Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: "Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 00:00:05 +1000
"Sivad" <sivad@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:69a9b$4687bcbf$d8080e4c$27413@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
If one examines the "yardsticks" and the "clocks" we use for the
measurement of length and time needed to determine velocity, we find that
the length of the "yardsticks" and the speed of the "clocks"" are
controlled by the velocity of light.
No .. they are not.
This occurs because matter uses that velocity to control its properties
(size, stiffness, and mass).
What are you on about? How does matter use the speed of light to control
its mass? You're talking nonsesnse.
As a result, a measurement of the velocity of light must is always made in
terms of the velocity of light.
No.
As a result, the velocity of light is always measured to have the same
value (when measured with local unit of measurement) in every reference
frame.
Yes .. but not for the reason you state.
Two intelligent men, Fitzgerald and Larmor, recognized this effect
when they provided the explanation (Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory,
LTAT) of the failure of the Michaelson-Morley Experiment to find our
absolute velocity through space. Two years later Dr. Einstein derived this
result theoretically and produced the Special Theory of Relativity - STR.
(Once an intelligent man provides a solution, it does not take brilliance
for others to improve on that solution. Examination shows that both of
these theories are identical with LTAT being a special Case solution of
STR. Under LTAT our absolute velocity though space exists but we cannot
find it and under STR, because we cannot observe our absolute velocity,
all considerations of an absolute reference should be abolished. This
latter conclusion was falsely taken by many to mean that the possibility
of an absolute reference frame was disproved. BECAUSE ONE CANNOT OBSERVE
SOMETHING IS NOT PROOF THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST!
Its a complication that is not needed. SR is much simpler.
The intuitive resolution of the problem of adding two relativistic
velocities is readily achieved by considering three reference frames, A,
B, and C, which are moving collinearly at different velocities. (See
http://einsteinhoax.com/cf64.gif). If we measure the velocity of B
relative to A while in reference frame A and the velocity of C relative to
B while in reference frame B and add the two velocities, the sum of these
velocities will be greater than the observed velocity of C as measured in
A. Impossible? Not when one recognize that the velocity of C with respect
to B was measured in a different reference frame (B) than was used for the
measurement of the velocities of B and C with respect to A (A). The fact
that a different reference frame was used for the two sets of observations
means that they were made with "clocks" that differ in their speed and
"yardsticks" that differ in length.
Only with the complicate LTAT theory.
Once one accepts the need to distinguish between the concepts of
"invariance" and "constancy" the confusion vanishes.
What confusion .. don't you understand SR?
Relativity theory teaches that physical quantities are invariant between
reference frames. This means that, when measured locally, all physical
parameters yield the same values. Any change which may occur is masked by
a change in the calibration of the measuring instruments.
No .. Relativity doesn't teach that at all
To be constant, however, a quantity must be unchanged in the absolute
sense. This means that the observed measurement must be corrected by the
appropriate relativistic term to determine what is actually occurring.
Only in LTAT . there is no need for any correction in SR .. everything has
is proper length etc when at rest in any iFoR.
It should be noted that converting observations to "constant" observations
shows clearly the source of inertial effects and of gravitation, as shown
in other postings.
It is unclear whether the mystery behind Relativity results from a
destruction of basic intelligence during the process of advanced education
is more sinister.
It appears something has destroyed yours
Has the academic community chosen to take a rather simple phenomena and
make it into a mystery which only the elite may understand?
Yes .. the took the simply theory of SR and rejected the more complicated
LTAT
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: rotchm@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- References:
- "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Sivad
- "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- Prev by Date: Re: Proper quantities in SR
- Next by Date: "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?"
- Previous by thread: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- Next by thread: Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
