Re: The reasons why SR is an aether theory


kenseto wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137684549.177241.159190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > >
> > > No matter how you spin it. According to SR the observer's rod is longer
> than
> > > the observed rod.....Ls>Lm
> >
> > Yes, that's what I said. If you're looking for a "length expansion"
> > formula, there it is.
>
> Where is length expansion formula???

Right there! L_s = gamma* L_m. Are you blind?

> >
> > > (btw Lm is miss-leading....why? beacause we
> > > don't know which rod is doing the moving).
> >
> > It's only misleading if you erroneously interpret "moving" to be
> > "absolutely moving". In this case, it's "moving relative to the
> > observer", which is absolutely unambiguous and not misleading at all.
>
> So moving is not moving??

You seem to think the two are joined at the hip, as though relatively
moving implies absolutely moving.

>
> >
> > > This condition is valid only if
> > > Ls is in a state of absolute rest.
> >
> > Nope, not so.
>
> Assertion is not an arguement.

I would point out that your statement "This condition is valid only if
Ls is in a state of absolute rest," is an assertion on your part.
Assertion is not an argument.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you are saying that L is in a state of absolute rest??
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > According to SR it is a definite YES.
> >
> > Not according to SR, no. According to *you*, maybe, but not according
> > to SR.
> >
> > > Otherwise Ls is not always greater
> > > than Lm as asserted by SR.
> >
> > Not according to SR. According to *you*, maybe, but not according to
> > SR.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > That's it...that's the PoR assertion.:-)
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > According to SR it is a definite YES.
> >
> > Not according to SR. According to *you*, maybe, but not according to
> > SR.
> >
> > > The PoR says that all frames are
> > > equivalent
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >so Einstein choosed the absolute rest frame to derive the SR
> > > math.
> >
> > Not according to SR. According to *you*, maybe, but not according to
> > SR.
> >
> > > BTW that's why the SR math is identical to the LET math. They both use
> > > the absolute rest frame to derive the math.
>
> Deny about what SR says all you want. Answer the following questions:
> 1. Does SR says that the rate of a clock is effected by motion?....the
> higher is the state of motion of a clock wrt the observer the slower is its
> clock rate.

No, SR does NOT say this. I've pointed this out to you a dozen times. I
don't know where you read up on SR or how long ago you read it. Either
you misremember it, or it's oversimplified for the general public, or
it's *wrong*. If you think I'm mistaken, then I'll need a page
reference for your guide to SR.

It does NOT say that the rate of a clock is affected by motion. It says
the following:
a) Suppose an observer measures the time elapsed between two events
happening at the same place (that is, there is no change in spatial
displacement between the two events relative to the observer).
b) Any other clock, moving relative to that observer, will measure a
different time between those two events.

> 2. Does SR says that an observer sees all the clocks in the universe are
> running slower than his clock?

> 3. From 1 and 2 does SR says that the observer is in a state of rest wrt all
> the clocks in the universe?

Since (1) is incorrect, the conclusion (3) is incorrect.

>
> > >
> > > Baloney....it is not possible to measure the length of a moving rod.
> >
> > You still haven't told me *why*. You've not indicated anything wrong
> > with the principle, but you want to see it done first to convince you.
>
> If it can be measured you would have done it. BTW the predicted Lorentz
> contraction is not a measure of the real physical length contraction as
> asserted by you.
>

That's a crappy argument and you know it. If I told you that if
absolute motion could be measured you would have done it, you would
complain that's not fair, and that no one will pay to do the
experiment. What makes it OK to whine in your case, but not in mine?

Moreover, I've already pointed out to you that the *distance* in
*lengths* between the first-place finisher and the second-place
finisher in any old kind of race is ample demonstration that the
*length* of a moving object can be measured. This is a conventional
measurement. I've also pointed out examples where this measurement is
repeated in cases where the Lorentz contraction becomes quite evident.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Going Around in circles - help!
    ... Moving clock transmits ... > clock is going slow and he only receives half as many ticks as his one ... > As far as the moving observer is concerned his clock keeps perfect time ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... for the observer in a preferred frame of reference. ... observer are running slow means that the observer's clock is ... objects in the universe are moving in the SR observer's frame. ... sun is in motion in the galaxy, and the galaxy is in motion through ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
    ... for the observer in a preferred frame of reference. ... observer are running slow means that the observer's clock is ... objects in the universe are moving in the SR observer's frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Twin Paradox explained from the moving twin ?
    ... The clock of the moving observer runs behind. ... |> Nicolaas Vroom. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: On The Irrelevance Of The Absolute Rest Frame In Special Relativity
    ... on Sun, ... In SR observed clock is slowed by a factor of 1/gamma. ... observer then it is running slower then the observer's clock. ... So observer O is at absolute rest and A is moving relative to O; ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading