Re: Mach's principle and aether

On Mar 15, 5:02 pm, "bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:26 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 14, 8:40 pm, "bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 14, 9:56 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 14, 9:52 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sue... wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:36 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Mar 12, 11:36 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nobody expects SR to be a good model of the world we inhabit. After
all, it is only a LOCAL APPROXIMATION to a much better theory, GR.
When my clock is slower than yours but your clock is slower than
mine ABSURD seems a better description than APPROXIMATE.
The only absurdity is in YOUR statement, not SR. SR in no way implies
"my clock is slower than yours but your clock is slower than mine".

What SR actually says, for an appropriate physical situation, is: you
MEASURE my clock to run slower than yours, and I MEASURE your clock to
run slower than mine; the difference in our MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES makes
this happen, and makes it not be a contradiction. Basically we are
measuring different things, and this difference is inherent when
measuring the rate of a moving clock.

I see.   The word MEASURE makes all the difference.

No. Please re-read what I wrote.

Your post is devoid of any details to justfy distinguishing
a MEASURMENT from a measured quantity on both first and
second readings.

It is the fact that the two observers
use different MESUREMENT PROCEDURES that makes this not be a
contradiction (each observer uses the same procedure, inverting "me" and
"you", which makes their procedures overall be different).

Then your measurement procedure is flawed.

If the muzzle velocity of a rifle is 300 m/sec in one
IRF then it must be 300 m/sec in another IRF.

<< The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:

"All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments."

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental
sense between different inertial frames. >>
"The relativity principle"

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html

In
particular, you cannot measure the rate of a moving clock without having
TWO synchronized clocks at rest in your frame (and vice-versa for the
other frame). This asymmetry of using two clocks to measure the rate of
a single moving clock, is what generates the difference in rates.

Nonsense!

If the clocks and rods in the above example don't both show
a muzzle velocity of 300 m/sec then you have found a violation
of the PoR.

If you would STUDY what SR actually is, rather than using a comic-book
approach, you might actually LEARN something.

It is not clear which person you equate with an author of
comic books

It is YOUR APPROACH that is appropriate for comic books, not scientific
writings.

You are arguing that:

~All inertial frames are NOT totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments.~

We might find that in some comic-book or work of fiction.

Sue...

 <shrug>

Two cars have a closing speed of v.  The occupants of each car measure
their own speed to be zero and that of the other car to be v.  They do
not agree with each other but they are both correct.

With the clocks, relative simultaneity means the clocks

There are no clocks on a bullet. If there were, the principle
of relativity tells you what they must indicate.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html


I was responding to your statement, "When my clock is slower than
yours but your clock is slower than mine ABSURD seems a better
description than APPROXIMATE."

Tom explained why that is the case and you did not seem to understand
what he was saying, so I tried to elaborate on what he said.  If you
have a question state it.

No... Tom used the phrase"

"for an appropriate physical situation"

without further elaboration, he explained nothing.







in the other
frame are always out of sync.  The individual clocks all tick at the
same rate.  If two clocks at the same point read zero, and then you
compare times with another clock in the moving system, they cannot
read the same.  We know that the second clock was out of sync with the
first and that the clocks have both been ticking at one proper second
per second since meeting up with the first clock.

An observer in the moving frame finds the exact same thing when he
does the exact same thing in his frame.

No... the observer for the relevant experiments is a
calorimeter.



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


In the above example I used two clocks in the moving frame because we
know they are out of sync while ours are in sync.  But to those in the
moving frame our clocks are out of sync.

The theory uses a calorimeter.http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html

You used clocks because H.G Wells did.

<<Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis--usually one
which is appealing emotionally,  and spectacularly
implausible--and then looks only for items which appear
to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally
speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize
strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or
to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes
in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological
axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread
misunderstandings. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html


I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Then you have not read enough of Tom's postings to
spot his continual weasel-wording to avoid the
implications of light that does not move the way
Newton described.

 Are you off your meds
or something?  
There used to be a Sue that posted here that seemed
quite sane.

Tom is asking us to reject the principle of relativity.
Will we also have to accept the implications of Phlogiston
and Caloric and to prove our sanity?

"The Dual Nature of Light as Reflected in the Nobel Archives"
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

Sue...



Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Train gedanken pitfall
    ... > as measured in the track frame. ... They are not is sync in the track frame. ... "According to SR the transported clock must now be in sync with the clock at ... But there is no train in the scenario above. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity and Clocks
    ... > unsynchronised (in frame 2) by exactly the time difference of the two ... You either have to sync clocks, ... > the idea that every moving body in the universe is under the influence ... But you are fooling yourself if you think slow clock transport doesn't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... So if you really believe that a clock can really ... That is what observers ... saw in one frame where a digital clock was going ... ..it only goes slower, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Do atomic clocks falsify the principle of relativity? (Hafele and Keating experiment)
    ... > frame of reference in which an atomic clock runs the fastest. ... No. Clocks on the surface of the Sun would run slower than here, ... > precluded the existence of such an absolute resting frame ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Triplet Paradox
    ... >>> so his clock should run slower. ... And by the symmetry implied by PoR, of course Bill ... He can do this in his outgoing frame or his ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)