Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/21/04
- Next message: Jannick Asmus: "notion wanted"
- Previous message: tinyurl.com/uh3t: "Re: New countable infiniity logic"
- In reply to: J.E.: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Reply: Peter Kupfer: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:40:03 GMT
"J.E." <troubled6man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39d6e584.0411211055.2eec5758@posting.google.com...
> Peter Kupfer <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<QzPnd.26626$5b1.21051@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
>> I will ask again, if you are correct, and Einstein's math is wrong,
>> why
>> has no one disproved him and why are you not on the cover of every
>> magazine in the world?
>
> Androcles seems to think that everyone else is a dishonest liar. But
> mostly he seems to come up with "contradictions" in math by making
> _Androcles-assumptions as if they were part of mathematics. He does
> stuf right, until he gets near the end, then assumes his conlusion and
> abandons proof.
>
And your evidence for this accusation is?
>> > Einstein has.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question. I repeat, "if it is wrong, why are
>> you
>> the only person saying, and why do so many other physicists believe
>> it?"
>
> Androcles appears to believe that a SR-cult exists to deprive people
> like Androcles of money to fund their light accelerators, what dark
> person this cult serves, I'm not sure, I was never asked to join,
> merely learning SR after studying math.
>
>> > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
>>
>> I am not sure what this proves. You don't really explain anything
>> here.
>> What am I supposed to get out of these pictures? What was the
>> experiment?
>
> It proves that Androcles has a graph. He never told me more either.
Underneath the actual data is another graph (computer generated) which
models the curve. You'll not understand what you see unless you look.
>
>> Let me try again to explain this in a way which you can not warp my
>> words.
>>
>> In the real world length is define in terms of how far light travels
>> in
>> a given time. Specifically it is how far light travels in a vacuum in
>> 1/299,792,458 of a second. This measurement to find the length of a
>> meter should be the same in places. Which, if you look at relativity
>> it
>> is, because it shows us that a light source at the equator and at the
>> north pole will emit light that is still traveling at c.
>>
>> In your world the light source at the north pole would emit a light
>> beam
>> at c (if we assume the north pole has a velocity of 0) and at the
>> equator it will emit a light beam with speed c + 1000 mi/hr. Hence in
>> your world the standard unit of a meter would not be the same. It
>> would
>> be a twitch shorter at the equator.
>>
>> In the real world experiments have shown that c is a constant, so the
>> define length of a meter would be the same in all places.
>>
>> Since I have never actually picked up an object with mass in any part
>> of
>> this analysis, length contraction is irrelevant to this.
>
> I think this kind of thing is what gives Androcles "ammo", length
> contraction is a calculated effect. You don't observe length (and
> hence you don't observe length contraction), you compare things, but
> it has nothing to do with "massive objects". If you accelerate very
> quickly such that the distant starts blue shift by a factor of 3
> (which is going 0.8c, expect you think the distant stars are moving at
> you) and then coast for 3 years, then accellerate very fast in the
> opposite directs so that those blue stars are now red (1/3 the
> original frequency, and 1/9 the blue frequency) and then coast for 3
> years and then break really fast (so that distant stars are back to
> their normal frequency), then you twin who say the distant star at not
> change their frequency at all while you were gone will have aged 10
> years while you aged 6. He's going to claim that you travelled 8
> lightyears (4 out and 4 back). You are going to claim that you were
> stationary, and that your twin travelled (24/5) lightyears. You
> DISagree because motion is relative and this disagreement about the
> MAGNITUDE is commonly called "length contraction", but the IMPORTANT
> fact is that "length is CALCULATED." You each made assumptions to
> calculate the length the other travelled. If you stuck to
> observables, you would agree with your twin that you both SAW him age
> 10 years, and he would agree with you that you both SAW you age 6
> years. By "age" I mean "counting how many times your clock ticked".
>
> People who take unobservables serious just feed the crazy fire that is
> Androcles imagination, as an educator I am disappointed with how
> people keep doing this. Don't feed the Androcles.
Oh, I think it is the crazy fire of Einstein's wild imagination that you
two are in love with. Neither one of you is capable of dealing with the
issue in a logical mathematical manner. You both have crazy dreams
of travelling to the stars in record time, never exceeding c along the
way
but becoming time dilated, yet neither one of you understands the
mathematics that Einstein used to make the speed of light infinite.
He even says so.
" For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity." --Ref
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
299,792,458 m/s is infinite, right? In your dreams!
>
>> I am still only referring the distance light travels, it has nothing
>> to
>> do with length contraction which refers to a massive object.
>
> "Length contration" is a fairy story
Yes, of course it is. So is time dilation. So is 299,792,458 m/s =
infinite m/s.
about justifying different NOT
> invariant computations. There invariant separation of two events is
> invariant, the distance as well as the time is relative to a basis,
> just as the x and y coordiates of a point on a plane depend on the
> direction of the x axis and the y axis. There simply is no need to
> discuss meaningless coordinates, measure the time, measure the
> location, make a 4-vector out of the two, don't pretend that the
> separate numbers are meaningful in general. The invariant length of a
> future pointing straight line segment says how many times a clock
> ticks that travels along that path. Everyone agrees on invariant
> things, using other measurements is silly.
>
>> 1) There is evidence that time dilation and relativity are true. It
>> has
>> been published and verified by thousands of scientists and
>> mathematicians over the past 100 years.
>
> Relativity is CONSISTENT with observations.
Yeah... 299,792,458 m/s = infinity.
> You cannot prove a theory
> is true.
No, but you can prove it is false.
"Time dilation" is about computations, not experiments.
Idiot computations that are based on 299,792,458 m/s = infinity.
>
>> 2) There has not been any published and verified experiments
>> presented
>> in opposition to time dilation and relativity. Until that happens we
>> can
>> not engage in a discussion to the contrary.
>
> I agree that the failures of SR are made up for by GR, but again "time
> dilation" is not about observations, observations are about invariant
> events, which do not change in that any observation is invariant, the
> same to all observers. Everyone agrees on the proper time measured by
> a particle along a future-pointing path. Everyone agrees when two
> events coincide. Everyone agrees when two events are time-like
> separated, which one came first, and how much proper-time a particles
> WOULD have aged, HAD it gone from the first event to the second
> inertially. Everyone agrees when to events are space-like separated.
> Everyone agrees that if a particle at each event (A and B) sent a
> light signal to the other, and that they both both inertially and that
> they both recieved a light signal after waiting X units of proper
> time, then EVERYONE agrees what the value of X is. That is invariant
> Minkowski geometry, everything about coincident events, inertial
> motion, and light signals. You can approximate non-inertial motion be
> breaking a journey into little segments which are almost inertial,
> then if you do the right limits you can correctly predict the
> observations (coincident light signal events, propertime measurements,
> redshifts observed, etc.), everything else is verbiage that feeds
> misconceptions like those Androcles holds, please don't feed them.
>
>> 3) The speed of light is a universal constant. This was demonstrated
>> by
>> MMX, Cassini & Rohmer, and others. Einstein has put forth a logical,
>> testable, and verified explanation. You seem to ignore this reality.
>> If
>> you don't then, at a minimum, you have not presented an alternative
>> explanation for it.
>>
>> Have a good day,
>>
>> Peter
>
> I agree that I've measured the speed of light in different directions
> relative to the Earth's motion with sensitive enough devices to
> observer what Androcles predicts, and I did not see it, in fact I saw
> the speed of light remain constant no matter how I tested it.
> Androcles is wrong, and SR passed that test. For internal
> consistency, SR is internally consistent iff set theory is internally
> consistent, because the modern theory of SR states SR in terms of set
> theory. SR is testable and has been tested and has passed. Other
> models can exist, but they would need to pass the same tests. that SR
> did.
Utter crap. I could replace m (mass) for t (time) and claim
x' = (x-vm/q^2)/sqrt(1- m^2/q^2)
where q is the spread of matter in the solar wind and it doesn't affect
set theory one iota.
It would still be nonsense though.
> P.S. Unless you reply to this Androcles won't see it, he snips my
> arguements unread and then blames *me* for not making sense.
You make no sense.
Androcles.
- Next message: Jannick Asmus: "notion wanted"
- Previous message: tinyurl.com/uh3t: "Re: New countable infiniity logic"
- In reply to: J.E.: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Reply: Peter Kupfer: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
