Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 27, 12:16 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 27, 6:14 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Mar 27, 12:09 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:39�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 26, 7:23�am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 25, 6:19�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

� � �My question is, has science ever considered the orbit of Mercury
the way I do, with the distances the same from either frame of
reference, but with the clock on Mercury running slower?

BOTH are true. The distance is different as measured from Mercury, AND
the clock rate on Mercury is different.
You are having difficulty understanding what SR really says.

I know exactly what Special Relativity says.

That certainly isn't obvious.

�You are either having
difficulty understanding my question or are deliberately pretending
not to understand. �But anyway, I now recall the answer. �Einstein
thought he had resolved the distance contraction when he thought of
relativity of time.

I don't know where you got that impression. What comic book did you
derive that information from?

�A few years later another scientist showed
Einstein that there was still a distance contraction in his
interpretation of the Lorentz equations.

Umm. The distance contraction is in his original paper, explicitly
noted. Where did you think Einstein missed what he wrote himself?

If you say so.  The only thing I ever read by Einstein was his book
Relativity, the Special and General Theories.
 The story about some
scientist convincing Einstein that there was a distance contraction
was in the first book I ever read about relativity.  The author of the
book was named Lincoln Barnett.  I do not remember the title of the
book.

I suggest you do a little more reading. You might want to read Pais's
biography perhaps.

Do you have ANY idea of what you're talking about?

I was talking about the distance contraction.  There is no distance
contraction.

Sure there is. It's been measured. Did you think that all this
relativity stuff was just an unconfirmed GUESS?

That is wonderful, but there is always that distance contraction.
Distances do not really contract the way the Lorentz equations show.

Sure they do. It's been *measured*. I already told you that.

Well, I am pretty gullible.  But I never have believed in a distance
contraction.  I am not that gullible.

You are also ignorant of experimental measurements. It would help if
you would brief yourself on what's been confirmed.

as far as anything
scientists on this earth are ever going to do,

If you have a different theory and can calculate where your theory
predicts something measurable that is different than what relativity
says, and you can specify the size of the difference in a particular
circumstance, then put that forward and scientists will be eager to do
an experimental test to see if you're right. NB: You must show your
work.

I already showed my work.

� � � � � � � � � �x'=x-vt
� � � � � � � � � �y'=y
� � � � � � � � � �z'=z
� � � � � � � � � � t'=t

� � � � � � � � � �x=ct
� � � � � � � � � �x'=cn'
� � � � � � � � � �n'=t(1-v/c)

I'm sorry, so where is the "can calculate where your theory predicts
something measurable that is different than what relativity says, and
you can specify the size of the difference in a particular
circumstance"? Perhaps you missed that part?

Well, then?

� � �So where are all the eager scientists? �There were eager
scientists when I was making mistakes in my mathematics. �Now that I
am not, they have all disappeared.

so they are going to
enforce their equations and make certain they are mever questioned
because the government gives them money to understand the equations.

No, that's not what the government gives them money to do. Geez.

Scientists are like lawyers. �So why do you think there are lawyers?
To stop crime? �If there was no crime, why would lawyers even exist?
Lawyers are there to increase crime so that more money can be made by
lawyers.

Ah. I see. And welders are there to do bad welds so that more welders
are required to fix the bad welds, and instead they do more bad welds
so that more money can be made by welders doing bad welds.

Well, welders actually do some work.  If a welder makes bad welds, he
gets fired.

Exactly. So do scientists. If they do bad work, they get fired.
Scientists work too. Most of them work longer hours than welders and
most of them get paid less than welders for that. The average post-doc
researcher makes about $30k a year and works between 75 and 90 hours a
week. That works out to $7.50/hr. Still think it's a cushy job.

Well, my father knew some scientists who were making more than that.
He knew Werner von Braun,

Werner Von Braun's salary was not $30k/year. It was $17k/year. I don't
know where you got information otherwise.

and he knew a guy named Jerry Sams who used
to come and see him in Montana.  Jerry Sams had a company that made
schematics for television sets.  I noticed that now Sams is publishing
computer books, etc.



While you're at it, why don't you malign nursing by telling them
they're there to make more people sick to make more demand for nurses,
and malign car mechanics by telling them they're there to break cars
so that there will be more demand for car mechanics, and malign
accountants by telling them they are there to lose money so that there
will be more demand for accountants?

I did not really see the need for it, but now that you mention nurses,
several have gone to prison in my lifetime for killing patients.  Why
do you suppose they do that?  Then my friend took his car to a
mechanic for some work after replacing parts on his brakes.  The
mechanic told him that the brake parts he had just replaced needed
replacing because they were worn.  Now that you mention it,
accountants who go to prison for embezzlement are usually replaced by
other accountants.

So everyone is dishonorable except for welders.
So why aren't you polluting accounting newsgroups and nursing
newsgroups and auto mechanic newsgroups telling them that they are all
wasting your money, sapping the economy, and you know better than they
do what they should be doing?

Well, welders are not any better.  Some welders who worked at the
steel fabrication place next to the one where I worked broke in and
stole a bunch of stuff one night.  One of the welders they stole
belonged to me.  The owner of the company bought me a new welder so I
could keep working because the police were holding mine as evidence.


Good, then maybe you should be contributing to welding newsgroups,
where at least you know what you're talking about.




Everybody's out to cheat you and obfuscate the truth for you, aren't
they? And they're watching you, too, just in case you show signs of
getting wise to them. And then they'll come and start taking things
from you, all dressed up with fake documents like "repossession
orders" and "court summons". And if you didn't keep your shotgun
loaded, they'd take you out one night while you're watching game
shows.

Well you missed on that one.  I do not have any guns.  I have never
bought anything on credit.  When I see a court summons with my name on
it I see it as an opportunity to talk to lawyers in court, one of my
favorite things in the whole world.  As far as everyone being out to
cheat me, it would not make any difference to me.  I would not do
things different if they were.

What would happen if people were to begin to understand that the
equations scientists use are not the all-explaining answers that
scientists represent them to be?
Robert B. Winn

They know that already. That's why folks are still doing research. If
we thought the work was done, everyone would find more lucrative jobs
than what they're doing now.

Folks are doing research because they get government grants to do
research.

Uh, no. How do you imagine it happens? You think the government says:
"OK we got a couple hundred million here for the taking? Who wants
some? Line up here. Those who are looking for work can do research for
the government." Is that what you suppose?

Well. Congress appropriates research money for some very odd things.
The distance contraction has been a real cash cow for scientists over
the years.

Really? How much do you think would have been saved if it had never
been used?
And please back that claim up.

Well, the Manhattan Project was fairly cheap, about 13 million
dollars, if my memory serves correctly.

It doesn't. You're off by two orders of magnitude. Geez, your grasp of
basic facts is pretty fast and loose and you just run with information
you dimly recall, without checking.

 But they kind of increased
exponentially after that until they were up to a three trillion dollar
super-collider that they were going to build in Texas.

Again, you're off by two orders of magnitude. The SSC was NOWHERE near
3 trillion dollars. It was nowhere near a tenth that. It wasn't even a
hundredth of that. Your willingness to generate random nonsense you
make up on the fly to support whatever point you have on your mind at
the moment is rather spectacular.

Let me remind you that 95% of the technology you use today is based on
understanding the laws of electromagnetism -- including those buzz
boxes you can buy at Home Depot by the way. These are the laws that
basic research uncovered between 125 and 100 years ago. No one knew
then that electromagnetism would be responsible for 95% of the
technology used in everyday life.

While the *billions* that were spent on the Manhattan project
generated two bombs, the billions that were planned on the
Supercollider were to understand a force that is a *thousand* times
more powerful than electromagnetism. If you can stretch your
imagination just a little bit to about 50 or 100 years from now on
what impact that might have on everyday life then, then maybe you
wouldn't be so cheap.



 They
overreached a little on that one.  Even politicians thought that was a
little too much.

 What do you suppose would happen if a scientist went to
someone in government and said, Will you give us money to do research
because there is no distance contraction?

They'd first say, "Why do you think that?" Then you'd have to be
pretty plain with them about why you think so.

Well, I was pretty plain with you.
                      x'=x-vt
                      y'=y
                      z'=z
                      t'=t
                     n'=t(1-v/c)

But that doesn't have anything to do with comparison with reality.
Equations aren't reality until they are checked against reality.


But back up a minute. Let's go back to a time BEFORE distance
contraction and ask this question:
"What do you suppose would happen if a scientists went to someone in
government and said, Will you give us money to do research because we
think there is distance contraction?"

Well, back then people were fairly competent.  They would have just
laughed at you.

And yet that work got done. How do you think the work on relativity
and quantum mechanics (both of which seemed crazy) was supported?


Now, how do you suppose THAT process went? What do you think had to be
shown for that ball to get rolling?

Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt
telling him that he thought that a very destructive weapon could be
made using ideas from his theory of relativity.

OK, so you're talking about a letter that was written 32 years AFTER
he had discovered the relativity of nature. What does that have to do
with the support of his research work that was done 30 years before
that letter was written. How did he get his support for researching
something that sounded crazy?

 Writing the letter
was not Einstein's idea.  He was talked into it by other physicists
because they believed Einstein was the only one who could convince the
government to pony up the money for a project.  Einstein was not even
allowed to work on the project because the military did not like his
pacifist ideas.



�What are the more lucrative jobs you would get?

That's easy to answer. I'm in the private sector now. I know lots of
physicists who have opted out of academic careers and are doing their
work in the private sector. Some of my former students in fact have
done the same thing. Tom Roberts, a regular poster on this group, went
from government-sponsored research to the private sector and back to
government-sponsored research. Others have gone from private sector to
government-sponsored research back to the private sector. Others do
both simultaneously.

Well, I think we should also consider that some of these companies in
the private sector you are talking about are doing research because
they have contracts with the government.

No, sir. You don't know what you're talking about. People do research
in companies because it provides a basis for future technology
development, which leads to life-changing products that have a
competitive edge and therefore have sales potential.

Well, I knew a guy who was an engineer when I was in the psychiatric
ward of a VA hospital.  

Whoops. This may have a bearing...

This guy told me he worked for an aircraft
company, and he did things like calculating the weight and
distribution of the electrical wiring in the airplane, etc. He was in
the V.A. hospital because he tried to kill his wife.  The company this
guy worked for had contracts to build airplanes for the government.
Most of the time he seemed pretty normal, but he would say things
like, I am never going to get out of these places, am I?
  Well, they released him about the same time as me, and when I went
back to visit some friends at the psychiatric ward about a year later,
I asked about him.  One of the nursing attendants told me that he had
gone up to Montana after he was released and was killed there trying
to rob a convenience store.

Which I'm sure has also happened with a number of welders. You're not
making me feel any better about welders. Why are you more suspicious
about government work than you are about the work of welders?


You are obviously unacquainted with physics- Hide quoted text -

Not entirely.  The engineer and I used to try to remember physics
equations when we were sitting in the psychiatric ward.  It helped to
pass the time.

I see you didn't have a lot of success.

Robert B. Winn

.

Quantcast