SR and a lightbulb
dk
Consider the following scenario:
In frame S thare are two points, x1 and x2, a distance L apart. There
are wires running from these two points such that x1 and x2 are
connected to the '+' and '-' terminals of a battery in S. Now,
image a lightbulb device with straight segments of wire extending from
each of its terminals. The lightbulb device, in frame S', is moving
with velocity v parallel and very close to the x axis of frame S. An
observer in S notices that the lightbulb momentarily flashes as it
passes by the x1-x2 region. This S observer correctly concludes that
the length of the wire segments of the lightbulb device added up to
exactly length L, since the lightbulb flashed, implying that the
endpoints of those wires simultaneously coincided with x1 and x2,
respectively, in S---Otherwise the circuit would not be complete and
the lightbulb would not flash. However, since the observer in S will
measure a length L for the lightbulb device, an observer at rest in S'
will have to measure a proper length L' that is greater than L.
Therefore, in frame S', the endpoints of the lightbulb device never
coincide with x1 and x2 and the circuit never completes. How does the
observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
thanks to all who might respond
dk
dk
lightbulb device are insulated and only at their endpoints is the
conductor exposed so as to make contact with x1 and x2 in frame S.
dlzc
Draw a diagram. How are the wires oriented wrt the x axis?
Next, wires have inductance. Only in a fantasy world does the light
"flash".
David A. Smith
Inertial
"dk" <dakal...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote in message
news:85ff994e-85f8-463e...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi to all,
>
> Consider the following scenario:
OK...
> In frame S thare are two points, x1 and x2, a distance L apart.
L
x1 x2
> There
> are wires running from these two points such that x1 and x2 are
> connected to the '+' and '-' terminals of a battery in S.
L
x1 x2
| |
| | |
'-| |-'
+| -
> Now,
> image a lightbulb device with straight segments of wire extending from
> each of its terminals. The lightbulb device, in frame S', is moving
> with velocity v parallel and very close to the x axis of frame S.
S'
.-Bulb-. ->v
| |
| L' | L
==========x1===x2=============
| |
| | |
'-| |-'
+| -
> An
> observer in S notices that the lightbulb momentarily flashes as it
> passes by the x1-x2 region.
So the wires from the bulb and from the battery must have some significant
thickness, so that at speed v they are in contact long enough to make a
current flow throughout the wire and for the bulb to glow
> This S observer correctly concludes that
> the length of the wire segments of the lightbulb device added up to
> exactly length L, since the lightbulb flashed, implying that the
> endpoints of those wires simultaneously coincided with x1 and x2,
> respectively, in S---Otherwise the circuit would not be complete and
> the lightbulb would not flash. However, since the observer in S will
> measure a length L for the lightbulb device, an observer at rest in S'
> will have to measure a proper length L' that is greater than L.
Yes
> Therefore, in frame S', the endpoints of the lightbulb device never
> coincide with x1 and x2 and the circuit never completes.
No .. that would be nonsense.
What happens is that the two set of wires do not connect at the same time in
S' and do not disconnect at the same time in S'. If the bulb is to light,
they would need to both stay connected long enough for a current to flow.
Henry Wilson DSc
That's what he said you dopey bastard.
>
>> How does the
>> observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
>>
>> thanks to all who might respond
>> dk
good one, dk
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.rtf
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:gh3mj5ln98nk9ns3o...@4ax.com...
No .. not exactly. The circuit can complete if the wires are thick enough
so they are in contact with each other for long enough for a current to flow
.. if not then the bulb doesn't light (regardless of the frame of reference
you observe it from).
It is never the case that it lights according to one frame but not in
another.
>>> How does the
>>> observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
>>>
>>> thanks to all who might respond
>>> dk
>
> good one, dk
Yeup .. nice little excercise.
Cocoon
> Hi to all,
>
...
> How does the
> observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
>
> thanks to all who might respond
> dk
There is symmetry in your system, can't you see
In one frame the batt conn contracts, meanwhile
in the other the bulb conn contracts
Good bye
Cocoon
> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:gh3mj5ln98nk9ns3o...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:25:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"dk" <dakalami...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote in message
you never get a point, you are all too inertial
Cocoon
> On Dec 29, 7:46 pm, dk <dakalami...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
> > I should have mentioned that it is assumed
> > that the wires on the lightbulb device are
> > insulated and only at their endpoints is the
> > conductor exposed so as to make contact with
> > x1 and x2 in frame S.
>
> Draw a diagram. How are the wires oriented wrt the x axis?
this is insignificant
>
> Next, wires have inductance. Only in a fantasy world does the light
> "flash".
this too, except that you are right about
the fantasy world
>
> David A. Smith
Good Bye
Cocoon
> "dk" <dakalami...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote in message
[snip imbecility]
> No .. that would be nonsense.
>
> What happens is that the two set of wires do not connect at the same time in
> S' and do not disconnect at the same time in S'. If the bulb is to light,
> they would need to both stay connected long enough for a current to flow.
so, you need thick connectors,
this is what you say, right?
Inertial
"Cocoon" <wy45...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:64ee761d-93c4-413f...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
No .. I got the point just fine, thanks all the same
Inertial
Thick enough to make a contact long enough. That's if there is any chance
for the bulb to flash.
Of course, there's not enough info to know whether the bulb will flash. But
probably not if the wires are passing so fast that the length contraction is
noticeable. There would need to be a large surface area for them to remain
in contact long enough as they slide past each other.
My guess is that there is no flash in either frame at any relatively fast
speed for the two frame to be move wrt each other.
Greg Neill
The OP did not consider the fact that the speed of the
electric field in a conductor is quite a bit less less
than c. If the connection points are small and the light
bulb wires moving at near c, there will be insufficient
time for the field to traverse the wire to make the
circuit and light the bulb in either frame.
Inertial
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4b3b6199$0$29200$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
It depends on the conductor, of course. I suppose around 75% the speed of
light would be typical. Good conductors can get above 90%.
> If the connection points are small and the light
> bulb wires moving at near c, there will be insufficient
> time for the field to traverse the wire to make the
> circuit and light the bulb in either frame.
Yeup.
And, of course, whether or not it lights up is not frame dependent. Either
it does, or it doesn't.
dk
> "Greg Neill" <gneil...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:4b3b6199$0$29200$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Inertial wrote:
> >> "Cocoon" <wy45e...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks to all who responded and for their opinions. The original set-
up is too simple. It does seem crucial that the points x1 and x2
should actually be finite segments: Then, the lightbulb device
endpoints could have enough time in contact with the segments so that
the potential difference can be transmitted across the distance L. So
it seems that, in frame S, at least a time L/c is reguired for the
circuit to complete. The segments have to be long enough, in S, so
that the lightbulb device endpoints remain on them for at least an L/c
interval. The question now is: Does this required time delay, in S,
which would cause the lightbulb to flash, make the S' observer's
explanation physically valid?
dlzc
On Dec 30, 8:30 am, dk <dakalami...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:
...
> Thanks to all who responded and for their
> opinions. The original set-up is too
> simple.
Simple is good. I found the lack of description to be its only
drawback.
> It does seem crucial that the points x1
> and x2 should actually be finite segments:
Points are not segments. x1 to x2 is (or could be) one segment.
> Then, the lightbulb device endpoints
> could have enough time in contact with
> the segments so that the potential
> difference can be transmitted across the
> distance L.
The problem is "simultaneity". You assume that the two ends appear to
make contact at the same instant. Whereas this would never be
observed.
> So it seems that, in frame S, at least
> a time L/c is reguired for the circuit
> to complete.
Current flows are on the order of 0.1c, and inductance of wiring will
delay onset of current flow by a good bit.
> The segments have to be long enough,
> in S, so that the lightbulb device
> endpoints remain on them for at least
> an L/c interval.
Better to stick with the barn-pole paradox.
> The question now is: Does this required
> time delay, in S, which would cause the
> lightbulb to flash, make the S' observer's
> explanation physically valid?
All interpretations are physcially valid, and self consistent. The
various "conundrums" come about by making "frame jumps". Using rest
frame lengths for moving objects, rather than lengths measured in your
frame, for example. If the lamp lights in one frame, it lights in all
frames. It may be red or blue shifted (depending on observer position
or speed), but it'll light (or not) for all observers.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/spaceship_puzzle.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Spaceship/spaceship.html
David A. Smith
Henry Wilson DSc
It is.
The bulb light ONLY in the frame that moves at v/2
>>>> How does the
>>>> observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
>>>>
>>>> thanks to all who might respond
>>>> dk
>>
>> good one, dk
>
>Yeup .. nice little excercise.
It again demonstrates the stupidity and self contradiction of SR.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Dec 30, 9:32�am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Greg Neill" <gneil...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4b3b6199$0$29200$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> And, of course, whether or not it lights up is not frame dependent. �Either
>> it does, or it doesn't.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Thanks to all who responded and for their opinions. The original set-
>up is too simple. It does seem crucial that the points x1 and x2
>should actually be finite segments: Then, the lightbulb device
>endpoints could have enough time in contact with the segments so that
>the potential difference can be transmitted across the distance L. So
>it seems that, in frame S, at least a time L/c is reguired for the
>circuit to complete. The segments have to be long enough, in S, so
>that the lightbulb device endpoints remain on them for at least an L/c
>interval. The question now is: Does this required time delay, in S,
>which would cause the lightbulb to flash, make the S' observer's
>explanation physically valid?
You don't have to make any excuses. Your experiment is perfectly sound and yet
another clear indication that Einstein's theory is crap from start to finish.
These people will try to find ways to wriggle out of any situation that
demonstrates that fact by putting forward totally irrelevant arguments.
According to SR, the light flashes in one observer frame only. ...that moving a
v/2. So, according to P1, if we have lots of differently moving observers, only
one of them will see the flash. Laughable, eh?
Inertial
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:df430872-2aaf-4fa6...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Dear dk:
>
> On Dec 30, 8:30 am, dk <dakalami...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:
> ...
>> Thanks to all who responded and for their
>> opinions. The original set-up is too
>> simple.
>
> Simple is good. I found the lack of description to be its only
> drawback.
>
>> It does seem crucial that the points x1
>> and x2 should actually be finite segments:
>
> Points are not segments. x1 to x2 is (or could be) one segment.
>
>> Then, the lightbulb device endpoints
>> could have enough time in contact with
>> the segments so that the potential
>> difference can be transmitted across the
>> distance L.
>
> The problem is "simultaneity". You assume that the two ends appear to
> make contact at the same instant. Whereas this would never be
> observed.
>
>> So it seems that, in frame S, at least
>> a time L/c is reguired for the circuit
>> to complete.
>
> Current flows are on the order of 0.1c, and inductance of wiring will
> delay onset of current flow by a good bit.
The speed propagation of the EM in a good conductor (which we would assume
we're dealing with) are around 60% to 95% of c.
If you're talking about the speed of the random electrons movement in the
conductor, that's a good deal less .. I think 0.1c is prob around the right
magnitude .. and if no current is flowing, the net motion balances out.
If you're talking about the electron drift speed (the net effect of overall
motion of electrons in a conductor when current is applied) then that is
VERY slow. A tortoise could beat electron drift and have time for a nap
:):)
>> The segments have to be long enough,
>> in S, so that the lightbulb device
>> endpoints remain on them for at least
>> an L/c interval.
>
> Better to stick with the barn-pole paradox.
>
>> The question now is: Does this required
>> time delay, in S, which would cause the
>> lightbulb to flash, make the S' observer's
>> explanation physically valid?
>
> All interpretations are physcially valid, and self consistent. The
> various "conundrums" come about by making "frame jumps". Using rest
> frame lengths for moving objects, rather than lengths measured in your
> frame, for example. If the lamp lights in one frame, it lights in all
> frames. It may be red or blue shifted (depending on observer position
> or speed), but it'll light (or not) for all observers.
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/spaceship_puzzle.html
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Spaceship/spaceship.html
>
> David A. Smith
Yeup :):)
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
No
> The bulb light ONLY in the frame that moves at v/2
No
That is nonsense. Either a light bulb is lit, or it is not.
>>>>> How does the
>>>>> observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks to all who might respond
>>>>> dk
>>>
>>> good one, dk
>>
>>Yeup .. nice little excercise.
>
> It again demonstrates the stupidity and self contradiction of SR.
No .. it demonstrates YOUR stupidity.
Inertial
If the flash occurs, it must occur in all frames .. and it won't occur
unless it is 'physically valid'. The same laws of physics apply in all
inertial frames. Of course, some laws are more complex for objects in
motion as opposed to objects at rest in a given frame, which is why one
usually does analysis in the rest frame of the experiment where possible.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
No .. just your lack of understanding .. you tried to read Sr and found it
incoherent, so you do not understand it at all
> These people will try to find ways to wriggle out of any situation that
> demonstrates that fact by putting forward totally irrelevant arguments.
No .. you're confused .. it is YOU that try to refute it by putting forward
totally irrelevant arguments
> According to SR, the light flashes in one observer frame only.
No .. SR does not claim that at all
> ...that moving a
> v/2. So, according to P1, if we have lots of differently moving observers,
> only
> one of them will see the flash. Laughable, eh?
Yes .. you are.
Henry Wilson DSc
hahahahhaha! The Einstein Hoax is becoming more apparent every day.
Consider the battery at rest and the light plus wires moving at v.
Surrounding it are lots of differently moving observers.
Only the observer who moves at v/2 will see the flash. In the other observer
frames, it simply doesn't happen (according to Einstein, of course)
So now we have Einstein the magician. He can make things appear and disappear
at will.
Henry Wilson DSc
It wont occur if Einstein's crappy theory is correct....except in one specific
frame.
Could Einstein pull rabbits out of a hat as well?
>The same laws of physics apply in all
>inertial frames.
...well, to light speed only...according to Einstein.
>Of course, some laws are more complex for objects in
>motion as opposed to objects at rest in a given frame, which is why one
>usually does analysis in the rest frame of the experiment where possible.
Hahahahhahah!
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:15:52 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:gggnj5t78me1itgmo...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:06:41 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>It is never the case that it lights according to one frame but not in
>>>>another.
>>>
>>> It is.
>>
>>No
>>
>>> The bulb light ONLY in the frame that moves at v/2
>>
>>No
>>
>>That is nonsense. Either a light bulb is lit, or it is not.
>>
>>>>>>> How does the
>>>>>>> observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks to all who might respond
>>>>>>> dk
>>>>>
>>>>> good one, dk
>>>>
>>>>Yeup .. nice little excercise.
>>>
>>> It again demonstrates the stupidity and self contradiction of SR.
>>
>>No .. it demonstrates YOUR stupidity.
>
> hahahahhaha! The Einstein Hoax is becoming more apparent every day.
No .. your stupidity is. Actually , no .. its been apparent for a long
time.
> Consider the battery at rest and the light plus wires moving at v.
OK
> Surrounding it are lots of differently moving observers.
Fine.
> Only the observer who moves at v/2 will see the flash.
Wrong.
> In the other observer
> frames, it simply doesn't happen (according to Einstein, of course)
Wrong .. SR and Einstein does not say that at all.
> So now we have Einstein the magician. He can make things appear and
> disappear
> at will.
Unfortunately he can't make your ignorance disappear.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Wrong
> except in one specific
> frame.
Wrong
> Could Einstein pull rabbits out of a hat as well?
You can pull shit out of your arse and post it here. Wish you wouldn't
>>The same laws of physics apply in all
>>inertial frames.
>
> ...well, to light speed only...according to Einstein.
No .. only according to your continual and extensive misunderstanding of SR
and physics in general.
>>Of course, some laws are more complex for objects in
>>motion as opposed to objects at rest in a given frame, which is why one
>>usually does analysis in the rest frame of the experiment where possible.
>
> Hahahahhahah!
I'm glad you're amused.
Henry Wilson DSc
Of course they do. In all othwr frames the things have different lengths and
will never close a circuit.
>
>> So now we have Einstein the magician. He can make things appear and
>> disappear
>> at will.
>
>Unfortunately he can't make your ignorance disappear.
dk has to be congratulated for his major discovery.
It adds to my own proofs that Einstein's theory is crap from start to finish.
Henry Wilson DSc
If you had any physics ability and understood SR you would realise that dk is
right.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Nope
> In all othwr frames the things have different lengths and
> will never close a circuit.
The circuit is never closed long enough for their to be a current in any
frame. If it does, then there is a current in every frame
>>> So now we have Einstein the magician. He can make things appear and
>>> disappear
>>> at will.
>>
>>Unfortunately he can't make your ignorance disappear.
>
> dk has to be congratulated for his major discovery.
Nope.
> It adds to my own proofs that Einstein's theory is crap from start to
> finish.
You haven't ANY proofs AT ALL of that .. NOT A ONE .. just your own
misunderstandings because you cant read SR coherently
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
I have more physics ability in my little finger than your whole body, you
moron.
dlzc
On Dec 30, 5:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
...
> > Current flows are on the order of 0.1c,
> > and inductance of wiring will delay
> > onset of current flow by a good bit.
>
> The speed propagation of the EM in a
> good conductor (which we would assume
> we're dealing with) are around 60% to
> 95% of c.
This is current flow to light a light, presumably DC (or "50-60 Hz").
Small changes in such current flow in unshielded conductors (such as
he describes) propagate at 0.1c, give or take. You are thinking
higher frequency, and shielded cables or waveguides. Where you are
not "squeezing" the entire volume of the conductor to accept and yield
up conductance electrons.
> If you're talking about the speed of
> the random electrons movement in the
> conductor, that's a good deal less ..
> I think 0.1c is prob around the right
> magnitude .. and if no current is
> flowing, the net motion balances out.
>
> If you're talking about the electron
> drift speed (the net effect of overall
> motion of electrons in a conductor when
> current is applied) then that is VERY
> slow. A tortoise could beat electron
> drift and have time for a nap
> :):)
Agreed.
David A. Smith
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:sptoj5lu7ldssl64n...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:44:49 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>> Consider the battery at rest and the light plus wires moving at v.
>>>
>>>OK
>>>
>>>> Surrounding it are lots of differently moving observers.
>>>
>>>Fine.
>>>
>>>> Only the observer who moves at v/2 will see the flash.
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>>
>>>> In the other observer
>>>> frames, it simply doesn't happen (according to Einstein, of course)
>>>
>>>Wrong .. SR and Einstein does not say that at all.
>>
>> Of course they do.
>
>Nope
>
>> In all othwr frames the things have different lengths and
>> will never close a circuit.
>
>The circuit is never closed long enough for their to be a current in any
>frame. If it does, then there is a current in every frame
Hahahhahahahhhahaha! Don't bring technicalities into a thought experiment..
There are many variations of this experiment that are quite practical.
>>>> So now we have Einstein the magician. He can make things appear and
>>>> disappear
>>>> at will.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately he can't make your ignorance disappear.
>>
>> dk has to be congratulated for his major discovery.
>
>Nope.
>
>> It adds to my own proofs that Einstein's theory is crap from start to
>> finish.
>
>You haven't ANY proofs AT ALL of that .. NOT A ONE .. just your own
>misunderstandings because you cant read SR coherently
How can the pole fit in the barn in all but one frame?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:03:37 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:sptoj5lu7ldssl64n...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:44:49 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>
>>>>> Consider the battery at rest and the light plus wires moving at v.
>>>>
>>>>OK
>>>>
>>>>> Surrounding it are lots of differently moving observers.
>>>>
>>>>Fine.
>>>>
>>>>> Only the observer who moves at v/2 will see the flash.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> In the other observer
>>>>> frames, it simply doesn't happen (according to Einstein, of course)
>>>>
>>>>Wrong .. SR and Einstein does not say that at all.
>>>
>>> Of course they do.
>>
>>Nope
>>
>>> In all othwr frames the things have different lengths and
>>> will never close a circuit.
>>
>>The circuit is never closed long enough for their to be a current in any
>>frame. If it does, then there is a current in every frame
>
> Hahahhahahahhhahaha! Don't bring technicalities into a thought
> experiment..
Its called physics .. not a technicality
> There are many variations of this experiment that are quite practical.
Nope. No experiment to test SR has refuted SR.
>>>>> So now we have Einstein the magician. He can make things appear and
>>>>> disappear
>>>>> at will.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately he can't make your ignorance disappear.
>>>
>>> dk has to be congratulated for his major discovery.
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>> It adds to my own proofs that Einstein's theory is crap from start to
>>> finish.
>>
>>You haven't ANY proofs AT ALL of that .. NOT A ONE .. just your own
>>misunderstandings because you cant read SR coherently
>
> How can the pole fit in the barn in all but one frame?
It fits in the barn (ie is simultaneously between the ends of the barn) in
many frames, and doesn't fit in the barn (ie not simultaneously between the
ends of the barn) in others. That's because simultaneity is not absolute
and frame independent .. "fitting in a barn" is not absolute and frame
independent.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:i84qj5h8grtq671e6...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:03:37 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>news:sptoj5lu7ldssl64n...@4ax.com...
>>>Nope
>>>
>>>> In all othwr frames the things have different lengths and
>>>> will never close a circuit.
>>>
>>>The circuit is never closed long enough for their to be a current in any
>>>frame. If it does, then there is a current in every frame
>>
>> Hahahhahahahhhahaha! Don't bring technicalities into a thought
>> experiment..
>
>Its called physics .. not a technicality
>
>> There are many variations of this experiment that are quite practical.
>
>Nope. No experiment to test SR has refuted SR.
This one has.
...and none has supported SR either.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>> It adds to my own proofs that Einstein's theory is crap from start to
>>>> finish.
>>>
>>>You haven't ANY proofs AT ALL of that .. NOT A ONE .. just your own
>>>misunderstandings because you cant read SR coherently
>>
>> How can the pole fit in the barn in all but one frame?
>
>It fits in the barn (ie is simultaneously between the ends of the barn) in
>many frames, and doesn't fit in the barn (ie not simultaneously between the
>ends of the barn) in others. That's because simultaneity is not absolute
>and frame independent .. "fitting in a barn" is not absolute and frame
>independent.
hahahahahhah,, here we go again....simultaneity! hahahahahaha!
listen boy, simultaneity doesn't depend on human vision.
YBM
For heaven's sake! This is NOT what SR claims!
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:23:18 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:i84qj5h8grtq671e6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:03:37 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>>news:sptoj5lu7ldssl64n...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>Nope
>>>>
>>>>> In all othwr frames the things have different lengths and
>>>>> will never close a circuit.
>>>>
>>>>The circuit is never closed long enough for their to be a current in any
>>>>frame. If it does, then there is a current in every frame
>>>
>>> Hahahhahahahhhahaha! Don't bring technicalities into a thought
>>> experiment..
>>
>>Its called physics .. not a technicality
>>
>>> There are many variations of this experiment that are quite practical.
>>
>>Nope. No experiment to test SR has refuted SR.
>
> This one has.
Liar
> ...and none has supported SR either.
Liar
>>>>Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> It adds to my own proofs that Einstein's theory is crap from start to
>>>>> finish.
>>>>
>>>>You haven't ANY proofs AT ALL of that .. NOT A ONE .. just your own
>>>>misunderstandings because you cant read SR coherently
>>>
>>> How can the pole fit in the barn in all but one frame?
>>
>>It fits in the barn (ie is simultaneously between the ends of the barn) in
>>many frames, and doesn't fit in the barn (ie not simultaneously between
>>the
>>ends of the barn) in others. That's because simultaneity is not absolute
>>and frame independent .. "fitting in a barn" is not absolute and frame
>>independent.
>
> hahahahahhah,, here we go again....simultaneity! hahahahahaha!
Yeup. But you just find it too incoherent.
> listen boy, simultaneity doesn't depend on human vision.
Never said it did, you senile old fool
Henry Wilson DSc
bullshit.
YBM
As you admitted, you've never read more than the few first lines of any
text about SR, haven't you?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Yes .. what you write is bullshit. We all know that.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
It is easy to make simultaneity absolute. Just use a grid of synched clocks for
all time measurements and collate the results later.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:01:55 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:1bvqj59uqb89p0a4l...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:23:55 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>> hahahahahhah,, here we go again....simultaneity! hahahahahaha!
>>>>>
>>>>> listen boy, simultaneity doesn't depend on human vision.
>>>>
>>>>For heaven's sake! This is NOT what SR claims!
>>>
>>> bullshit.
>>
>>Yes .. what you write is bullshit. We all know that.
>
> It is easy to make simultaneity absolute.
Nope
> Just use a grid of synched clocks for
> all time measurements and collate the results later.
Nope .. you can't do it. We know that it is impossible to construct such a
grid that is synched in all inertial frames of reference.
You're just full of shit, Henry .. and its leaking onto your keyboard.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:k2msj5pf0s7tlsv08...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:01:55 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>news:1bvqj59uqb89p0a4l...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:23:55 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> hahahahahhah,, here we go again....simultaneity! hahahahahaha!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> listen boy, simultaneity doesn't depend on human vision.
>>>>>
>>>>>For heaven's sake! This is NOT what SR claims!
>>>>
>>>> bullshit.
>>>
>>>Yes .. what you write is bullshit. We all know that.
>>
>> It is easy to make simultaneity absolute.
>
>Nope
>
>> Just use a grid of synched clocks for
>> all time measurements and collate the results later.
>
>Nope .. you can't do it. We know that it is impossible to construct such a
>grid that is synched in all inertial frames of reference.
clocks don't change at all when accelerated to a different speed. So they
remain in synch.
>You're just full of shit, Henry .. and its leaking onto your keyboard.
Explain my two mirror paradox then.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
There is no paradox.
PD
> Hi to all,
>
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> are wires running from these two points such that x1 and x2 are
> image a lightbulb device with straight segments of wire extending from
> each of its terminals. The lightbulb device, in frame S', is moving
> observer in S notices that the lightbulb momentarily flashes as it
> the length of the wire segments of the lightbulb device added up to
> exactly length L, since the lightbulb flashed, implying that the
> endpoints of those wires simultaneously coincided with x1 and x2,
> respectively, in S---Otherwise the circuit would not be complete and
> the lightbulb would not flash. However, since the observer in S will
> measure a length L for the lightbulb device, an observer at rest in S'
> will have to measure a proper length L' that is greater than L.
> observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
>
> thanks to all who might respond
> dk
The mistake is thinking that the *instant* both leads are in contact
with the rest of the circuit, the light bulb lights up. This
assumption violates the laws of physics.
I think you'll find that in order for the leads to be in contact for
enough time for a signal to propagate from one lead through the bulb
to the other lead, this extra length is more than enough to account
for why the bulb still lights up in the other frame where that bridge
part of the circuit is length-contracted.
This is very similar to the barn-and-pole puzzle where only one door
is left open, and the question is why doesn't the open barn door hit
the back of the pole?
"Henry Wilson" is desperate to believe that this thought experiment
"proves" that the light bulb lights in one frame and not in another,
but that is not the case.
Henry Wilson DSc
..........Pathetic.
>This is very similar to the barn-and-pole puzzle where only one door
>is left open, and the question is why doesn't the open barn door hit
>the back of the pole?
Because nothing actually happens to either the pole or the barn. The pole never
fits inside the barn and SR is bullshit from start to finish.
>"Henry Wilson" is desperate to believe that this thought experiment
>"proves" that the light bulb lights in one frame and not in another,
>but that is not the case.
Idiot
You attempt to wriggle out is pathetic.
The contacts at 1 LY apart and the flow of one electron is enough to fire the
flash via an amplifier.
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.html
PD
Of course it fits inside the barn. At the time when the front of the
pole hits the back wall of the barn, what happens to the back end of
the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
>
> >"Henry Wilson" is desperate to believe that this thought experiment
> >"proves" that the light bulb lights in one frame and not in another,
> >but that is not the case.
>
> Idiot
> You attempt to wriggle out is pathetic.
> The contacts at 1 LY apart and the flow of one electron is enough to fire the
> flash via an amplifier.
You obviously don't understand how circuits work.
You believe that when a circuit closes, the light bulb turns on
instantly. This is simply not the case -- observationally.
Henry Wilson DSc
I've told you before, WHAT HUMAN EYES DETECT IS NOT REALITY.
In other words, if a correction is made for communication time, simultaneity is
universal and absolute all frames....and Einstein and followers are all morons.
>> >"Henry Wilson" is desperate to believe that this thought experiment
>> >"proves" that the light bulb lights in one frame and not in another,
>> >but that is not the case.
>>
>> Idiot
>> You attempt to wriggle out is pathetic.
>> The contacts at 1 LY apart and the flow of one electron is enough to fire the
>> flash via an amplifier.
>
>You obviously don't understand how circuits work.
>You believe that when a circuit closes, the light bulb turns on
>instantly. This is simply not the case -- observationally.
Hahahahahha!
In this experiment it matters not how long it takes to turn on.
Relativity says it will only turn on in one OBSERVER frame. No other observer
sees the flash....which of course is absurd.
GA
I ask if members of this group not know if a light bulb is switched
on or not.
Here is a light bulb (-)
Here is a light bulb switched on (O)
Observer the two persons at A and B viewing the bulb. The image of the
unlighted bulb impresses the retinas of the persons A and B for before
it is switched on.
(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)
A B
What A sees (-)
What B sees (-)
The bulb is switched on (O). A snapshot of the situation at time t is
shown below
(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)
A B
What A sees (O)
What B sees (-)
All are in one inertial frame. No relativistic effects.
The question is : is the light bulb on or off? Is it 'on for A' and "
not on for B'?
Whats right for you is not right for me?
Did we come this far in scientific inquiry to be unable to tell if a
light bulb is on or off?
tell me please
G
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Yes .. it does.
> Relativity says it will only turn on in one OBSERVER frame.
No .. it doesn't
> No other observer
> sees the flash....which of course is absurd.
Indeed it is .. as it is only what you imagine relativity to say. You don't
understand what SR *does* say, so you make up shit and say how absurd it is.
And you're right .. the shit you make up is absurd.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
No.
(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(O)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)
the two only connect in the frame that moves at v/2
>What A sees (O)
>
>What B sees (-)
>
>All are in one inertial frame. No relativistic effects.
>
>The question is : is the light bulb on or off? Is it 'on for A' and "
>not on for B'?
>Whats right for you is not right for me?
>
>Did we come this far in scientific inquiry to be unable to tell if a
>light bulb is on or off?
>
>tell me please
>
>G
>
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
The wires connect in every frame .. but just not simultaneously in most.
Whether or not some frame see the connection as simultaneous or not, the
same events happen regardless. Either the connection is for long enough for
a current to be established and the light turns on .. or it isn't. The
frame of reference doesn't alter those events (only the relative timing of
some of them).
GA
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:07:16 -0800 (PST), GA <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
I need to make myself clear.
The diagram shows A, B and the light bulb all stationary. The only
thing that moves
is the light from the lightbulb in the direction A > B
It is relevant, trust me
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 8:50�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Nobody who posts to this NG can be trusted, trust me.
Henry Wilson DSc
that's another way of saying current can only flow in one frame.
>Whether or not some frame see the connection as simultaneous or not, the
>same events happen regardless.
Yes......and Einstein is wrong...Good...that's settled.
>Either the connection is for long enough for
>a current to be established and the light turns on .. or it isn't. The
>frame of reference doesn't alter those events (only the relative timing of
>some of them).
you wouldn't make much of an electronic engineer.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Nope. if it flows in one, it flows in all
>>Whether or not some frame see the connection as simultaneous or not, the
>>same events happen regardless.
>
> Yes......and Einstein is wrong...Good...that's settled.
Why .. Einstein didn't say otherwise ... YOU did
>>Either the connection is for long enough for
>>a current to be established and the light turns on .. or it isn't. The
>>frame of reference doesn't alter those events (only the relative timing of
>>some of them).
>
> you wouldn't make much of an electronic engineer.
Far better than you. You think someone walking past a light will make it go
off, but still be on at the same time. Really, that's just nonsense. And
the only one claiming it is true is you. SR doesn't say that at all.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
For the light bulb to be on a current must flow.
For a current to flow the circuit must be complete.
The voltage travels from the switch to the bulb,
then the current commences.
The speed at which the voltage travels is a function
of the capacitance and inductance of the wire.
The analogy to this is turning on a tap. With the
tap off the pressure behind the tap is at its greatest
and reduces to zero as you measure back to the
reservoir. Opening the tap causes the water to
flow and the pressure behind the tap to fall to zero,
but water has inertia and doesn't flow instantly.
That means the pipe still has half pressure at half
height above the tap at the instant of turn on.
Whether you say the zero pressure travels back up
from the tap or the positive pressure travels down
to the tap is of no consequence, the flow is not
instantaneous due to the inertia of the mass of the
water.
"Inertial" would not make much of a plumber either.
Curiously, the sound from my (now very old) audio amplifier
continues on for four seconds and then fades after I switch the
power off. This is because the capacitors in the power supply
have to discharge.
http://www.uptownaudio.com/camb/camaudio540a.jpg
GA
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:41:42 -0800 (PST), GA <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
So then - answer the question - is the light bulb on only when the
light from the light bulb reaches you?
PD
This has nothing to do with what humans see. This is a matter of
whether the barn door strikes the pole or not, which can be recorded
with or without humans present.
Now: At the time when the front of the pole hits the back wall of the
barn, what happens to the back end of the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
> In other words, if a correction is made for communication time, simultaneity is
> universal and absolute all frames....and Einstein and followers are all morons.
>
> >> >"Henry Wilson" is desperate to believe that this thought experiment
> >> >"proves" that the light bulb lights in one frame and not in another,
> >> >but that is not the case.
>
> >> Idiot
> >> You attempt to wriggle out is pathetic.
> >> The contacts at 1 LY apart and the flow of one electron is enough to fire the
> >> flash via an amplifier.
>
> >You obviously don't understand how circuits work.
> >You believe that when a circuit closes, the light bulb turns on
> >instantly. This is simply not the case -- observationally.
>
> Hahahahahha!
>
> In this experiment it matters not how long it takes to turn on.
>
> Relativity says it will only turn on in one OBSERVER frame. No other observer
> sees the flash....which of course is absurd.
No, relativity does NOT say that. The OP thought that relativity says
that, but he was incorrect. His error was precisely the one I just
pointed out.
PD
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:41:42 -0800 (PST), GA <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
Well, that's certainly true for you. Don't project.
GA
Ok so I will suggest an answer
1. The bulb is on only when the observer sees it is on - the bulb is
off for both A and B
then when it is switched on, it becomes on for A and then it becomes
on for B
Reality is limited by the speed of light.
2.The bulb is on before A and B see that it is on. We know the
distance from A to the bulb and B to the bulb, so we an calculate at
what time the bulb was switched on.
Now is it (1) or (2) ?
G
GA
Agreed
"Now: At the time when the front of the pole hits the back wall of
the
barn, what happens to the back end of the pole AT THAT INSTANT?"
If length contraction is a physical effect, the pole fits inside the
barn, if length contraction is illusory, which I believe it is,
because AE's train experiments are all wrong, then
the barn will not contain the pole.
G
Henry Wilson DSc
Precisely....which again proves Einstein to be an idiot.
>>>Whether or not some frame see the connection as simultaneous or not, the
>>>same events happen regardless.
>>
>> Yes......and Einstein is wrong...Good...that's settled.
>
>Why .. Einstein didn't say otherwise ... YOU did
>
>>>Either the connection is for long enough for
>>>a current to be established and the light turns on .. or it isn't. The
>>>frame of reference doesn't alter those events (only the relative timing of
>>>some of them).
>>
>> you wouldn't make much of an electronic engineer.
>
>Far better than you. You think someone walking past a light will make it go
>off, but still be on at the same time. Really, that's just nonsense. And
>the only one claiming it is true is you. SR doesn't say that at all.
SR can say anything in its version of fairyland.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 6, 6:29�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:17:51 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 6, 4:35�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>> >Of course it fits inside the barn. At the time when the front of the
>> >pole hits the back wall of the barn, what happens to the back end of
>> >the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
>>
>> I've told you before, WHAT HUMAN EYES DETECT IS NOT REALITY.
>
>This has nothing to do with what humans see. This is a matter of
>whether the barn door strikes the pole or not, which can be recorded
>with or without humans present.
>
>Now: At the time when the front of the pole hits the back wall of the
>barn, what happens to the back end of the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
At any particular instant...or if time diesn't even exist ...the two ends of
the pole are separated by the same absolute spatial interval.
>>
>> >You obviously don't understand how circuits work.
>> >You believe that when a circuit closes, the light bulb turns on
>> >instantly. This is simply not the case -- observationally.
>>
>> Hahahahahha!
>>
>> In this experiment it matters not how long it takes to turn on.
>>
>> Relativity says it will only turn on in one OBSERVER frame. No other observer
>> sees the flash....which of course is absurd.
>
>No, relativity does NOT say that. The OP thought that relativity says
>that, but he was incorrect. His error was precisely the one I just
>pointed out.
You only pointed out that humans perceive a distorted view of reality because
of their reliance on light, which travels at a finite speed.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 3:06�pm, GA <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
Neither.
If the contacts on both sides are the same distance apart when MAR, then if B
is moving relative to A at v, they can never touch simultaneously to form a
continuous circuit. ( according to SR)
However to an observer who moves at v/2, both lengths are contracted by the
same amount and therefore that particular observer WILL see the flash. It
simply cannot and does not happen in the frame of alllother observers.
Your experiment again highlights the absolute stupidity of SR. It claims that
EXISTENCE itself is frame dependent. Well done.
PD
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:54:28 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 6, 6:29 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:17:51 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 6, 4:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> >Of course it fits inside the barn. At the time when the front of the
> >> >pole hits the back wall of the barn, what happens to the back end of
> >> >the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
>
> >> I've told you before, WHAT HUMAN EYES DETECT IS NOT REALITY.
>
> >This has nothing to do with what humans see. This is a matter of
> >whether the barn door strikes the pole or not, which can be recorded
> >with or without humans present.
>
> >Now: At the time when the front of the pole hits the back wall of the
> >barn, what happens to the back end of the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
>
> At any particular instant...or if time diesn't even exist ...the two ends of
> the pole are separated by the same absolute spatial interval.
I'll be a little more precise: At the instant when the motion of the
front of the pole stops as it hits the back wall of the barn, what
happens to the motion of the back of the pole?
>
>
>
> >> >You obviously don't understand how circuits work.
> >> >You believe that when a circuit closes, the light bulb turns on
> >> >instantly. This is simply not the case -- observationally.
>
> >> Hahahahahha!
>
> >> In this experiment it matters not how long it takes to turn on.
>
> >> Relativity says it will only turn on in one OBSERVER frame. No other observer
> >> sees the flash....which of course is absurd.
>
> >No, relativity does NOT say that. The OP thought that relativity says
> >that, but he was incorrect. His error was precisely the one I just
> >pointed out.
>
> You only pointed out that humans perceive a distorted view of reality because
> of their reliance on light, which travels at a finite speed.
I pointed out that there was no internal contradiction in relativity,
which you claimed there was, and which the OP thought was there too,
both of you erroneously.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 7:54�pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course it wont.
However your logic is wrong.
Nothing at all happens to rods or clocks due to movement.
Einstein was a charleton.
>G
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 7, 2:41�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:54:28 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 6, 6:29�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >This has nothing to do with what humans see. This is a matter of
>> >whether the barn door strikes the pole or not, which can be recorded
>> >with or without humans present.
>>
>> >Now: At the time when the front of the pole hits the back wall of the
>> >barn, what happens to the back end of the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
>>
>> At any particular instant...or if time diesn't even exist ...the two ends of
>> the pole are separated by the same absolute spatial interval.
>
>I'll be a little more precise: At the instant when the motion of the
>front of the pole stops as it hits the back wall of the barn, what
>happens to the motion of the back of the pole?
It stops instantly as well. Reality doesn't rely on what humans see.
>> >> >You obviously don't understand how circuits work.
>> >> >You believe that when a circuit closes, the light bulb turns on
>> >> >instantly. This is simply not the case -- observationally.
>>
>> >> Hahahahahha!
>>
>> >> In this experiment it matters not how long it takes to turn on.
>>
>> >> Relativity says it will only turn on in one OBSERVER frame. No other observer
>> >> sees the flash....which of course is absurd.
>>
>> >No, relativity does NOT say that. The OP thought that relativity says
>> >that, but he was incorrect. His error was precisely the one I just
>> >pointed out.
>>
>> You only pointed out that humans perceive a distorted view of reality because
>> of their reliance on light, which travels at a finite speed.
>
>I pointed out that there was no internal contradiction in relativity,
>which you claimed there was, and which the OP thought was there too,
>both of you erroneously.
there is no internal contradiction in much of Earth centrism either...or 'flat
Earthism'....
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
No it does not .. as SR does not claim what you say it claims. You are
simply a liar.
>>>>Whether or not some frame see the connection as simultaneous or not, the
>>>>same events happen regardless.
>>>
>>> Yes......and Einstein is wrong...Good...that's settled.
>>
>>Why .. Einstein didn't say otherwise ... YOU did
>>
>>>>Either the connection is for long enough for
>>>>a current to be established and the light turns on .. or it isn't. The
>>>>frame of reference doesn't alter those events (only the relative timing
>>>>of
>>>>some of them).
>>>
>>> you wouldn't make much of an electronic engineer.
>>
>>Far better than you. You think someone walking past a light will make it
>>go
>>off, but still be on at the same time. Really, that's just nonsense. And
>>the only one claiming it is true is you. SR doesn't say that at all.
>
> SR can say anything in its version of fairyland.
Only in your uninformed little excuse for a brain.
eric gisse
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:55:33 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 7, 2:41 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:54:28 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Jan 6, 6:29 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>>> >This has nothing to do with what humans see. This is a matter of
>>> >whether the barn door strikes the pole or not, which can be recorded
>>> >with or without humans present.
>>>
>>> >Now: At the time when the front of the pole hits the back wall of the
>>> >barn, what happens to the back end of the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
>>>
>>> At any particular instant...or if time diesn't even exist ...the two
>>> ends of the pole are separated by the same absolute spatial interval.
>>
>>I'll be a little more precise: At the instant when the motion of the
>>front of the pole stops as it hits the back wall of the barn, what
>>happens to the motion of the back of the pole?
>
> It stops instantly as well. Reality doesn't rely on what humans see.
Really? Instantly?
[...]
Inertial
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi5pqa$ibd$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
We all know it .. Henry just has no idea of physics. Why does he just keep
on showing us his ignorance of it over and over.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool
than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain
train
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hi5pqa$ibd$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Jan 7, 2:41 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:54:28 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >On Jan 6, 6:29 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >>>> >This has nothing to do with what humans see. This is a matter of
> >>>> >whether the barn door strikes the pole or not, which can be recorded
> >>>> >with or without humans present.
>
> >>>> >Now: At the time when the front of the pole hits the back wall of the
> >>>> >barn, what happens to the back end of the pole AT THAT INSTANT?
>
> >>>> At any particular instant...or if time diesn't even exist ...the two
> >>>> ends of the pole are separated by the same absolute spatial interval.
>
> >>>I'll be a little more precise: At the instant when the motion of the
> >>>front of the pole stops as it hits the back wall of the barn, what
> >>>happens to the motion of the back of the pole?
>
> >> It stops instantly as well. Reality doesn't rely on what humans see.
>
> > Really? Instantly?
>
> We all know it .. Henry just has no idea of physics. Why does he just keep
> on showing us his ignorance of it over and over.
>
> "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool
> than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain
So better not keep your mouth open when sending emails, Henry
train
We this is indeed the point. Can anything travel faster than light?
When the pole hits the back of the barn door and stops instantly, the
impact has to be transmitted through the pole atom by atom. Can this
happen faster than the speed of light? In classical mechanics yes
In SRT if you follow it, you will have two effects The instant the
pole stops, the length contraction disappears, atom by atom along the
length of the pole, at the speed of light.
as the stopping of the pole also takes place at the speed of light
atom by atom.
The pole will then pop right out of the front of the Barn Door. All
this for the farmer watching the pole fly through the barn door at
close to the speed of light.
Darwin123
> On Dec 29, 7:46 pm, dk <dakalami...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
> > I should have mentioned that it is assumed
> > that the wires on the lightbulb device are
> > insulated and only at their endpoints is the
> > conductor exposed so as to make contact with
> > x1 and x2 in frame S.
>
> Draw a diagram. How are the wires oriented wrt the x axis?
>
> Next, wires have inductance. Only in a fantasy world does the light
> "flash".
I would like to add:
"Wires have an inductance. therefore the signal traveling from switch
to light bulb has to move slower than the speed of light. you have to
include the propagation time of the electric power once the circuit is
complete. Most of the signal upon completing the circuit will actually
move slower than the speed of light. Plus the fact that the filament
needs time to heat.
To facilitate the discussion, assume that the signal moves from
switch to light bulb at the speed of light, and that the light bulb
heats up "instantly." Also include the propagation time of the light
from bulb to observers."
>
> David A. Smith
Inertial
"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c9ad0f4-b028-4949...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Which means its a pretty tough barn door :)
> the
> impact has to be transmitted through the pole atom by atom. Can this
> happen faster than the speed of light? In classical mechanics yes
It usually happens at what is usually called the speed of sound for that
material .. the speed that such compression 'information' is transmitted
through the material.
If this immovable barn door is trying to travel through the rod (from the
moment of collision) at faster than the speed of sound in that rod, it will
cause catastrophic damage to the rod, as its back end tries to plough on
forwards and compress the rod faster than it can handle.
This effect is the same in principle whether SR or classical mechanics.
> In SRT if you follow it, you will have two effects The instant the
> pole stops,
You mean the instant the front end of it stops. In the pole frame, the back
end is blissfully unaware that its front end has crashed into a carelessly
closed barn door.
> the length contraction disappears, atom by atom along the
> length of the pole
Yes .. as those atoms get slowed down
> at the speed of light.
Well. it all depends on what happens to the various bits of the rod. Its
certainly not going to be good for it. Certainly the information (in SR)
cannot get to the back end of the rod FASTER than the speed of light. it
would probably get there at the maximum of the speed of sound in that
material, and the speed of the barn wrt the rod (ie either the compression
wave thru the rod gets to the back of the rod first, or the barn door itself
does :))
> as the stopping of the pole also takes place at the speed of light
> atom by atom.
> The pole will then pop right out of the front of the Barn Door.
More likely it will compress and shatter under the stress. We're assuming a
very strong barn door here.
> All
> this for the farmer watching the pole fly through the barn door at
> close to the speed of light.
Life is pretty dull on a farm .. you need al lthe entertainment you can get.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> We this is indeed the point. Can anything travel faster than light?
> When the pole hits the back of the barn door and stops instantly, the
> impact has to be transmitted through the pole atom by atom. Can this
> happen faster than the speed of light? In classical mechanics yes
Yeah, for infinitely rigid objects which requires atoms to transfer
information faster than light speed. Which is physically impossible, and is
the point of the 'paradox'. Ralph does not understand this, nor does he care
to expand his mind a tiny little bit and consider the possibility.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
the speed at which the flash occurs is irrelevant.
What needs to be explained is how the flash can only occur and be seen in one
particular frame and not all frames...(according to SR, of course).
>>
>> David A. Smith
Androcles
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi5pqa$ibd$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> [...]
Androcles
> train wrote:
> [...]
[...]
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Gawd! It's quiet in here...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
I'm chatting with Gisse.
Uncle Ben
> Hi to all,
>
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> In frame S thare are two points, x1 and x2, a distance L apart. There
> are wires running from these two points such that x1 and x2 are
> connected to the '+' and '-' terminals of a battery in S. Now,
> image a lightbulb device with straight segments of wire extending from
> each of its terminals. The lightbulb device, in frame S', is moving
> with velocity v parallel and very close to the x axis of frame S. An
> observer in S notices that the lightbulb momentarily flashes as it
> passes by the x1-x2 region. This S observer correctly concludes that
> the length of the wire segments of the lightbulb device added up to
> exactly length L, since the lightbulb flashed, implying that the
> endpoints of those wires simultaneously coincided with x1 and x2,
> respectively, in S---Otherwise the circuit would not be complete and
> the lightbulb would not flash. However, since the observer in S will
> measure a length L for the lightbulb device, an observer at rest in S'
> will have to measure a proper length L' that is greater than L.
> Therefore, in frame S', the endpoints of the lightbulb device never
> coincide with x1 and x2 and the circuit never completes. How does the
> observer in S' explain the objective fact of the lightbulb flashing?
>
To reprise this elegant little "paradox" in brief:
Consider a stationary dry cell being passed by a moving light bulb
with leads arranged so that as the light bulb passes the dry cell, the
ends of the leads brush the terminals of the dry cells momentarily,
simultaneously with respect to the dry cell. Ideally speaking, the
light bulb will flash on momentarily.
But with respect to the light bulb, SR says the leads -- if arranged
so that the ends lie on the axis of motion in line with the + and -
terminals of the cell -- will not brush simultaneously. To the naive
observer it would seem that the light bulb will not flash.
But this is not correct. The light bulb will flash. Here is why.
When a wire touches an electrified conductor, a pulse of electric
potential will pass along the wire. In the case of two wires touching
two electrified conductors of opposite charge, a positive and a
negative pulse will pass along the two conductors as in a transmission
line.
Transmission lines have characteristic pulse velocities that depend on
their inductance and capacitance per unit length. When a pulse passes
a given point in the transmission line, a brief current flows. This
current occurs whether the two pulses are simutaneous or not.
In the present case, if the two pulses are not simultneous, they meet
somewhere in the closed circuit of which the light bulb is a part, but
not at the light bulb. As a pulse passes through the light bulb, it
will, in principle, flash.
The pulses may reverberate back and forth in this transmission line,
but that is a fine point in the story.
In short the light bulb flashes whether the contacts are simultaneous
or not.
Uncle Ben
www.greenba.com
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:4e2f7d26-7272-4152...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
At last!
Well done, naive Bonehead. You've figured out SR is not correct.
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aha! The fabled naive observer himself. You are up early this morning,
John, but you have forgotten to take your anti-psychotic medication
again, my darling.
Sue...
You are making some progress. :-)
Having placed "naivety" and "simultaneity" on equal footing
you could be just a hair's breadth from the great discovery
that neither has anything to do with physics.
Your previous remark is noble as ever.
"The goal of a theory is to be able to
predict the results of experiments."
But your prediction remains ambiguous about this
simple real-world experiment.
N v N
|=========| <---
|=========|_OOoo --->
^
On parallel tracks, 2 locomotives are
pulling identical sections of [charged] waveguide in
opposite directions. The end flanges
scrape at the instant the trains are alongside.
[sparks fly, radio radiates]
(that is four events in 2 inertial frames)
How many pulses are received at a sampling
probe in the centre of each section?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
same in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/transmission.html
Sue...
V unsourced 'Tom Roberts style' blather noted V
Androcles
=============================================
On March 7th 2009 Green uttered the following:
" 4. The speed of light is a constant c in any and all inertial frames.
About 4, we have it in Einstein's words in the derivation of the LT."
But we also have it in Einstein's words:
"Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ
zum Anfangspunkt von k im ruhenden System gemessen mit der
Geschwindigkeit V - v, so da� gilt: t = x'/(V-v)."
This is called a "simple and consistent" theory (by Einstein, of course).
The naive simpleton Bonehead doesn't know what consistent means.
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote in message
news:0gB1n.21161$KK6....@newsfe19.ams2...
>
>
> This is called a "simple and consistent" theory (by Einstein, of course).
Yes it is .. you just can't get your mind around it (or don't want to)> The
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
the why don't you answer his [...]
Henry Wilson DSc
Uncle Ben
Hello, Sue! We've missed you.
The answer to your problem is indeterminate, because pulses sent from
one end of the trains to the other will be reflected back to the first
end, and again to the other end, etc. The pulses are weaker each time
they pass the centers by an amount that depends on the losses in the
systems, but the number of pulses passing the center in time is, in
principle, infinite. If you've ever played a flute, you will recognize
this phenomenon.
BTW, you say four events in two reference frames. I say, two events,
which can be measured in as many reference frames as you like to
invent.
But "die Gedanken sind frei!" Believe what you wish.
Yours in amusing irrelevancy,
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Henry/Ralph, consult your local amateur radio licensee' to learn about
transmission lines.
Uncle Ben
NQ2H
Sue...
Nut sure I can say the same for closet Lorentz Ether Theorists.
I haven't missed the rantings of any Spanish inquisitioner so
far. :-))
>
===========
> The answer to your problem is indeterminate,
No... it is not.
<< 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
What is simultaneous in one inertial frame is simultaneous in a
relativity moving frame. Einstein specifically excluded your
favourite interpretation from physical relevance.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-r5IGSTJVPcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Your irrelevant assumption of impedance mismatch unread again.
> because pulses sent from
> one end of the trains to the other will be reflected back to the first
> end, and again to the other end, etc. The pulses are weaker each time
> they pass the centers by an amount that depends on the losses in the
> systems, but the number of pulses passing the center in time is, in
> principle, infinite. If you've ever played a flute, you will recognize
> this phenomenon.
>
> BTW, you say four events in two reference frames. I say, two events,
> which can be measured in as many reference frames as you like to
> invent.
You don't even specify "inertial" reference frames so it
does not matter what you say or how you count or how many
fall for your parlour tricks.
"The Inertia of Twins"
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Sue...
dlzc
On Jan 7, 5:35 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Remove the bulb, and replace it with an LED. Still no way to get the
signal to flow as close to c as to be convincing.
If it lights, it lights for all frames.
David A. Smith
train
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well well, so reality for the rod is now limited by the speed of
sound. A fine pickle we have
here.
Anyway Inertial you're cool.
What if the barn doors are electrified? Then will the speed of
electricity pass through the rod faster than sound?
But I digress. I would like to know what you think of the question -
is the light bulb on
only when you see it is on or before? It is important and relevant.
T
train
I see what you mean - some current remains in the circuit so it lights
the bulb.
What speeds are we talking about here - if it is 1 m/s it is doable in
a lab
That is, at what speed do the terminals of the bulb pass the terminals
of the
dry cell? Does it matter?
T
Uncle Ben
>
> Your irrelevant assumption of impedance mismatch unread again.
>
> > because pulses sent from
> > one end of the trains to the other will be reflected back to the first
> > end, and again to the other end, etc. The pulses are weaker each time
> > they pass the centers by an amount that depends on the losses in the
> > systems, but the number of pulses passing the center in time is, in
> > principle, infinite. If you've ever played a flute, you will recognize
> > this phenomenon.
>
> > BTW, you say four events in two reference frames. I say, two events,
> > which can be measured in as many reference frames as you like to
> > invent.
>
> You don't even specify "inertial" reference frames so it
> does not matter what you say or how you count or how many
> fall for your parlour tricks.
>
> "The Inertia of Twins"http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
>
>
> > But "die Gedanken sind frei!" Believe what you wish.
>
> > Yours in amusing irrelevancy,
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You say,
"What is (sic) simultaneous in one inertial frame is simultaneous in
a
relativity (sic) moving frame. Einstein specifically excluded your
favourite interpretation from physical relevance."
You made a typo (among the others) by leaving out the word "not"
before the second "simultaneous", if, that is, you are representing
Einstein,
not "Henry Wilson."
Cheerio!
PD
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:55:33 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 7, 2:41 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:54:28 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >that, but he was incorrect. His error was precisely the one I just
> >> >pointed out.
>
> >> You only pointed out that humans perceive a distorted view of reality because
> >> of their reliance on light, which travels at a finite speed.
>
> >I pointed out that there was no internal contradiction in relativity,
> >which you claimed there was, and which the OP thought was there too,
> >both of you erroneously.
>
> there is no internal contradiction in much of Earth centrism either...or 'flat
> Earthism'....
>
But you said there WAS an internal contradiction in relativity and
this example pointed it out. And that was wrong.
But instead of admitting that your claim of internal contradiction was
wrong, you say SR is wrong anyway.
PD
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:55:33 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >front of the pole stops as it hits the back wall of the barn, what
> >happens to the motion of the back of the pole?
>
> It stops instantly as well. Reality doesn't rely on what humans see.
>
I am SO happy that you gave this response. This gives me the chance to
ask you a few questions.
1. You claim that the back end stops instantly, but that this is a
reality we cannot see. If you cannot see it, how do you know that it
happens? What method of truth checking are you using to determine the
truth value of the claim that the back end stops instantly. (PLEASE
PLEASE PLEASE tell me that you rely on common sense for this.)
2. Since science uses observation to check the truth of claims, but
you believe that reality is not revealed by observation, is it your
claim that science is in general a waste of time, since that is not
how reality is determined? If so, then why diddle around on sci.*.*,
if you believe that the whole business of how science works is just
bogus to begin with? (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me that what you do is
science and what scientists do is not science.)
3. By what physical process does the back end of the rod become aware
that the front end of the rod has stopped, at the very instant that
the front end of the rod stops? What signal travels at infinite speed
from the front of the rod to the back of the rod to inform the back of
the rod that it should stop? And by what fundamental interaction does
this signal travel at infinite speed? (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me
it's the Wilson Infinite Communication Speed Interaction [WICSI] that
you believe that people should be investigating.)
PD
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:35:52 -0800 (PST), Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com>
SR does not make the claim that the flashes occur in one frame and not
in the other. The original poster thought that SR does make that
claim, but it does not, and that misconception was corrected.
Sue...
That is not a typo.
What is simultaneous in one inertial frame IS
simultaneous in a relativity moving frame.
That is implied by the principle of relativity
and unchanged by Einstein's "free will"
redefinition of simultaneity which substitutes
conclusions, a thought process, for rigourous
electromagnetic path description.
That is why you can't solve the problem
unambiguously. Wave guides don't debate
with themselves about imaginary light particles and
arrive at conclusions.
To be clear:
<< 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
What is simultaneous in one inertial frame IS
simultaneous in a relativity moving frame.
What do you fail to understand about
--> totally equivalent <--
Conflation and persistent quackery noted.
> by leaving out the word "not"
> before the second "simultaneous", if, that is, you are representing
> Einstein,
> not "Henry Wilson."
You are leaving Einstein's
"free will" definition of simultaniety out of
the context and THAT is misrepresentation and
dishonesty.
The principle as stated applies to unconscious objects.
>
> Cheerio!
Quack Quack!
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Sue...
eric gisse
> On Jan 7, 3:42 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:55:33 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'll be a little more precise: At the instant when the motion of the
>> >front of the pole stops as it hits the back wall of the barn, what
>> >happens to the motion of the back of the pole?
>>
>> It stops instantly as well. Reality doesn't rely on what humans see.
>>
>
> I am SO happy that you gave this response. This gives me the chance to
> ask you a few questions.
I, too, have been enjoying Henri's responses as of late. It is so
entertaining when he engages me and reveals his thought processes.
>
> 1. You claim that the back end stops instantly, but that this is a
> reality we cannot see. If you cannot see it, how do you know that it
> happens? What method of truth checking are you using to determine the
> truth value of the claim that the back end stops instantly. (PLEASE
> PLEASE PLEASE tell me that you rely on common sense for this.)
I have often opined about how it is odd that he knows such things with such
absolute certainty even though he can't show me how he knows it to be true.
Like how he 'knows' that "equal time intervals" are a law of physics, even
though he can't demonstrate why this is the case or show me where it is
written in a physics textbook that it is a law of physics.
>
> 2. Since science uses observation to check the truth of claims, but
> you believe that reality is not revealed by observation, is it your
> claim that science is in general a waste of time, since that is not
> how reality is determined? If so, then why diddle around on sci.*.*,
> if you believe that the whole business of how science works is just
> bogus to begin with? (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me that what you do is
> science and what scientists do is not science.)
Sorry Paul, but Henri has explained this one to me.
"No, but they are so stupid I'm laughing my bloody head off at their posts.
Haven't laughed so much in years."
Henri knows he is not doing science, as Henri can't be bothered to do simple
things like publish his work (which he has talked about doing for a decade)
or make concrete, falsifiable predictions with his theory (which he wants me
to do FOR HIM). But rather he enjoys the game of laughing at what people
like you and me tell him, which is fine with me since that goes both ways.
>
> 3. By what physical process does the back end of the rod become aware
> that the front end of the rod has stopped, at the very instant that
> the front end of the rod stops? What signal travels at infinite speed
> from the front of the rod to the back of the rod to inform the back of
> the rod that it should stop? And by what fundamental interaction does
> this signal travel at infinite speed? (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me
> it's the Wilson Infinite Communication Speed Interaction [WICSI] that
> you believe that people should be investigating.)
I'm sure he'll have a fancy one-lined rejoinder about how you are dumb / it
is obvious / etc.
Do me a favor, and make it a point to frequently ask him what textbook on
the subject he has read. It is amusing to see him respond with non-answers
like "[...]", "many", or some random insult which shows he never has read a
single book on the subject or it has been so many years that he can't even
remember.