Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 May 2006 07:47:49 -0700
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 15 May 2006 06:16:32 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 12 May 2006 15:04:19 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One doesn't need
Ah, see, that's a problem. Physicists, when faced with confronting
their assertions against experiment, don't say "One doesn't need" to do
that.
my assertions are fully backed by ALL believable expariments.
You were the one that said, "One doesn't need..."
You haven't checked experimentally that a rod occupies an absolute
length of space.
A rod DEFINES an absolute length in space.
The rod does not alter in any way as a result of a speed change.
Sure it does. Its length changes. Nothing physical happens to the rod
to make that happen, however.
Any observer can take the rod anywhere in space, at any speed and use that rod
to measure objects in terms of the same absolute lengths that it did
originally.
If you cannot understand that then there is no hope for you.
If you cannot check your assumptions against experiment, then there is
no hope for you, Henri. Not as a scientist, anyway.
When was it ever proved that they are observer dependent?
Ample times. I've described direct experimental evidence of length
contraction several times in this group. Segmented particle detectors
comparing results of collisions in both fixed-target and collider
experiments (two different frames of reference looking at the same
process, you see) show that lengths are contracted exactly in accord
with SR. Would you like some references to papers? Or do you refuse to
read them? Or do you know for a fact, even before knowing what the
papers are, that they have been rigged?
..but this is so stupid...
Experimental evidence is stupid? Henri, we don't dictate that nature
behave according to rules that we think make sense. If nature behaves
unexpectedly, we don't say, "But this is so stupid..."
You're talking crap again...
Really? You think it's crap that we don't dictate that nature behave
according to rules that we think make sense?
It is obvious for instance, that the length of an accelerator doesn't change
just because particles happen to move along it at high speed.
No, it is not obvious at all. From the frame where the accelerator is
at rest, the length doesn't change, but from the frame of the particles
traveling through it, the length of the accelerator certainly does
change.
As I have pointed out many times, only an idiot would try to measure the length
of a fast moving object...particularly using light.
We actually have learned, following the measurements that
verified this, to build this fact into the design of particle detectors
in fixed-target experiments so that they'll work properly. And they do
work properly as a result.
I have explained that many times. The apparent mass increase is due to the
energy build up in the 'reverse field bubble' around the particle.
That isn't what I'm talking about, Henri. I'm talking about the
*dimensions* (lengths) of a particle detector in fixed-target
experiments -- has nothing to do with the apparent mass increase of the
particles being detected. It's apparent that you are completely
ignorant of the experimental evidence of length contraction.
Come on, let me hear you say "There's no such thing as an egg-laying
mammal!"
You did not comprehend what I said.
It is pretty hard yo understand ANYTHING you have said.
You sound like a preacher trying to explain the christian bible.
Ah, but see, the fact that you find it hard to comprehend has nothing
to do with whether it's right. If you demand that something is
comprehensible to you before you will allow that it's right, then you
have no understanding whatsoever of experimental science.
I can easily comprehend that your logic is completely flawed.
As I said, Henri, logic has nothing to do with it. Experiment does. If
experiment reveals that nature is not as your logic or your
preconceived notions or what you find comprehensible dictates, this
does not mean that nature is wrong -- it means that you need to adjust
your thinking.
I don't. I use one delta V to get one gamma for that one observer. I
use a different delta V to get a different gamma for another observer.
Wherever did you get the idea that gamma was a property of the object?
I see you had not comment here.
Because your argument is crap.
What argument? It's a question. Wherever did you get the idea that
gamma was a property of the object?
Just accept the fact that rods and clocks don't change in any way after an
acceleration to a different speed.
But they do. Their lengths change and their rates change, and the
amount of the change depends on which observer is measuring those, and
nothing physical happens to the object to cause those changes.
There is no magic, no fairies...it is all so simple.
You're right, there's no magic and no fairies, and it is simple. The
fact that you find it magical and mysterious and complicated and
incomprehensible is irrelevant.
For two different observers? Of course it can!
It's not like something is physically changing the rod.
The fact that you find this discombobulating is irrelevant.
What IS discombobulating is the fact that you cannot see that if nothing
physically changes in the rod then measurements that don't get the right answer
are obviously flawed.
What makes you think there IS a "right" answer when a property is
observer-dependent?
The property itself isn't observer dependent.
Sure it is! You seem happy to insist that it cannot be, without
bothering to check against experiment whether it is or not.
If a moving fool tries to measure the length of something then it serves him
right if he gets the wrong answer.
You seem to have no problem with measurements not getting "the right
answer" if the property involves L/T, as you put it, even though
nothing physically changes with the rod. But you suddenly and
mysteriously have a problem with measurements not getting "the right
answre" if the property doesn't involve L/T, even though nothing
physically changes with the rod.
I have NO problem. Light is being used and light takes time to go from A to B.
You are mistaking willusions for reality.
Repeat: With observer-dependent properties, there IS NO "right answer".
Crap. A metre rod is 1 metre no matter what happens to it ...bar a meltdown.
That is simply wrong, as experiment shows. You seem to want to force
nature to abide with what you think is comprehensible, without checking
against experiment to find out whether that is right or not.
A meter rod is a meter rod and always will be.......no matter how it is
measured PROPERLY.
And, as you admit, the proper measurement is ONLY when the meter rod is
at rest with respect to the observer. Yet you insist that it is
nevertheless the same when it is moving relative to the observer,
without checking against experiment whether this is so or not.
I have proved it logically. It cannot both increase and decrease its absolute
length simultaneously.
There is no such thing as absolute length. And length does both
increase and decrease at the same time. What you think is *logical* is
irrelevant. Logic must be checked against experiment. If experiment
says your "logic" is incorrect, then it is time to scrap the "logic"
and figure out what's really going on.
Gamma does not have to be a property of the object as you seem to think.
The fact according to you and Einstein, is that the rod will supposedly change
lengths different ways (including + and -) in the frames of differently moving
observers. That is clearly impossible, in the physical sense..
No, it's entirely possible, and it is in fact supported by experiment.
What is impossible is for a *physical process* to be responsible for a
change in an *inherent* (observer-independent) property that both
increases and decreases. However, length is not an inherent physical
property, and no physical process occuring in the rod is responsible
for the observer-dependent changes in the length, and so the
impossibility vaporizes.
In fact,
you disallow measurements of the meter rod when it is moving with
respect to the observer, and yet you *still* insist that its length is
the same, even though you have no recourse for experimental
verification of that.
Read the above again...and try to understand it...I know it requires a
reasonable IQ to do that.... but you can at least use a computer..
I read it again. You try to insist that it is so by *logic*, without
reference to experiment to test whether your logic is correct or not.
Do you understand dimensional analysis Paul?
Speed = L/T
Momentum = ML/T (obviously speed dependent)
Energy = ML^2T^-2 (obviously speed dependent)
Length = L (obviously not speed dependent)
T = T (obviously not speed dependent)
..etc..
Length = L * sqrt(1 - (L/T)^2) (obviously speed-dependent)
Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahah!!!!!!!
You have proved you know nothing....
What are the dimensions of v/c again, Paul
OK, if you'd like to see it in units where c=/=1, then
Length = L * sqrt[1 - ((L/T)/c)^2] (obviously speed-dependent)
hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you understand dimensional analysis, Henri?
Hahahahahahahhahahahhahhhawhawahhawhawhawhahwhhohohoh!!!!!!!
Anyway that equation is based on Einstein erroneous conclusion that raindrops
moving diagonally past a moving train window take longer to reach the ground.
Eh? No. It's based on the invariance of the spacetime interval and the
observer-independence of the speed of light, both of which are
experimentally demonstrated.
The real equation is just the doppler term Lo = L(1+c/v)
Uh, no. This too is also inconsistent with experiment.
Ask the question in a sensible way, with terms that have definitions we
agree on.
The question is perfectly legitimate... ..and the answer is obvious.
THE ROD DOES NOT CHANGE IN ANY WAY.
Nothing physical happens to the rod. But its length changes, and it can
change by different amounts for different observers, sure.
Paul, its absolute length does not change. It is observed to change by moving
observers because they see a willusion of the rod...and even the willusion is
NOT what SR predicts.
You haven't checked against experiment that this is true. You haven't
checked whether there IS such a thing as absolute length
experimentally. All you've done is define absolute length as the
quantity measured when it is at rest relative to a reference and then
*insisted* that it is the same even when that criterion is relaxed,
without reference to any experimental test of that fact.
Rods are regularly used in all types of situations to measure absolute lengths.
No, they're not. They're used to measure lengths in a particular
reference frame, not absolute lengths at all.
ADMIT IT PAUL!
Admit what?
I'm right and you're wrong.
I'll be happy to do that when you can quantitatively predict, and show
the work behind your predictions, a phenomenon that is unaccounted for
by any other theory and which is experimentally verified, and also show
that your theory is consistent with all relevant observations to date.
That is customarily what is required of a theory whose validity is in
question.
I see you would much rather just try to sway an audience by repitition
and by "logic", rather than by taking a scientific approach, which
involves what I described above.
PD
.
- References:
- Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- From: PD
- Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- From: PD
- Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- From: PD
- Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- From: PD
- Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- From: PD
- Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- Prev by Date: Re: Dork Van de merde claims xor implies or.
- Next by Date: An Unpleasant Discussion
- Previous by thread: Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- Next by thread: Re: How Can Light NOT be Ballistic?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
