Re: PD does not understand SR

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:35:46 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sue... 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.

MMX aside...

PD continually offers experiments claiming violation of:

<< 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. 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

So there is something he is missing.

Sue...

Which reminds me..

Sue, I will ask you a yes or no question about the H&K experiment
that only an imbecile needs to answer with a diversion:

Do you claim that the H&K experiment is a violation of:
<< Einstein's relativity principle which states that:

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

So why do observers in different frames get differentt answers for any quantity
that has dimension which include 'L/T'?

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

The last time I asked you the yes or no question about
the H&K experiment that only an imbecile needs to answer
with a diversion, you answered with this rather amusing diversion:
Sue wrote:
<< When you move through a homogeneous distribution of
masses (such as our universe) the mass of the
gravito-inertial objects moving toward you is
equal to the mass moving away from you.
That is what homogeneous means.
So there can be no net effect on clocks, candles
beards, tape recorders or promiscuous rabbits. >>

Can we have your answer now please?

Write your diversion here:



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
.

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)