Re: Stupid Einstein question.
From: suzysewnshow (suzysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 09/05/04
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: arXiv endorsement request"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv explains Anti-Relativism"
- In reply to: Robert B. Winn: "Re: Stupid Einstein question."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Stupid Einstein question."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Stupid Einstein question."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Sep 2004 17:24:53 -0700
rbwinn3@juno.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote in message news:<a17e5e0e.0409040900.f3a91c2@posting.google.com>...
> suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au (suzysewnshow) wrote in message news:<e0a23188.0409040111.16e5012b@posting.google.com>...
> > rbwinn3@juno.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote in message news:<a17e5e0e.0409031543.729c6369@posting.google.com>...
> > > suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au (suzysewnshow) wrote in message news:<e0a23188.0409020017.1e3ee9c7@posting.google.com>...
> > > > rbwinn3@juno.com (Robert B. Winn) wrote in message news:<a17e5e0e.0409011551.5daead80@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au (suzysewnshow) wrote in message news:<e0a23188.0408312338.6b0792c5@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > Round trip is the same all days. An airplane flying through a medium
> > > > > > > of air, with or without wind, is not the same thing as a photon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Not I nor any other readers of this group want your OPINION of what
> > > > > > photons do if you can't solve a simple vector addition problem. Most
> > > > > > high school physics students and any 15 year old student pilot can
> > > > > > solve this for 2 axes. I set x equal to zero to save ya the trig.
> > > > > > A typo I made should have made your illogic even easier to find. I
> > > > > > expressed the wind speeds as km/s. They should have been km/hr.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Grade schoolers sometimes need a Thursday flight and since you applied
> > > > > > the wrong solution, I added that and few more descriptive words to
> > > > > > make it easier to read.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----With hints, sans typos----
> > > > > > Mail pilot flys a daily round trip 100km N drops mail pouch and
> > > > > > returns 100km S.
> > > > > > Airspeed is always 100km/hr
> > > > > > On Monday there is no wind
> > > > > > On Tuesday wind is from N @ 10km/hr
> > > > > > On Wednesday wind is from S @ 10km/hr
> > > > > > On Thursday wind is from S @ 100km/hr
> > > > > > Which day is longest RT time?
> > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > Mail carrier drives a daily round trip 100km N drops mail pouch and
> > > > > > returns 100km S.
> > > > > > Roadspeed is always 100km/hr
> > > > > > On Monday there is no wind.
> > > > > > On Tuesday wind is from N @ 10km/hr
> > > > > > On Wednesday wind is from S @ 10km/hr
> > > > > > On Thursday wind is from S @ 100km/hr
> > > > > > Which day is longest RT time?
> > > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > > Extra credit
> > > > > > Which one is solved by simple algebra?
> > > > > > Which one is solved by simple logic?
> > > > > > Which one is an example of the effect of an ether?
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > If ya got the extra credits right then you'll see how the first
> > > > > > postulate dictates whether "simple algebra" is used. Personal tastes
> > > > > > has nothing to do with it.
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > If you come back with the same answer, I gotta be honest with you: You
> > > > > > are wasting your time and everybody's else time trying to use your
> > > > > > math skills to study relativity. You seem really good with the rules
> > > > > > and notation so I would guess you're one who dreaded the dreaded "word
> > > > > > problem". I think that is called "applied math".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take two of these and call Uncle Al in the morning.
> > > > > > Rx http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1b.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Sue...
> > > > >
> > > > > I solved it. If you want two axis, then the wind has to be from the
> > > > > east or the west. All Thursday did was make a round trip impossible.
> > > > > The airplane will have to stay N until the wind dies down.
> > > > > Robert B. winn
> > > >
> > > > Take two of these and call Uncle Al in the morning.
> > > > Rx http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1b.html
> > >
> > > Well, I was more than half right with the answer I gave. All of the
> > > car problems and one airplane problem were answered by the answer I
> > > gave.
> > > Robert B. winn
> >
> > Fortunatey for you, the dog ate your report card but that sounds about
> > right. So now you can see that for the airplane, any constant wind
> > will increase the round trip time. When the wind speed => air speed RT
> > time goes to infinity. If the air is like an ether, the aircraft is
> > like commutating light and the airports are like mirrors, then we can
> > see why a light clock slows with motion in any direction. The "ether
> > wind" is blowing the light off course.
> >
> > Back to the example, you can now see the airplane case (ether) is
> > misinterpreted if "logic" is applied and you think falsly, the
> > headwind cancels the tailwind. Likewise the automobile case (no ether,
> > PoR) is misinterpreted if you apply "simple algebra" have some result
> > which "dilates" the period acording to wind speed.
> >
> > This is the problem when you try to analyze the train gedanken in
> > greater depth than the writer did. For an alalyst to be fair with his
> > readers, the worst case, not the best case must be considered. That
> > gets real ugly. Ionizied air is instantly sucked out of the experiment
> > so the train can instantly accelerate to a significant fraction of the
> > speed of light and you are supposed to follow some contorted logic
> > about how light is propagating through the air which you just sucked
> > out.
> >
> > Of course... the gedanken experiment can be salvaged, but in so doing
> > the goal should be to add clarity, not preservation of the writer's
> > ambiguties. When you put the four instantaneous emitters where the
> > writer's own statement of the principle of relativity dictates they
> > must be, his logical errors become apparent.
> >
> > As a further test, replace the light flashes with two projectiles in
> > uniform motion. No ammount of clock fiddling will preserve the
> > principle of relativity for both frames of reference. Use of four
> > projectiles clearly makes the writer's fundamental point:
> >
> > "If, relative to K, K' s a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid
> > of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to
> > K' according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K."
> > --Albert Einstein
> >
> > Kind regards, Sue...
>
> Well, I never included ether in any way from the beginning. I just
> noticed that something was amiss with regard to simultaneity. I
> resolved this by having the lightning leave marks on the railroad
> track, which seems impossible for the Lorentz equations to resolve.
> Then, again without ether, I figured the problem using velocity of
> light rather than speed of light. I did what Einstein said he was
> doing. So if there is some proof that ether exists, go ahead and give
> it. Other than that, I just correct the mistakes of scientists.
> Robert B. Winn
I took a peek at at your argument in the other thread and it looks
valid to me. I haven't seen it before so maybe you have an original.
I'll pass on the ether challenge. You only need that to make
light-clocks work. You just proved that we don't need light clocks.
Kind regards, Sue...
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: arXiv endorsement request"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv explains Anti-Relativism"
- In reply to: Robert B. Winn: "Re: Stupid Einstein question."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Stupid Einstein question."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Stupid Einstein question."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|