant mass).
Now, if you have a philosophical preconception that every physical
property of a physical object should have one, true, "real" value,
then I>m afraid you have a few hundred years of catching up to do.
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, 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.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically or
experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in physical
science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient, since SR claims
something about physical reality. Mathematicians don>t deal with
physical reality, only logic. "Experimentally" because no amount of
experiments can ever prove a theory correct; experiments can only
support or subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it to be
false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 1:01 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, 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.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically or
experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in physical
science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient, since SR claims
something about physical reality. Mathematicians don>t deal with
physical reality, only logic. "Experimentally" because no amount of
experiments can ever prove a theory correct; experiments can only
support or subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it to be
false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
The second postulate can certainly be falsified, and it has been
attempted. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 11:34 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference frame, the
length has a constant value. At the *same* time in a different
inertial reference frame, the length has a different constant value.
In summary, you want to assign multiple lengths to one object.
Of course. Just like there are multiple velocities for one object,
multiple kinetic energies for one object, multiple momenta for one
object -- all at the same time and dependent on reference frame.
Heck, Galileo understood this, even though you find it incredible.
However, Dirk always measures his appendage at 10cm. He can he
sitting, jacking up, falling down, speeding, and his appendage is
always 10cm. Neutrinos and muons can be speeding by him in all
directions, and his appendage is still 10cm. These particles measure
his thing at 0.1cm, 1cm, 5cm, 9cm etc, but Dirk always measures 10cm.
Do you deny that the 10cm is the actual length of the finger?
There is no such thing is an "actual length", just like there is no
such thing as Dirk>s "actual velocity", or "actual momentum", or
"actual kinetic energy" or "actual inertia".
[/quote]
Then what are all these scientists measuring:
sun diameter,
earth diameter,
moon diameter,
distance to sun,
distance to andromeda, etc.?
All length measurements are taken on the assumption that the measurer
and measuree are in equivalent inertial frames, which is the rest
frame of the observer/measurer!
Otherwise a patient such as Psycho Doug can claim the distance to
Andromeda is 1 meter with the appropriate velocity. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 1:01 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:52 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, 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.
Of course Special Relativity cannot be proven mathematically or
experimentally. The same can be said of any theory in physical
science. "Mathematical" is obviously insufficient, since SR claims
something about physical reality. Mathematicians don>t deal with
physical reality, only logic. "Experimentally" because no amount of
experiments can ever prove a theory correct; experiments can only
support or subvert physical theories.
What can be said of SR is that no experiment has yet shown it to be
false. In physics, it doesn>t get any better than that.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is not falsifiable, hence it has not been falsified.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The second postulate can certainly be falsified, and it has been
attempted.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Give me one example (of an attempt) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 12:09 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:34 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference frame, the
length has a constant value. At the *same* time in a different
inertial reference frame, the length has a different constant value..
In summary, you want to assign multiple lengths to one object.
Of course. Just like there are multiple velocities for one object,
multiple kinetic energies for one object, multiple momenta for one
object -- all at the same time and dependent on reference frame.
Heck, Galileo understood this, even though you find it incredible.
However, Dirk always measures his appendage at 10cm. He can he
sitting, jacking up, falling down, speeding, and his appendage is
always 10cm. Neutrinos and muons can be speeding by him in all
directions, and his appendage is still 10cm. These particles measure
his thing at 0.1cm, 1cm, 5cm, 9cm etc, but Dirk always measures 10cm.
Do you deny that the 10cm is the actual length of the finger?
There is no such thing is an "actual length", just like there is no
such thing as Dirk>s "actual velocity", or "actual momentum", or
"actual kinetic energy" or "actual inertia".
Then what are all these scientists measuring:
sun diameter,
earth diameter,
moon diameter,
distance to sun,
distance to andromeda, etc.?
[/quote]
All of those numbers are measured in a reference frame in which the
Earth is at rest, normally. The numbers that result do not apply in
any other reference frame moving relative to that one. Does this
bother you?
[quote]
All length measurements are taken on the assumption that the measurer
and measuree are in equivalent inertial frames, which is the rest
frame of the observer/measurer!
[/quote]
Well, first of all both the measurer and the measuree inhabit each and
every reference frame. Reference frames do not have boundaries, and
it>s not like object A lives in reference frame X and object B lives
in reference frame Y. But yes, every measurement noted is implicitly
keyed to some reference frame, unless it just so happens that the
measured property is a frame-independent one, in which case the frame
doesn>t matter.
[quote]
Otherwise a patient such as Psycho Doug can claim the distance to
Andromeda is 1 meter with the appropriate velocity.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Not a thing wrong with that.
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference frame, the
length has a constant value. At the *same* time in a different
inertial reference frame, the length has a different constant value.
[/quote]
Let us summarize:
For a single object: Dirk>s finger
1) Different frame, different length
2) One frame, one constant length
Dirk>s appendage will always measure 10cm in his own frame, no matter
how hard he cries.
You agree with everything so far? (A simple yes or no will suffice) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RustyJames
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 7:53 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.
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- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
there exist multiple inertial frames interrelated by uniform
translation within a single frame so what your saying about > The
obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
[quote]Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.
I disagree on but dont get all butt hurt I mean no disrespaect I>ll[/quote]
try to come up with some sanarios to disprove this statement or lead
you to form a different opinion on these three areas
time dilation (moving clocks tick more slowly)
length contraction (moving objects are shortened in the direction of
motion)
relativity of simultaneity (simultaneous events in one reference frame
are not simultaneous in almost all frames moving relative to the
first). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is not what happens. In any given inertial reference frame, the
length has a constant value. At the *same* time in a different
inertial reference frame, the length has a different constant value..
Let us summarize:
For a single object: Dirk>s finger
1) Different frame, different length
2) One frame, one constant length
Dirk>s appendage will always measure 10cm in his own frame, no matter
how hard he cries.
[/quote]
Well, unless something happens to compress the finger or lop it off,
like with an axe. And by "his own frame", I assume you mean the
inertial reference frame in which he is at rest.
[quote]
You agree with everything so far? (A simple yes or no will suffice)
[/quote]
I>m not sure that>s true that a simple yes or no will suffice. You get
muddled up over the most basic of things. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
