Re: GR ?
- From: "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:55:30 +0100
"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42e8f5a0$0$18650$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122560519.10223.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:42e4bf9d$0$18650$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1122284816.28734.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | >
| > | > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:42e3f22a$0$18637$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1122225165.20192.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:SpBEe.3241$fx4.3153@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | Significant Zero wrote:
| > | > | > | > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:ImDDe.1901$fx4.1574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | > | It is the way SR explains them. Just like rotations in
3D --
| > what
| > | > | > | > | "explanation" do you use for the fact that a 10-foot-long
| > ladder
| > | > will
| > | > | > | > | fit through a 3-foot-wide door in one orientation but not
in
| > | > another?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Nice example but neither the doorway or the ladder change in
| > | > physical
| > | > | > | > reality only the relationship between the ladder and door.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Right. Ditto for "time dilation" and "length contraction" in
SR --
| > | > | > | neither clock nor ruler "changes in physical reality", only
the
| > | > | > | relationship between moving clock and stationary clocks, or
| > between
| > | > | > | moving ruler and stationary ruler.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | A rotation is a rotation -- in Euclidean space or in
| > | > | > | spacetime. Rotations affect projections of objects onto axes,
| > | > | > | but THEY DO NOT AFFECT THE OBJECTS THEMSELVES. A relative
| > | > | > | velocity is merely a rotation in the x-t plane. <shrug>
| > | > | >
| > | > | > That seems fairly clear to mean that in your view time dilation
and
| > | > length
| > | > | > contraction are products of remote observation, measurement and
| > | > perspective
| > | > | > and have no basis in physical reality in the same way that
Picassos
| > | > pictures
| > | > | > have no basis in physical reality other than from an
interpretation
| > of a
| > | > | > reality in his head. This doesn't seem good grounds for
presenting
| > | > something
| > | > | > as a useful scientific interpretation.
| > | > |
| > | > | That seems perfecty consistant with particle accelerator walls
that
| > like
| > | > to
| > | > | *see* fast muons and slow electrons. They *are* wispy and barely
| > | > | physical but I have to consider that the CRT phosphors right here:
| > | > |
| > | > | --> ( ) <---
| > | > |
| > | > | are *really really real* :o)
| > | > |
| > | > | Sue...
| > | >
| > | > As are the pictures that he produced from his less than *really
really
| > | > real* idea, but the point was that its probably not a good idea to
use
| > the
| > | > geometry of Picasso to build a particle accelerator with, as you
might
| > end
| > | > up with the output going up your jackse.{:-)
| > |
| > | LOL
| > | My point is, there really are *not* many everyday experiments
| > | that would show Maxwell/Einstein's relativity superior to Newton.
| > |
| > | <<Today the notion of relativity has become connected exclusively
| > | with the name of Einstein. Simply said, it became in some way his
| > | property. Many indeed believe that Einstein was the first to
understand
| > | relativity and that it had not been defined correctly before him.
| > | This is, of course, a great mistake and an injustice to Galileo,
| > | Newton and Lorentz.
| > |
| > | Most of the so-called relativity experiments are, as you are exploring
| > | in this tread, based on misinterpretation of what can occur in a
| > | mathematical space vs. a real space.
| > |
| > | The particle accelerator is one such example yet, even so, you'll
| > | find mis-interpreters who claim it in some way demonstrates
| > | mass tending to infinity.
| > |
| > | <<As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v;
| > | as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
| > | between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
| > |
| > | http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF (equation)
| > |
| > | seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence
| > | of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. >>
| > | http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
| >
| > And I rewite this as follows:-
| > seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence
| > of its motion with respect to its local support medium the clock goes
more
| > slowly than when at rest. >>
|
| Well ... that may be what AE wanted us to muze. Or perhaps he muzed
| aloud.
|
| A medium can be infered from either statement but only in AE's
| statement is it ?clear? or ?infered? that the path is part of
| the clock mechanism.
I just dealt with the statement as you posted it and not any preceding or
following text. The path to the clock mechanism should be transparent and
should not influence the results as to what a remote clock is actually
reading wrt the observer clock. The details of the methodology used to
determine the actual state of remote clocks may need to be understood so the
methodology can be applied correctly (if successful ) in a general way.
The actual process of measurement of remote objects should IMHO be
transparent so the results should represent the actual differences between
the observer and the observed. Physics should be trying to tell what things
*are* in relation to the observer not what they *look* like thats the
function of art.
|
| Since he uses the same mechanism later in the paper.
| I don't think you want to rewrite the whole paper.
| It is an "observer centric" theory so there is nothing wrong with AE's
| statement. The clock has to include a different path for a different
| observer.
Yes but the path chosen to observe the facts should not influence relative
facts as they exist at the observed state.
Ideally the observation methodology should be transparent and just detail
the relative states of the observed and observer.
|
| >
| >
| > There is much confusion in this artical as in
| > http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
| > It seems to think that reader might think that radiation was made up of
| > bullets and completely ignores the high probability that radiation is
| > propagated in a medium of some sort and the medium velocity is both zero
wrt
| > the embankment and zero wrt to the carriage and the latter fantasy about
| > simultaneity is totally unnecessary in this context.
|
| A bulletized propagation was definitly in AE's mental model.
| (Photoelectric paper with all six assumptions.? )
| If it weren't for that he might have found the insight to fix Maxwell's
| equations. He knew EM field equations didn't have to slosh
| ether to work and work relativistically.
|
| Pretty dull stuff compared to *possibility* of finding some
| real world substance to Minkowski's space-time. Eh ?
That seems a possibility as a reference that the real world geometry is
measured against but I was looking for an nD space-time in which from any
specified location perhaps all the energy received would be from the future
and all the energy emitted would be into the past. As in a ball caught must
have come from your future as otherwise how could you have intercepted its
path into the past, unless you postulate that a ball thrown is moving into
the future so others may see it as coming from the future even yourself.
Then I suppose you might conclude that all motion is into the future and
perhaps the faster you move the faster you move into the future. You might
then think that move more quickly into future time by moving in space some
conservation law might be invoked that required the location moving more
quickly into future time might need to move intrinsically more slowly as per
relativity. If things move more slowly then to conserve process things may
need to be shorter in length so interval can be perhaps cosmically invariant
and locally variant.{:-)
|
|
| >
| > |
| > | At every step of Maxwell/Einstein study, one must remember the
| > | basis is the integration of a clock and the observer's path to the
| > | clock. Once a clock is so-defined, It is pure hogwash to
| > | speculate about the "path to a clock with an integral path."
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > | Ragged wraps mercifully snipped :o)
| > | http://www.acnw.de/board/images/smilies/whistling.gif
| > |
| >
| > Ragged wraps reposted.{:-)
|
| Indeed. All my ragged wraps on the post drying too.
Carefull there are guys that pinch knickers drying on posts.
http://www.acnw.de/board/images/smilies/whistling.gif
|
| Sue...
|
| > --
| > Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field,
two
| > unbound field effects
| > http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
| > Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p
or
| > (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
| >
| >
|
|
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Relativistic electromagnetic equations, gamma not required
- Next by Date: Re: Simple Sagnac
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
