Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 05:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 8, 8:14 am, Strich 9 <Strich.9.2b95...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD;1181903 Wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:16*am, Strich 9 Strich.9.2b80...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:-
PD;1180730 Wrote:
-
On Jul 6, 10:22*am, Strich 9 Strich.9.2b6b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:-
PD;1180145 Wrote:-
-
-
On Jul 5, 3:29*pm, Strich 9 Strich.9.2b5b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
-
--
-
PROP 5: Since the 2.26us in the muon REST frame is EXACTLY EQUAL
(barring the trivial effects of a gravitational field) to the 2.26us
in
the earth REST frame, then we have a contradiction, since 700m is
not
equal to 7000m.-
-
-True.--
-
No, false.
-
*Explanation will be provided on demand.--
-
Consider it demanded.
-
*The reason nobody has
chosen this option as false--
-
I have several times.
-
is because *no textbook on relativity
contradicts this statement*.--
-
Your library must be thin.
-
*The keen physicist will see no quibble
here.--
-
We'll see.
-
--
-
Of course, if we assume that time dilation and length contraction
are
merely -*perceptive distortions*- in the eyes of the observer, as
opposed to -*actual physical*- phenomena, then no contradiction
arises.-
-
Comments and questions are welcome. *Thank you.-
-
--
Strich 9---
-
since you bragged about your bigger library, why don't you quote a
single source disputing the basic idea in proposition 5 and show us
that there is a brain backing up that tongue ?! *or is it all hot
air?
i thought so...--
-
Sure. If you've not read Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics, or
Penrose's Road to Reality or Robert Geroch's General Relativity from
A
to B, I suggest you start there.-
-
There you will find the statement that between two physical events
(and you do know what an "event" is, don't you?), two different
inertial observers will measure different elapsed times. That is,
between two physical events A and B, what is 2.26 us in one frame
will
be 4.18 us in another frame. Or conversely, what pair of events that
are 2.26 us in one frame will not be the same pair of events that
are
separated by 2.26 us in another frame.-
-
--
-
--
Strich 9--
Your stupidity is mind boggling. *One does not need to consult a
textbook to know that two different observers will obtain different
measures of the same event. *Even a caveman knows that if you are 1
mile from caveman A and 2 miles from caveman B, the latter will see
you
much smaller (and perhaps appropriately so) than the former.-
Yes, this is so. Now, what this has to do with the case at hand, I
don't follow. Perhaps you could indicate what projection is going on
here.
-
Now, a caveman also knows that his measuring rod stays invariant
(barring any dirty puns) in his reference frame, a concept you also
seem unable to grasp. *Perhaps you need to use a more reliable rod.
Propositon 5 states that when a resting clock ticks of 2.26
microseconds in one frame, this is EQUAL to a 2.26 microsecond
interval
ticked off by another resting clock in a different frame.-
I don't know what you mean by equal. If you mean they both read 2.26
microseconds, that's true but devoid of content.
If I've got two sticks, both marked in increments, and I hold both up
to a banana and one reads 18.3 cm and another reads 20.9 cm, then I
can conclude also that 2.26 cm on one is not equal to 2.26 cm on the
other. Unless you mean only that the numbers 2.26 are the same, which
is a bonehead statement.
Are you a bonehead, Strich?
-
*And for that,
you'd be hard pressed to find a dissenting textbook or physics
authority. *And should know why that would be so.
--
Strich 9-
Let is see who is the bonehead...
Try to disentagle yourself from your confusion. Let me make it simple
for you.
For the moment, forget about any relationship between the muon frame
and the earth frame. How would a 2.26 microsecond interval -*in*- the
muon frame relate to a 2.26 microsecond interval -*in*- the earth
frame?
Note how I stress the "-in-" word, because I am not referring to one
interval being measured in a -different- frame, but -in its own- frame.
Now go over your textbooks, references, and your masters if you will,
and tell me what is the relationship between the two quantities? To
make it simple for you, it is a simple binary question: are they equal
or are they not?
As I said, if you are saying that the two numbers are equal, that's
fine, but it is *completely* without physics content.
If I tell you to look on your ruler and tell me if you have a 6 inch
mark, and you say "yes" and I look at my ruler and note that there is
also a mark labeled "6", does this mean that the length indicated on
both rulers by the mark labeled 6 in any way correspond to each other?
Do I know *anything* about whether if we held the two rulers up to a
banana that they would read the same length?
In what sense would you say the "6" on your ruler is equal to the "6"
on my ruler?
Why Strich, you are indeed a bonehead.
And since you seem to lack a decent short-term
memory, may I remind you that for the moment, consider the two frames
to be independent (or at least the relationship between the two is
unstated).
It might help if you understood what *measuring* the duration between
a pair of events *means*.
Again, brainhead, are they equal or are they not?
--
Strich 9
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- From: Strich 9
- Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- References:
- Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- From: PD
- Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- From: Strich 9
- Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- From: PD
- Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- From: Strich 9
- Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- Prev by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Next by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Previous by thread: Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- Next by thread: Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
