Re: PD does not understand SR

On Nov 6, 3:21 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 5, 5:46 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Nov 5, 4:00 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 5, 2:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 5, 1:01 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 15, 2:34 pm, ni...@xxxxxxxxx (bjones) wrote:

I will try to keep it simple.
PD will try to think.

This pertains to the Michelson-Morley experimental
null result, and to the following related quote:

From Einstein's book:
"... and as the prime factor involved in this contraction
we find, not the motion in itself, to which we cannot
attach any meaning, but the motion with respect to the
body of reference chosen in the particular case in point."

Along with Einstein and all other special relativity theory
adherents, PD believes that the theory satisfactorily covers
the MMx null result, and that the theory is correct in saying
that we cannot attach any meaning to absolute motion or motion
through space.

But Jones is here to inform PD that the only possible way to
show the MMx null result for two or more inertial frames is
by incorporating physical length contraction and time dilation
as functions of motion through space (or absolute motion).

As proof of this, Jones proffers the following simple fact:

PD cannot show on paper observers in two inertial frames
obtaining the MMx null result without showing a physical
length contraction and physical clock slowing due to the
absolute motion of at least one of the two given frames.

So there is something he is missing.

Nonsense. None of the experiments mentioned violate the principle of
relativity. They do violate YOUR understanding of what the principle
of relativity says, but it's been made plain that your understanding
of the principle of relativity is completely off. Shall we ask you
again about the example of the car and ask you the yes-or-no question
whether you think it violates the principle of relativity as you
understand it?

We don't need another of PD's fairy tales that
fails to consider:

What fairy tale? It's a simple yes-or-no question. Will you answer a
simple yes-or-no question about whether the observations of a car are
consistent with your understanding of the principle of relativity?
That, too, is a simple yes-or-no question.

Your answer (either yes or no) goes here: ____________________

Kindly phrase your problem about cars including all
details  and excluding semantic ambiguity

Sure. Here it is again.
Here, let's take a simple *Newtonian* example from the 2nd chapter of
any introductory physics book.
In frame 1, a car is moving toward the right at 50 mph and applies
the
brakes, slowing to a stop after 12 seconds. The acceleration is in
the
direction opposite to the initial velocity, and the kinetic energy
decreases as a result of the braking.
In frame 2, looking at the very same car during the very same events,
the description is a little different: the car is moving toward the
left at 10 mph and applies the brakes, the car's motion becoming 60
mph toward the left after 12 seconds. The acceleration is in the same
direction as the initial velocity, and the kinetic energy increases
as
a result of the braking.

Is this observation consistent with your understanding of the
principle of relativity, yes or no?

Your answer (yes or no) here: __________________________

If there is anything about this description above that you do not
understand (because of "semantic ambiguity"), let me know.

PD


so that enlightens us with new understanding of
these well known principles and theorems:

<< Einstein's relativity principle  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. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether_charge#Applications

Sue...



PD

Sue...

Sue...

/bjones/

.

Relevant Pages

  • SR, curvature terms, and Realms of Validity
    ... >is a false theory of physics, while it may very well be ... Yep, people sometimes talk about SR's "realm of validity", but I don't ... It assumes that light is in no way affected by the presence or motion ... relativity, so that the total Doppler effect on a "gravitational" and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Absolute Motion Of Earth Relative To CB
    ... And this violates the Principle of Relativity, ... the present state of the CBR and the laws of physics, it would be possible to determine all future states. ... Is "recombination" the point where electons stuck to nucleii after the universe cooled down enough, and when the universe became transparent? ... Inertial frames are just impossible in the Universe, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A simple Physics question
    ... laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ... identical to general relativity quantitatively. ... old protons from the younger ones to shed some ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativity & Maxwells EM Theory
    ... Couching physics in terms of "belief" takes science ... in the luminiferous aether? ... their frame of reference, as it is for the laws of motion (i.e., motion was ... relativity to EM with his theory of Special Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
  • Re: PD does not understand SR
    ... but the motion with respect to the ... PD cannot show on paper observers in two inertial frames ... Sue, I will ask you a yes or no question about the H&K experiment ... >> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast