Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: J.E. (troubled6man_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/21/04 

Date: 21 Nov 2004 10:55:25 -0800

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.
 
> > 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.
 
> 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.

> 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 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. You cannot prove a theory
is true. "Time dilation" is about computations, not experiments.
 
> 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.

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.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... Androcles seems to think that everyone else is a dishonest liar. ... Specifically it is how far light travels in a vacuum in ... length contraction is irrelevant to this. ... There invariant separation of two events is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... Androcles seems to think that everyone else is a dishonest liar. ... Specifically it is how far light travels in a vacuum in ... length contraction is irrelevant to this. ... There invariant separation of two events is ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... > Androcles seems to think that everyone else is a dishonest liar. ... >> In the real world length is define in terms of how far light travels ... There invariant separation of two events is ... >> 1) There is evidence that time dilation and relativity are true. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... > Androcles seems to think that everyone else is a dishonest liar. ... >> In the real world length is define in terms of how far light travels ... There invariant separation of two events is ... >> 1) There is evidence that time dilation and relativity are true. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... > Androcles seems to think that everyone else is a dishonest liar. ... >> In the real world length is define in terms of how far light travels ... There invariant separation of two events is ... >> 1) There is evidence that time dilation and relativity are true. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)