Re: Lights approaching velocity.



On Mar 2, 10:53 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1172846820.890517.239050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Mar 2, 8:17 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1172772339.622611.315370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Mar 1, 12:37 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1172768447.867067.323270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Mar 1, 8:03 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
j...@xxxxxxxx wrote
innews:1172748053.243221.173230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

....

A simple gedanken will show you, that i am correct. Problem is
nonone that beleive in SR will perfom why do not you be the
first.

My simple gedanken showed you are wrong.

Gedanken ist nicht reality.

To displace SR you must do either one of two things:
<< Point out a significant inconsistancy in SR....
or
real data that is significantly different
from that predicted by SR. >>

Einstein did that for us in 1920 by moving inertial
effects to the GR section.

He confined 'inertial Frames of Reference' to small regions of
space. He extended 'Relativity' to accelerated frames of reference
which he said could not be distinguished (over small regions) from
frames in gravitation fields.

He did NOT 'remove intertial effects' from SR. He did not impose
further limitations on SR. His initial paper limited the scope of SR
to inertial frames of reference.

GR expanded relativity to non inertial frames of reference.

Leaving us with an SR that says:

SR says exactly what it said in 1905, nothing has been 'removed'
from it.

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

...and time dependent Maxwell's equations that
don't give birth to absurd twins.

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_e
x.. .
ed

As far as I know, SR is still usefull for work within and between
inertial Frames of Reference. Show me an example where it predicts
the wrong results.

Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
....
The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.

C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

He points out that Einstein recognized difficulties in Einstein's
original 'twins' paradox handling (1905 paper) because correct analysis
is outside the narrow scope of SR.
"Einstein needed the general relativistic physics to
resolve the twin paradox in special relativity, and admitted
so. This is consistent with his not writing anything that
adequately addressed the twin paradox until 1918."

He does not say that Einstein made a mistake and the paradox does not
really exist. He did not say that SR is useless.

What univserse do you know of that has no matter in
it? Is that where we can find people that find it useful?

<< Where can we find matter that travels in a straight line? >>

Have you never seen pair of knickers sliding on
a tight clothes line ?

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/VACL30M.JPG

The approximations of Newton are still useful for computing the trajectory
of an artillery shell.

Yes they are quite good and extremely useful.


The approximations of Einstein are still useful for computing the
trajectory of a moon/mars/jupiter etc., mission and for building a
syncrotron.

It is usless for the moon because we don't know whether
to measure the synchrotron before or after we re-calibrate
the clock, if that is where the synchroton is.

GR is useful for generating volumes of arXiv preprints that
no-one can prove is hokum and a continuing inspiration
for woulda-been fiction writers.


Newton's, however, are useless for those tasks.

When does Newton say the students should perform
their acceleration experiment on the moon; before
or after they correct the clock that Einstein predicts
will change?
http://www.iit.edu/~smile/ph9605.html

Sue...



.