Re: behoynd SR masquerade
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 01/16/05
- Next message: Pmb: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: Did it really die with Feynman?"
- In reply to: beda pietanza: "Re: behoynd SR masquerade"
- Next in thread: beda pietanza: "Re: behoynd SR masquerade"
- Reply: beda pietanza: "Re: behoynd SR masquerade"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:36:12 GMT
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message
news:3RiGd.6187$GU.211083@twister1.libero.it...
>
> "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3keGd.899$dx3.87@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > "beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message
> > news:Z2cGd.5689$fs6.134671@twister2.libero.it...
> > >
> > > "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:UJRFd.758$re1.60@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "beda" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message
> > > > news:1105707001.091397.56380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > > > > "beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message
> > > > > news:GgDFd.3105$GU.87669@twister1.libero.it...
> > > > > > If you take away the mask to someone, how can you be sure that
he
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > wear another mask underneath ???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And under this other, another ???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you can never know the real face of someone.
> > > > > > can you get to know him trough the choices of the many different
> > > > > > masks he decides to wear????
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but he knows that you know, and you know that he knows that you
> > > > know......
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are so sure SR is a conspiracy then why try to unmask it?
> > > > Surely all
> > > > > the conspirators will keep doing is fling masks at you just like
the
> > > > petrol
> > > > > companies do to those that believe they are keeping 100mpg
> > > > carburetors from
> > > > > surfacing. After all it is one giant conspiracy so we can not
> really
> > > > > believe anything can we? - even that you are actually interested
in
> > > > > understanding relativity. So why bother? - if it is really a
> > > > conspiracy the
> > > > > conspirators will never admit to it will they?
> > > >
> > > > No conspiracy!!!
> > > >
> > > > In order to be there a conspiracy the conspirators must be aware of
> it,
> > > > this would make the conspirator potentially liable to repent.
> > > >
> > > > It is much worse than that: SR belong to those kind of theory and
> > > > believes that, for the strength of the suggestions that they imply,
> > > > they operate as a psychological mass attractors: once the trap has
> > > > been triggered there is little that can be done but ( the course of
> > > > history) must wait patiently till a new mix of circumstance, a new
> > > > "great deceiver" or prophet, if a new trap is at hand it may go
> > > > off; then the majority of the people will shift to the new belief
and
> > > > live happily with the new as they lived happily with the old one.
> > > >
> > > > It is the most efficient mechanism for truth to be diffused and
> > > > retained amongst people that would never be able to learn trough
their
> > > > own mental efforts. This requires a price to be paid and we pay it.
> > > >
> > > > You may correctly say that this vision I am proposing is itself a
> > > > cliché of the same kind, yes it is, but of a higher level.
> > > >
> > > > Said this, I would have preferred you comment also on the rest of
the
> > > > post, where I pointed out that contrary to what SR says: the moving
> > > > observer has a immediate visual perception of his absolute movement,
> > > > but you don't bite at it.
> > > >
> > > > Acceleration by an observer will change his state of absolute
motion.
> > That
> > > > means that the intrinsic rate of his clock is changed and the light
> path
> > > > length of his rod are changed. That's the reason why he sees the
rates
> > of
> > > > all clocks moving wrt him are changed after he accelerated. Also
> that's
> > > the
> > > > reason why he sees the light path lengths (rod length contraction)
of
> > all
> > > > the rods moving wrt him are changed after he accelerated.
> > > >
> > > > Ken Seto
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Note: You have put your reply in a manner that it is confused with the
> > test
> > > of my previous post.
> > >
> > > We agree on the fact that is the change of the absolute movement of
the
> > > observer that changes his clock time rate (and therefore changes all
the
> > > time rate of the clocks he observes, taken care of the concomitant
> > > Doppler effects operating on the observer and on the observed).
> > >
> > > We agree on the fact that is the change of the absolute movement of
the
> > > observer that changes his ruler length (and therefore changes all the
> > > length of the observed distances her also there is a visual Doppler
> > > effect on the perceived distances).
> > >
> > > The simplest case is when the observer and the observed ruler move on
> the
> > > same line, that is the X axis of the observer coordinate system.
> > >
> > > To a moving observer at speed V, approaching a ruler (of 1 unit of
> length)
> > > at rest in the ether, this ruler would appear as having a apparent
> length
> > of :
> > >
> > > La = 1 / (sqr(1-Vo^2) / ( 1+Vo )) here 1 on the numerator is the
> > observed
> > > object; on the denominator sqr(1-Vo^2) is the contracted ruler of the
> > > moving observer ;
> >
> > No I don't agree with this at all. In my theory the length of a rod
> remains
> > the same in all frames of reference. The light path length of a moving
rod
> > vs the light path length of an identical rod at rest in the ether is as
> > follows:
> > Lab=Laa(Faa/Fab)
> > Where Lab = the light path length of a moving rod as predicted by
observer
> A
> > at rest in the ether.
> > Laa=the light path length of an identical rod at rest in the ether as
> > measured by A.
> > Fab =frequency of a standard light source in the B frame as measured by
A
> > who is at rest in the ether.
> > Faa= frequency of an identical standard light source in A's frame as
> > measured by A.
> >
> > SR interprets this as length contraction.
>
> so in case of a moving ruler at .5 C approaching the observer we would
have
>
> Laa = 1 unit of lenght
> Fab = sqr (1-V^2) = .866254 * fo (fo=1)
Note that Fab is a measured quantity by observer A . It is not a predicted
quantity using SR.
> Faa = 1 * fo = 1
>
> so Lab = 1* 1/ .8660254 = 1.1547
>
> According to you the observer at rest in the ether would "visually see" a
> approaching ruler moving at .5 C as having the apparent length of
> 1.1547; which is the reverse of SR
Sigh...it is not the reverse of SR. Lab is the light path length....not the
phyical rod length. If you want to determine the rod length that will give
you a light path length of 1 meter then it is 1/1.1547 meters which agrees
with SR. What this mean is that it takes a rod of 1/1.1547 meters to get a
light path length of 1 meter.
> prediction. (In any case is wrong)
It is not wrong. It is perfect.
>
> Please put your numbers in the case and tell me the correct result if
> different than mine.
>
> In my view the result of my (previous post) calculation is based solely on
> these premises: a moving ruler contract to sqr(1-V^2)
A moving contracted ruler will give a light path length equal to the light
path length of an identical ruler at the rest frame of the ether.
Ken Seto
- Next message: Pmb: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: Did it really die with Feynman?"
- In reply to: beda pietanza: "Re: behoynd SR masquerade"
- Next in thread: beda pietanza: "Re: behoynd SR masquerade"
- Reply: beda pietanza: "Re: behoynd SR masquerade"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
