Re: Stupid Einstein question.

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/05/04 

Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 05:45:48 GMT

"suzysewnshow" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0a23188.0409041624.304eb3b3@posting.google.com...
| 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.

Err... when did we ever actually use light clocks? The majority of
clocks I know of are of the quartz crystal variety with a few of the
pendulum or balance wheel variety still remaining. I cant think of
a single instance where a light clock is either used or required
except as a theoretical construct.
Androcles

construct.

| Kind regards, Sue...

Quantcast