Re: Imagine


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1117996316.266782.194800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
| *** rD wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1117925965.059533.257450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > |
| > | destiny wrote:
| > | > i waste my time with you
| > | >
| > | > its sad for a guy having a phd trying to
| > | > play smart avoiding to answer simple questions
| > | >
| > | > good bye
| > |
| > | I thought you'd say something like that...
| > |
| > | PD
| > |
| >
| > Well it is to some extent true as you don't seem to have addressed
except
| > perhaps by mantra the fact that SS3 is in fact perhaps breaking the
rules of
| > SR by going at 1.5 c as far as the information passed back to SS1 is
| > concerned.
|
| I said no such thing. If you'll look again, I said the following:

I did not say that *you* did I was just stating the physical facts that the
statement that c is constant in frame implies that, if you cascade up you
arrive at a point were the frame itself exceeds c never mind what's
happening in it unless you introduce contraction and inversely proportional
dilation as limiting factors

Some statements\suggestions from Albert's 1905 paper (abbreviated)
i) no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
ii) valid for all frames of reference
iii) light is always propagated in empty space at c which is independent of
the motion of the body.
iv) The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolute
stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of empty space in which electromagnetic processes
take place.

This appears to be the words that have somehow been bent by those who
perhaps should know better.

iii) Implies if not explicitly states that empty space has a velocity of
zero with respect to c and the motion of bodies can have a velocity in
relation to the zero of empty space unless you resort to the balistic red
herring..
iv) States "L. ether" is not required and the zero of empty space is not
"absolute stationary space" and the last which imposes a sever limitation on
the use of the frames he is developing in that they can only be referenced
to an object. I have no idea what he or the translator would have meant by
"luminiferous ether" a 100 years ago and it seems academic as its something
that we don't have and most probably don't want {:-) So he makes a start at
defining the properties of empty space in relation to his system of
reference. It appears that some people with the conceptual and imaginative
breadth of a stone have perverted an interesting idea into a piece of mental
idiocy to beat others with.

|
| >> Note that relative velocity is not a quantity that is frame-independent
| >> in the "usual" way. That is, you can't sit in frame A, see S2 and S3
| >> both go whizzing by and deduce that their relative velocity is
| >>(0.93-0.8)c = 0.13 c. Relative velocity between a pair of objects is
| >> customarily defined in a frame of reference where one of the objects is
| >> at rest.

Yes SR frames have to be referenced to objects and if the origin is not at
an object then it must be defined as an offset from an object as per SR
definition. ? You seem a bit muddled here, I have a frame and in it is the
earth and the origin of the frame is your house for example, a spaceship
shoots off and gets to 0.5 c relative to your house then another spaceship
shoots off from the first and gets to 0.5 c relative to the first ship and
the velocity of the second ship is not c relative to your house ignoring
contraction\dilation adjustments. ? The ships captains had precalculated the
amount of fuel to raise there the velocity by 0.5 c so there can be no doubt
that that is the velocity they are doing in relation to each other. The
first ship relative to your house the second ship relative to the first
ship. To first ship took your house as being at rest the second ship took
the first ship as being at rest.

|
| So looking in a frame where one of them is at rest (say S1), I also
| said:
|
| >> In B, S1 is traveling with speed 0, S2 is traveling with speed 0.5 c,
| >> and S3 is traveling with speed 0.8 c.

I havent yet got to working out how you managed to get the addition of
velocities idea, so I will be back on this.

|
| That is, S3 is going at 0.8 c with respect to S1, not 1.5 c.

Hang on, S3 should only have been doing c relative to S1 so how did you get
1.5 c ?

| There is
| no violation of SR (because in fact, I used SR to get those numbers).
|

Depends on how you use it.

|
| > If you could except that c was with referenced to a given
| > dielectric then the problem could be addressed coherently perhaps but by
| > blinding yourself to some facts you appear to be avoiding the issue.
|
| I'm not avoiding the issue. I'm telling you that c being referenced to
| a dielectric is not consistent with the predictions of SR, and the
| predictions of SR are consistent with experiment.

Albert's SR references c to empty space which in today's more definitive
terms is defined as the permittivity of the dielectric called a vacuum or
empty space in Albert's words and he stated that it velocity of zero was not
absolute. So I conclude from your statement above that you have
misunderstood and misread Albert's paper ? In respect to your statement
about experiments I have no doubts that dilation is a fact and from this
have to conclude that contraction is a fact as energy conservation would be
screwd if it they were not inversly proportianal but I see no reason from SR
why c is not referenced to a dilectric ( In fact in my reading it explicitly
states it is ) and have no knowlege of any experiments that disprove the
absence of a dilectric in any experiments. Perhaps you would like to offer
some evidence for your statment.?

|
| > At the
| > moment I am going though AE's E of MB to try and see how this idea that
SR
| > can be coherent without a dielectric referenced to the frames comes
about
| > etc. The problem seems that in one case you accept that c is constant in
any
| > inertial frame but seem unable to see that this implies unless
contraction
| > and dilation are introduced against a dielectric background that the sol
| > will be greater than c.
|
| You'll have to explain to me the necessity of this implication.

I hope I have above but please lets try and debate this to a conclusion.

|
| > So I will be back after I hope after reading and
| > digestion. You should have realised by now that I.m not trolling just
| > digging for facts so your refusal to answer me
|
| I'm happy to answer you if you pose the question in a careful,
| unambiguous way.

See above and I always try and be simple and unambiguos as I hope you do but
sometimes what seems clear to one can mean something else to another.

|
| > can only be construed as
| > either not having the answers or not being willing to compromise your
| > mantra.
| > --
| > rD *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two unbound
| > field effects
| > http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| > Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
| > ah.{:-)
|


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Imagine
    ... > statement that c is constant in frame implies that, ... > ii) valid for all frames of reference ... > velocity-vector to a point of empty space in which electromagnetic processes ... > shoots off and gets to 0.5 c relative to your house then another spaceship ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Imagine
    ... | velocity addition formula, you'll see that c remains constant in any ... but it isn't with respect to empty space. ... |> there measuring apperatus. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Query about simultaneous events..
    ... >> frame of reference of N', the light is emitted at A' and B', not at A ... >> velocity of light, not speed. ... Why would it be different for a photon? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... as A and B. A light signal is emitted from A, travels to B, is reflected ... frame of reference relative to which the rod moves, ... the velocity of the light is w=c. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Imagine
    ... |> statement that c is constant in frame implies that, ... |> iii) light is always propagated in empty space at c which is independent ... Note what the reference ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)