| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PD
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
 |
|
On Oct 10, 2:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately born into
the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at exactly 10cm.
Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and place their appendages
side by side. They are exactly equal at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant velocity of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring Doug>s
appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and hastily checks
his own appendage and is happy to know it is still 10cm. Meanwhile,
Doug peers into his telescope and measures Dirk>s appendage at 1cm.
He double checks his own and measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which the
appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will be
*measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their 'at
rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to the left,
and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can always say that their
fingers are equal based on the 'at rest' measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length contraction
is about what gets measured for two objects in relative motion, from a
*single* reference frame, not in two different reference frames.
So you are saying if we placed a ruler next to the appendage,
that the appendage would change length according to that
ruler depending on where we look at it from.
[/quote]
If the appendage goes flying by your ruler, yes, that>s exactly what
it says.
[quote]LOL
Poor PD, you are infected with MSS.
You really should seek help.
Before someone proves your brain is the size of 1 neuron only.
:)[/quote] |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
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 -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast š0 (~0.2 c) in
an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their
results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are
consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
[/quote]
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
PD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 3:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2:02 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately born into
the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at exactly 10cm.
Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and place their appendages side
by side. They are exactly equal at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant velocity of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring Doug>s
appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and hastily checks
his own appendage and is happy to know it is still 10cm. Meanwhile,
Doug peers into his telescope and measures Dirk>s appendage at 1cm.
He double checks his own and measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which the
appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will be
*measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their 'at
rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to the left,
and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can always say that their
fingers are equal based on the 'at rest' measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length contraction
is about what gets measured for two objects in relative motion, from a
*single* reference frame, not in two different reference frames.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good. So Dirk and Doug keep exchanging text messages confirming that
their appendages are 10cm, and henceforth equal, and continue to be
equal.
In other words, when DirK and DouG were together, K1=G1=10cm.
When DirK and DouG are away and moving with some relative velocity v,
K2=G2=10cm.
________________________________________
*K1 measurement taken by Dirk of his finger in his rest frame, with
Doug
G1 measurement taken by Doug of his finger in his rest frame, with
Dirk
K2 measurement taken by Dirk of his finger in his rest frame, moving
wrt Doug
G2 measurement taken by Doug of his finger in his rest frame, moving
wrt Dirk
You may want to add K3: measurement taken by Doug of Dirk>s finger,
moving wrt to Doug
G3: measurement taken by Dirk of Doug>s finger, moving wrt to Dirk.
Length contraction in relativity is a comparison of G2 with K3, or K2
with G3, knowing full well that K1 = G1.
PD-
[/quote]
No need for now.
Let me repeat:
Dirk>s finger stays constant in his frame at 10cm.
Doug>s finger stays constant in his frame at 10cm.
We also know:
When DirK and DouG were together, K1=G1=10cm.
When DirK and DouG are moving with some relative velocity v,
K2=G2=10cm.
Now, we can do this the easy way, or the hard way.
Let>s do it the hard way:
Dirk and Doug go on a honeymoon. Feeling romantic, they bring two
identical atomic clocks with them. Dirk times his Timex with an
atomic clock and notes one tick equals one second, or E1=1s. Doug
times his fake Rolex with an identical atomic clock and notes one tick
equals one second or M1=1s. Obviously E1=M1=1sec.
Dirk and Doug go off their separate ways. Dirk checks his watch and
notes it still keeps one second on the atomic, or E2=1s. Doug checks
his watch with the atomic and it still keeps one second, or M2=1s.
Still E2=M2=1sec.
Everybody agrees? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD 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?
[/quote]
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]Idiot.
[/quote]
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 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
BURT
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 11:50 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
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 -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast š0 (~0.2 c)
in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects.
Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v,
and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of
99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
Poor PD.
He does not get that would only prove the constant from source,
and nobody is saying there is anything wrong on that end.
The observer is the one that would measure the different speeds.
If the observer is at rest with the source, he will measure c
If the observer is moving towards the source, he will measure c+
If the observer is moving away from the source he will measure c-
It is amazing you can figure this all out for anything except for waves
of light.
LOL- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Relative motion will become motion through absolute distance inbetween
bodies.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 2:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:20 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Again PD proves he has MSS (Multiple Standards Syndrome)
Poor thing.
He refuses to stop worshipping his rubber ruler.
:)
I already talked about this. In case you missed it, I said:
Such is the risk of being careless with terms. In colloquial usage,
there is no distinction made, and that>s where you get into trouble.
Back in Galileo>s day, centuries ago, people were just used to
referring to "the speed" of an object, as though it were just obvious
there is one and only one speed of a given object at a given time.
Galileo made it clear that you had to be more careful and ask "speed
with respect to what?" Some folks -- like Spaceman -- still have
problems with that, as you can see. A hundred years ago, people were
just used to referring to "the length" of an object, as though it
were
obvious there is only one true length of an object. Einstein and
others made it clear that you had to be more careful and ask "in
which
frame of reference?". Some folks -- like Spaceman -- think that if it
worked fine to be sloppy and casual about those terms for thousands
of
years, that we shouldn>t let some fool physicist change that.
Poor PD again can not grasp that just because the relative speed
of a car moving at 65 next to mine is 0, it has no bearing on
the reality that the car is moving at 65 according to anything it hits.
[/quote]
Not so. If the car moving at 65 mph hits a car moving at 62 mph in the
same direction, then the 5mph bumper will probably absorb the blow
just fine. As far as the bumper is concerned, the car has the same
kinetic energy as a car going 3 mph bumping into a parked car. And of
course if the car moving at 65 mph hits a car going 35 mph in the
opposite direction, then this is *nothing* like the KE of a car
hitting a bridge abutment at 65 mph. But of course, a car moving at 65
mph hitting a car going at 35 mph head-on is just like a car moving at
35 mph hitting a car going at 65 mph head-on, so you can>t tell from
the energy of those two collisions whether the car was going 35 mph or
65 mph. And of course, that collision is still completely different in
deposited energy from two cars, both at 50 mph, colliding head-on,
even though the relative speed is the same. Go figure.
And of course, you have no idea what you>re talking about at all. But
do go ahead and demonstrate that some more.
[quote]Again PD proves he sufffers from MSS,
Multiple Standard Syndrome.
and he appears to be non -curable.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 2:45 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately born
into the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at exactly
10cm. Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and place their
appendages side by side. They are exactly equal at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant velocity of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring Doug>s
appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and hastily
checks his own appendage and is happy to know it is still 10cm.
Meanwhile, Doug peers into his telescope and measures Dirk>s
appendage at 1cm. He double checks his own and measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which the
appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will be
*measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their 'at
rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to the left,
and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can always say that
their fingers are equal based on the 'at rest' measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length
contraction is about what gets measured for two objects in relative
motion, from a *single* reference frame, not in two different
reference frames.
So you are saying if we placed a ruler next to the appendage,
that the appendage would change length according to that
ruler depending on where we look at it from.
If the appendage goes flying by your ruler, yes, that>s exactly what
it says.
No it does not actually.
[/quote]
Ah, yes, it does. In experiment. Exactly.
Whether that makes you gag or not.
[quote]Again you prove you are completely brainwashed and suffering
from MSS.
You continue to prove you have no clue how to time things
properly, you have no clue about the most important function
of a clock, and of course you have no clue about "physical"
measurement.
LOL
Poor PD, you are infected with MSS.
You really should seek help.
Before someone proves your brain is the size of 1 neuron only.
:)[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 2:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
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 -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast š0 (~0.2 c)
in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects.
Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v,
and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of
99.9%.
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:)
They timed the photons. More accurately, they raced them to see if
they tied.
Poor PD.
He does not get that would only prove the constant from source,
and nobody is saying there is anything wrong on that end.
The observer is the one that would measure the different speeds.
If the observer is at rest with the source, he will measure c
If the observer is moving towards the source, he will measure c+
If the observer is moving away from the source he will measure c-
[/quote]
The source and the observer are in relative motion. Read the
experiment.
The photons were timed. Read the experiment.
They tied. Read the experiment.
The speed was c. Read the experiment.
[quote]It is amazing you can figure this all out for anything except for waves
of light.
LOL[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 3:02 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 3:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:02 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately born into
the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at exactly 10cm.
Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and place their appendages side
by side. They are exactly equal at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant velocity of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring Doug>s
appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and hastily checks
his own appendage and is happy to know it is still 10cm. Meanwhile,
Doug peers into his telescope and measures Dirk>s appendage at 1cm.
He double checks his own and measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which the
appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will be
*measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their 'at
rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to the left,
and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can always say that their
fingers are equal based on the 'at rest' measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length contraction
is about what gets measured for two objects in relative motion, from a
*single* reference frame, not in two different reference frames.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good. So Dirk and Doug keep exchanging text messages confirming that
their appendages are 10cm, and henceforth equal, and continue to be
equal.
In other words, when DirK and DouG were together, K1=G1=10cm.
When DirK and DouG are away and moving with some relative velocity v,
K2=G2=10cm.
________________________________________
*K1 measurement taken by Dirk of his finger in his rest frame, with
Doug
G1 measurement taken by Doug of his finger in his rest frame, with
Dirk
K2 measurement taken by Dirk of his finger in his rest frame, moving
wrt Doug
G2 measurement taken by Doug of his finger in his rest frame, moving
wrt Dirk
You may want to add K3: measurement taken by Doug of Dirk>s finger,
moving wrt to Doug
G3: measurement taken by Dirk of Doug>s finger, moving wrt to Dirk.
Length contraction in relativity is a comparison of G2 with K3, or K2
with G3, knowing full well that K1 = G1.
PD-
No need for now.
Let me repeat:
Dirk>s finger stays constant in his frame at 10cm.
Doug>s finger stays constant in his frame at 10cm.
We also know:
When DirK and DouG were together, K1=G1=10cm.
When DirK and DouG are moving with some relative velocity v,
K2=G2=10cm.
Now, we can do this the easy way, or the hard way.
Let>s do it the hard way:
Dirk and Doug go on a honeymoon. Feeling romantic, they bring two
identical atomic clocks with them. Dirk times his Timex with an
atomic clock and notes one tick equals one second, or E1=1s. Doug
times his fake Rolex with an identical atomic clock and notes one tick
equals one second or M1=1s. Obviously E1=M1=1sec.
Dirk and Doug go off their separate ways. Dirk checks his watch and
notes it still keeps one second on the atomic, or E2=1s. Doug checks
his watch with the atomic and it still keeps one second, or M2=1s.
Still E2=M2=1sec.
[/quote]
Well, you keep saying "the atomic". Which atomic? The one that stayed
with Dirk or the one that stayed with Doug? Or is there just one. If
there is just one, then, no, what you described in the previous
paragraph does not happen in reality. That would be the point.
[quote]
Everybody agrees?[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
On Oct 10, 4:24 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]
Relative motion will become motion through absolute distance inbetween
bodies.
Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
Notice that Mitch is no longer claiming to be a 2-time 2008 Nobel
Prize winner. What happened, Mitch? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 10:36 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
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???
[/quote]
Poor PD, he proves yet again he can>t figure out speed wrt the
ground because they can actually give all a reference point to
actually make all the measurements agree.
Poor PD.
He hates when relative motion has actual agreements instead
of multiple standards and disagreements of speed.
LOL
[quote]Idiot.
Plebian idiot.
Preposterously parisitic, plebian idiot.
[/quote]
You should stop calling yourself such names.
You can just call yourself a con man moron instead
of all that crap you are spouting.
Poor PD.
He really thinks cars do not measure speed by using
ground speed.
LOL
[quote]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 |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD 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.
[/quote]
PD proves yet again he is a moron or a con man without chance
of recovery.
I think we could call it Multiple Standards Syndrome.
PD has MSS.
:) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 12:09 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
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.?
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?
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!
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.
Otherwise a patient such as Psycho Doug can claim the distance to
Andromeda is 1 meter with the appropriate velocity.
Absolutely. Not a thing wrong with that.
[/quote]
Again PD proves he has MSS (Multiple Standards Syndrome)
Poor thing.
He refuses to stop worshipping his rubber ruler.
:) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 1:39 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:00 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.
So it>s agreed. Dirk>s appendage is 10cm in his own frame.
Let us proceed...
Another person by the name of Doug was also unfortunately born into
the same situation. Doug measures his appendage at exactly 10cm.
Dirk and Doug decide to compare notes and place their appendages
side by side. They are exactly equal at 10cm.
Dirk then flies off to the Waffler Galaxy at constant velocity of
0.995c. He peers into his telescope and laughs, measuring Doug>s
appendage at 1cm. Dirk gets scared for a second and hastily checks
his own appendage and is happy to know it is still 10cm. Meanwhile,
Doug peers into his telescope and measures Dirk>s appendage at 1cm.
He double checks his own and measures 10cm.
Yes, exactly.
PD will say all 4 measurements are valid.
Yes.
But, would anybody deny
that Dirk>s and Doug>s appendages are still equal in length?
Some people would, some people wouldn>t...
Thus Dirk would swear his appendage is constant at 10cm
He would *measure* it to be 10cm in the reference frame in which the
appendage is at rest, yes. Physics is more about what will be
*measured* and doesn>t get metaphysical about what "is".
Doug would pledge that his appendage is constant at 10cm
Thus we can compare the two appendages anytime, by using their 'at
rest' measurements. Though Dirk may be going at 0.995c to the left,
and Doug may be going 0.1c to the front, we can always say that their
fingers are equal based on the 'at rest' measurements.
Everybody agrees?
That>s fine. Keep in mind, though that relativistic length contraction
is about what gets measured for two objects in relative motion, from a
*single* reference frame, not in two different reference frames.
[/quote]
So you are saying if we placed a ruler next to the appendage,
that the appendage would change length according to that
ruler depending on where we look at it from.
LOL
Poor PD, you are infected with MSS.
You really should seek help.
Before someone proves your brain is the size of 1 neuron only.
:) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: Re: when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativit |
|
|
Uncle Ben wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 1:11 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
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 -
Give me one example (of an attempt)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Certainly:
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast š0 (~0.2 c) in
an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their
results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are
consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%.
[/quote]
So how did they measure the speed?
They pulled the old perceived wavelength times frequency
joke?
:) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
