Re: On The Subject of The Mosquito And The Ladder

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 02/25/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:33:00 -0500

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cvlphq028sh@drn.newsguy.com...
> Sue... says...
>
> >>>I'm surely not aware of any "internal forces" on the emissions of a
> >>>helium-neon laser.
> >
> >>Well, there are. The characteristic wavelength of a laser is
> >>related to the energy levels of the atoms or molecules involved,
> >>which in turn depend on electromagnetic forces.
> >
> >
> >I am also unaware of any atoms in the emissions of a HeNe laser.
>
> Not in the emissions, but in determining the characteristic
> wavelength. The relevant atoms are Helium and Neon.

The emissions are not subect to the inertial forces that you said
might act to change the length of ... say a invar meterstick
because they are massless.

You can not tell if an emission is from a Helium Neon laser or
some other source moving away from you so there
is nothing special about forces changing the atom's spectral lines.

>
> >That's another way of saying that the laws of physics are invariant
> >under Lorentz transformations.
> >S:
> >Not quite. The assertion of Lorentz invariance is a way of claiming
> >that SR corrects the problems inherent in Maxwell's ether model. That
> >is subtlely different than the PoR and it presumes the Minkowski ether
> >of SR.
> >
> >Paradoxical projectile trajectories reveal the falsehood of the claim
> >just from the simulations on paper.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about in that last sentence.
There are several places in Einsten's railcar narrative where it is
claimed that the notion of "simultaniety" is compromised. Interestily,
you can fire equal cannon from these locations and the projectiles
will collide midway between the muzzles. I'd consider that a good
indication of simultaneous firing... wouldn't you ?
>
> >>Adjust the co-ordinate description? Why not just use the
> >>good clock?
> >
> >What is your definition of a good clock? One definition is that
> >we define time so that physics looks simple. That's just a matter
> >of convenience, though.
> >S:
> >If you were an airplane pilot with pendulum clocks would you trust one
> >would you trust one strapped to the wing with the wind blowing through
> >it or one inside the cockpit?
>
> You didn't answer my question: what is the definition of a good clock?
This ensemble looks pretty good.
Primary Atomic Reference Clock in Space (PARCS)
... PARCS, NASA Logo. JPL, NIST, and University of Colorado logos ... PARCS will
fly concurrently with SUMO(Superconducting Microwave Oscillator), ...
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm

Time is a mathematical abstraction that can't be measured.
We simulate it's pasage with mechnisms, natural or manmade.
>
> >IOW light-clocks are *designed* to slow with motion through a
> >dielectric (Read: Einstein/Maxwell's vacuum with intrinsic epsison and
> >mu)
> >
> >It isn't just convienece.
>
> Yes, it is. Coordinates are just *labels*. We can use whatever
> labels we want to describe events, as long as we use them consistently.

Einstein switches the ether on and off several time in his SR paper.
Is that consistant ?

>
> >It is pretty hard to make any kind of
> >argurment that you can control time.
>
> Who said anything about controlling time?
Jules Vern ?
>
> >It is *essential* to the argument, whether you accept it or not.
>
> My argument was that if you use T^2 instead of T as your standard
> of time, and adjust your equations appropriately, it will work just
> as well. You can use any coordinates you like to describe the universe.

I didn't see that explicitly. But if you mean Lornetz invariance, it suffers
the limitations I stated. Just as squaring probabilities for Hilbert space
can give a false notion of the qualities of a process.
Look at a primer on AC circuts. The aparent power in the components
is from the imaginary time. It isn't real.
It's OK to use imaginary axes for
computation. It is incorrect to take them as real phenomena.
>
> >D:
> >>>I'm speaking about the current best theory as to the way
> >>>things work. Of course, experiment could show the current
> >>>theory to be wrong. If there is a measured anisotropy in
> >>>the speed of light (not due to dielectric effects or
> >>>General Relativity) then relativity and Maxwell's equations
> >>>are probably wrong.
> >>S:
> >>Who say's the it's the best?
> >
> >
> >Physicists. There really are no viable competing theories.
> >
> >I once hear a preacher say there was only one true god.
>
> Well, if you want to learn about physics, ask a physicist,
> and if you want to learn about god, ask a preacher.
>
> >If that's true, then Einstein's wrong.
> >
> >Einstein isn't *right* or *wrong* as in *good* and *evil*.
>
> Who said anything about good and evil?
I did. Maxwell was good and Weber wasn't evil. ;-)
>
> >>>If you aren't talking about a dielectric, then I think you are
> >>>making an error in the application of Special Relativity. If
> >>>Santa sends a light signal to Rudolph, and then Rudolph taps
> >>>Ms. Claus, then the tap will happen later than if Santa directly
> >>>sent a light signal to Ms. Claus. This is true in both Santa's
> >>>frame and in Ms. Claus' frame.
> >>S:
> >>The use of Rudolph forces the inclusion of the first postulate.
> >>If ignoring inconveinent postulates is part of SR, then indeed I have
> >>misapplied it.
> >
> >D:
> >No, you have simply made an error.
> >S:
> >It sure likes someone did Eh?
>
> Not just someone---you made an error.
So what's your explanation why Rudolph can't
give Ms. Clause some information faster that light?
It uses both postulates of SR just the way the revered
professor instructed.

Sue...

>
> --
> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY
>

Quantcast