Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?
From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 02/21/05
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Terraforming the Moon"
- Previous message: jason: "electromagnetics"
- In reply to: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?"
- Next in thread: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?"
- Reply: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:59:33 -0000
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1108965409.623181.277350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman wrote:
<much trimmed>
>> Here is the triangle. It is what you get if
>> you draw a graph of distance versus time for
>> an object moving at constant velocity. I'll
>> draw the time axis vertically because the
>> slope of the limitation of using the oblique
>> character:
>>
>> time
>> ^
>> | /
>> | /
>> | /
>> | /
>> | /
>> |a/
>> |/
>> +------> distance
>>
>> Speed is related to the angle 'a'.
>
> No. Just use odometer (distance), constant speed as shown by
> speedometer, and time elapsed is apparent.
Th drawing above is a graph of the distance on the
horizontal axis versus time on the vertical axis.
A speedometer is a device that tells you the SLOPE
of that line.
>> > Me "MASTER"????????
>> > Since bloody when is basic distance/time/distance/time a
>> > TRIANGLE!!!!!
>> > Hint: there are FOUR words here!
>>
>> That is because you are not now talking about
>> a speed as I was above but something which
>> has units of the second derivative of an area.
>
> Which is why your picking me up on units previously looked wiered!
> "kms ^2" smacks more of a paddock than energy.
Exactly. Drop it into your next email if you
want to take this any further Jim, my reply
will be of no interest to the group.
>> >> triangle, we could move on to look at mass, energy
>> >> and momentum.
>> >
>> > ......and this will look more like a tetrahedron.
>>
>> In a way you were right, momentum is a
>> 3-vector, so for the triangle we use its
>> magnitude, but sadly that's not what you
>> meant:
>>
>> > Anything other than one unit per side is not on.
>>
>> energy
>> ^.......*----
>> | / KE
>> ---+ /------
>> | | /s
>> | | /s
>> mc^2 | /a
>> | | /m
>> | |/
>> ----+------> momentum
>>
>> Mass is the magnitude of the hypotenuse and is
>> invariant, the angle is the same as in the
>> previous triangle. At zero speed the hypotenuse
>> would stretch along the energy axis to the point
>> marked with a "+" and that energy is given by
>> e=mc^2. Kinetic energy is the amount by which
>> the total energy (shown by the dotted horizontal
>> line) exceeds the rest energy and is approximately
>> 1/2 m v^2 for low speeds. I think this makes the
>> meaning of e=mc^2 remarkably clear, and also
>> explains the fundamental relationships between
>> mass, energy and momentum in a way that makes
>> Newtonian mechanics look merely ad hoc.
>
> Forced into a straight jacket- c^2 but no CURVE?
I have no idea how that comment relates to
the diagram.
[regarding speed:]
> d/t until illusions are included.
Exactly. That is what the top diagram shows,
a graph of d versus t measured with no
distance between the clock and the ruler
in order to eliminate illusions (as in
propagation effects).
George
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Terraforming the Moon"
- Previous message: jason: "electromagnetics"
- In reply to: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?"
- Next in thread: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?"
- Reply: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: New challenge to Einstein from experiment?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|