Re: Our greatest problem!

On Apr 16, 7:10 am, "kenseto" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:27 pm, The Ghost In The Machine



<e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on 14 Apr 2007 12:10:09 -0700
<1176577809.746905.256...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

SIGH...How many times do I have to tell you that I didn't make any
claim that the MMX in the same gravitational will detect fringe shift.
I claimed that if the *PLANE OF THE ARMS* are oriented vertically then
a fringe shift will be observed as the apparatus is rotated.

1. Where is the mathematical proof that permits you to predict this?

Mathematic cannot proof anything.

Maybe not, but from various axioms one can prove that certain systems
are nonsensical.

Every axiom of math is based on specific assumptions. For example
karandash2 claims that matrix multiplication is a fundamental law of
nature. Such claim is based on the bogus assumption that the units of
measurement (clock second and meter length) are universal. We know
that in SR and ether theories such claim is bogus.



Sorry, dr. Seto. Matrix multiplication is a UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICAL
FORMALISM. It DOES NOT depend on any physical assuptions, more the
less on what you call "the units of
measurement (clock second and meter length) are universal."

You need to brush up on mathematics, we all know that this is your
weak area (together with experiment). But your logic is your strong
suit.





For instance, one can assume two entities (call them A
and B), both equipped with light source and sufficient detection
equipment, identically configured.

If one assumes an absolute matrix (e.g., the rigid luminiferous aether),
one can affix A to that matrix, if one likes. However, one has to
in that case show cause for the existence of that matrix, or, failing
that, why that matrix doesn't show up as a 10^-8 variability of certain
observations depending on day of the year, and an about 2.4 * 10^-12
variability depending on time of day (at least, at the equator).

If one does *not* assume an absolute matrix, the observers
are then interchangeable, and the coordinate transform of
(x,t) space from A to B, given the velocity of B relative
to A, has to be identical to the coordinate transform of
(x,t) space from B to A, given the velocity of A relative
to B. Since v_AB = -v_BA, one immediately gets

T_ab(v) = T_ba(-v).

This assumption is wrong. A and B will measure different relative
velocity.

Ken Seto



Sorry, but that is not true. The laws of nature are symmetric:
v_AB = -v_BA.

We all know by now that you claim asymmetry in IRT, but this is not
how nature works. Need to brush up on experimental evidence, it is the
your other weak area. Of course, you more than compensate with your
superior logic.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Interplanetary exploration in a fantasy setting (surgeons general warning: contains reactionless
    ... nature of magic and metaphysics, the idea that we are "made of" ... so atoms aren't believed to be "real" ... No special relativity, and this seems to be a pretty big breakthrough; ... Light has neither mass nor inertia and therefore a constant velocity. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... claim that the MMX in the same gravitational will detect fringe shift. ... The laws of nature are symmetric: ... If car A is moving 5 km/hour westward relative to car B, ... Gravity Probe B adding its voice to the multitudes, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... claim that the MMX in the same gravitational will detect fringe shift. ... observations depending on day of the year, and an about 2.4 * 10^-12 ... given the velocity of B relative ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Time real?
    ... The ultimate nature of ... >> Naturalists see reality as that in nature which exists independent of ... Motion exists independent of human perception. ... > (for example, velocity). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Our greatest problem!
    ... given the velocity of B relative ... An assumption cannot be the law of nature. ... clock second co-mvoing with the ruler. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)