Re: What is the " ACTUAL " length ?

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:55:36 GMT
<YR6gj.111816$S37.12303@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t18755-43l.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Jeckyl
| <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:28:53 +1100
| <13o0t97pt7s7078@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > "kenseto" <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| >
news:687f375f-8b57-409d-8b73-0463105a8803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > On Jan 4, 11:07 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >>> It is not a circular standard since it is defined
| >>> in terms of the second, an independent standard.
| >>> Where's the circle?
| >>
| >>The circle is: The speed of light is not a universal constant as
| >>claimed by SR.
| >
| > Yes .. there is no evidence that it isn't and much experimentaly
evidence
| > that it isn't
|
| Um...to be fair to Jeckyl (bad place for a "word-o"! :-)),
| what he probably meant to say is that there is no
| evidence of variable light speed in vacuo, and all relevant
| experiments thus far corroborate SR's hypothesis of a
| fixed, unchanging light speed in vacuo (although not a
| fixed velocity, as that includes direction), and therefore
| in 1983 the scientific powers-that-be threw in the towel
| and simply defined it constant.
|
| >
| >> Why? Because the clock second use to define the speed
| >> of light does not represent the same interval of universal time
| >> (duration) in different frames.
| >
| > It doesn't need to be .. in only needs to be a second in the frame wher
eyou
| > are measureing the light.
|
| In any event, one "universal time" is as good as another,
| it turns out. (This can be proved mathematically

Balderdash.
You have no idea what a mathematical proof is.


A mathematical proof is a useless exercise in physics, except to show
that a theory is at least marginally consistent.


| using
| the Lorentz,

The cuckoo malformations are built on the very idea you are claiming
can be proven.

The transformations *cannot* be proven. It is not possible to prove
physical results.

Best we can do is observe that the Universe throws us something, and we
might be able to consistently interpret it. Since lightspeed is not a
constant in the theory which you are using, it should be possible to
concoct an experiment using that particular theory which shows results
that are different from what SR and GR predict.


Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
Wanker Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif

Erm...I'm not familiar with that experiment. But OK.


Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

I'm assuming you mean c_0.


Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Correct. The best I can do is roll back the 1983 decision that is
the bane of your existence, and go back to the Kr_86 standard.

Of course one reason they decided in 1983 apparently to define
c = c_0 is because no one's thus far found anything different.


c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

That is correct, and Einstein is *incorrect* in his derivation. That
may or may not affect the validity of his result. You are welcome to
do one or more of the following.

[1] Correct the derivation.
[2] Throw out the result and derive a result consistent with, among
other things, Sagnac, Ives-Stilwell, Pound Rebka, and of course
Michelson-Morley-Miller. (We may have to throw out Michelson-Morley,
though; there's a fair amount of temperature sensitivity, as Miller's
results clearly show. Of course for his part Miller's results have been
routinely ignored as an anomaly.)
[3] Create an experiment that disproves SR, perform the experiment, and
publish the results after peer review.


What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.

The velocity of light is *not* constant. Also, as
you've already (and correctly) pointed out, the average
velocity of light (or anything else) in a TWLS is a hard,
non-changeable zero. Of course there's a difference between

v + (-v)

and

||v|| + ||-v||

The first is zero, the second is 2||v||.



http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

The derivation is provably incorrect, as you've already pointed out.
However, if you like we can derive it correctly. State the criteria
that you wish to use in order to derive the transformations correctly.


Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton



--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Insert random misquote here.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity ... It denies an axiom, the Principle of Relativity. ... "Albert Einstein. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What causes time dilation?
    ... |> | Modern relativity theory does not have this foundation. ... |> the velocity of light added to the velocity of the source. ... [Restore of other argument against the idiot Einstein, ... Einstein, however, was not a mathematician. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What causes time dilation?
    ... |> | Modern relativity theory does not have this foundation. ... |> the velocity of light added to the velocity of the source. ... [Restore of other argument against the idiot Einstein, ... Einstein, however, was not a mathematician. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... Einstein was a THEORETICAL ... The speeds are c-v and c+v. ... |> "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by ... A star at the centre of a sphere will have a finite amount of energy, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
    ... As you say, one man says the velocity of light is source independent, ... Ask anyone what they know about Einstein ... it would have to be time dilation in y compared to x. ... > The reason such an absurdity was accepted was because Physicists were ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast