Re: Sliding Rod Experiment [PD investigates]

On Jan 14, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 14, 8:40 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 14, 9:13 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 14, 8:05 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 13, 3:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 13, 1:44 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 13, 2:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 13, 1:32 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 13, 2:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 13, 9:59 am, bjones <ni...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:13:16 -0800 (PST),

PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 13, 8:05 am, bjones <ni...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If someone measured you as 5 foot tall, and someone
else measured you as 6 foot tall, and then someone
else measured you as 4 foot tall, would this prove
that you actually have different heights? Or would
it prove that the measurement processes are flawed?

It depends on whether the procedure that *defines* length
has been followed.

One can ask the same question about speed:
If someone measured your speed as 30 m/s, and someone else
measured your speed as 14 m/s, and then someone else measured
your speed as 3324 m/s, would this prove that you have
different speeds? Or would it prove that the measurement
processes are flawed.

It proves that the measurement processes are flawed if you
are trying to measure an object's intrinsic speed (or its
speed through space), and are not trying to measure its
merely relative "speed," which has nothing to do with the
object's current physicality, but has everything to do with
the observers' viewpoints.

Well, that's an interesting statement. Note that it presume several
things
- that there IS an intrinsic speed
- that what is measured is not the intrinsic speed
- that what is measured has nothing to do with the object's "current
physicality" but has to do with observer viewpoints

In science, predictions are made about what is *measurable*. That's
what a theory does. Anything that is presumed to be "real" but not
measurable doesn't have a lot of value in physics.

And don't get your knickers in a knot over my use of the
phrase "intrinsic speed" because the existence of such a
speed can easily be experimentally verified; any observer
in intergalactic (gravity-free) space who does not feel
any acceleration forces has a constant intrinsic speed.

I disagree with that statement. There is no implication of intrinsic
speed there.
Any closed system that has constant momentum is in an inertial
reference frame. In this frame, this system has a constant *relative*
speed. There is nothing intrinsic required at all.
Another way of saying this is that all velocities are relative
velocities. There is simply no conceptual need for an absolute
velocity at all.

Similarly, any observer in such a space who feels any
acceleration force feels a change in his absolute speed..

No, he feels a change in relative speed.

This has nothing to do with any external observer's views.
These conditions (steady intrinsic speed and changing
intrinsic speed) are frame independent.

And don't try to bring up your silly "*change* in potential
energy is absolute" retort because that is a measured
change, whereas the change above is not measured by any
outside observers; it is felt internally by the one and
only observer who is doing the accelerating.

Additionally, given absolutely synchronous clocks (see
below), we can easily measure intrinsic speed (otherwise
known as speed through space or absolute speed).

That's a big GIVEN.

It is a dangerous assumption to make that there EXISTS
one true speed for you, and that THEREFORE this means
that the measurement process is flawed, and that THEREFORE
the measurement must be redefined in such a way that it
yields one true speed. The danger is twofold: there is no
guarantee that there is in fact one true speed for you;
and it may well be that your presumption that it is even
possible to redefine the measurement to yield one true
speed may be counter to the known laws of physics.

Experiment proves that there exists one true speed for any
steadily-moving (inertial) object (see above);

I challenge you to tell me what your one true speed is, right now.
It's sufficient for you to tell me how you would determine it.

therefore,
if you try to measure this one speed, and you end up with
many (an infinite number) of values, then you are clearly
doing something wrong.

I'm not sure why you are presuming that there even
EXISTS one true length for you.

I had already told you that in a prior message; if you are
continue going in reverse, then we are going to get nowhere
fast (and that is also an absolute speed).

To repeat:
There exists only one unique physical intrinsic length for
any given rod that is moving at any steady velocity because
ALL observers in all frames agree that said rod's end points
do not move relative to each other.

The correct way to measure the length of a passing
stick is by pinning down its end points absolutely
simultaneously.

Actually, no. Length is defined by a procedure where the end
points are pinned down *locally* simultaneously -- that is,
simultaneously in that frame. "Absolutely simultaneously"
appears to be inconsistent with the laws of physics.

There is nothing in physics which proves that clocks
cannot be absolutely synchronized. Why give up on
Newton's absolute time when there is really NO reason
to do so? Don't be a quitter, be a doer.

By all means, demonstrate that it is possible. Until you demonstrate
that our universe admits this, it is pointless to continue to talk
about what would be implied by the presence of absolutely synchronized
clocks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've answered this before.  Use the CMBR,

Why?

or a sample of molecules at
0K, as reference for absolute rest.

Sample of molecules at 0K where? On the surface of the earth?

Can you get 0K on earth, bozo the clown?

Can you get 0K anywhere?

You have proof you cannot?  (Try a proof similar to mine where I
proved that time dilation cannot exist.  Prove that 0K cannot exist.)

Hmmmm.... there's a certain law of thermodynamics you may be
interested in. (Hint: 3rd law.)

Once upon a time, there was a law:
"the law of conservation of mass"
And it was shown to be false.

Once upon a time, there was a law:
"the law of conservation of charge-parity"
And it was shown to be false.

The problem with laws is that we humans make them up without any
knowledge of the underlying reality.  Thus nothing guarantees the
veracity of these laws except our say-so.  And in science, that is
about as weak as a soap bubble in the sahara


Let us see what the moron has to blubber about...


Most of what you say is not worth the attention paid to it, but this
is a touch different.


Yet he has replied to my posts continuously

Yes, some laws have been found to be not as correct as we thought they
were. This is the history of science. Yes, it's entirely possible that
some of the laws we now hold to be true (so far) may not be as true as
we think.

He just repeats what I said...

Does this mean that science is wholly unreliable? No. Does
it mean that has science has reneged on a promise to provide immutable
truths? No. Does the fact that those laws sometimes are found not to
be completely right mean that we have no knowledge of "underlying
reality"? No.


He goes off on a tangent...

Our knowledge of "underlying reality" IS the set of laws that appear
to hold in nature, as far as our observations indicate. The success of
our knowledge is our ability to predict the behavior of nature -- that
is, to apply those regularities we observe to certain circumstances to
be able to tell or control what will happen next.

He states a well-known generality...

Insofar as that strategy works, then science is successful.

He jacks off to his own voice...

When we observe that nature does not behave in the way that we expected....

Continues to jack off on his own voice...

then this is a good thing because it means not only that our range of observations
about nature has been expanded, but it means that we have work to do to find a law
more general than the one we'd been using.

And finally finishes jacking off to his own voice...

[Note that no new information has been said.]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sliding Rod Experiment [PD investigates]
    ... different speeds? ... Or would it prove that the measurement ... acceleration force feels a change in his absolute speed. ... appears to be inconsistent with the laws of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sliding Rod Experiment [PD investigates]
    ... different speeds? ... Or would it prove that the measurement ... In this frame, this system has a constant *relative* ... acceleration force feels a change in his absolute speed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sliding Rod Experiment [PD investigates]
    ... different speeds? ... Or would it prove that the measurement ... acceleration force feels a change in his absolute speed. ... appears to be inconsistent with the laws of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OK, Im Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!
    ... > Things travel at speeds RELATIVE to other objects. ... It's not exactly an OWLS measurement -- but it's close. ... > If you start with Einsteiniana, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sliding Rod Experiment [PD investigates]
    ... different speeds? ... Or would it prove that the measurement ... speed can easily be experimentally verified; any observer ... acceleration force feels a change in his absolute speed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)