What Is The Purposes of Lorentz's Transformation??
kenseto
1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in the
observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the observer's
frame.
2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
physical rod in the observed frame.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3cdbcb0e$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> The answers are as follows:
> 1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in the
> observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the observer's
> frame.
bullshit
> 2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
> physical rod in the observed frame.
more bullshit
>
> Ken Seto
the bull
Its purpose is to express space-time coordinates in one
inertial reference frame as a function of the coordinates in
another inertial reference frame.
Dirk Vdm
Oriel36
The purpose of LET is to make the SRist look good,it is a highly
useful outrigger of relativity and as long as it remains,relativity
can expect to enjoy years of profitable use,so
help-yourself-to-a-reference frame and bring your clock with you.
When you make your home in a swamp expect the older frogs to croak
louder than you and heavens forbid that you should catch them winking
at you in that you are not opposed to the swindle but part of it, at
least if it is one thing that makes sense it is that.
Paul B. Andersen
> 1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in the
> observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the observer's
> frame.
Can you please show me how to use the Lorentz transform to
find the clock time reading of a 10 second interval of absolute time?
> 2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
> physical rod in the observed frame.
I have a 1 metre long rod on my desk, Ken.
Can you please show me how to use the Lorentz transform
to find the light path length of the rod?
Paul
Paul Cardinale
The errors here are due to the fact that the kenseto erroneously
believes that he knows the definitions the multisyllable words he
used.
For fun, let's re-write it, blanking out the words beyond his
comprehension:
Subject: What Is The <blank> of <blank> <blank>??
The <blank> are as <blank> :
1. It is use by the <blank> to <blank> the clock time <blank> in the
<blank> frame for a <blank> <blank> of <blank> time in the <blank>
frame.
2. It is use by the <blank> to <blank> the light path length of a
<blank> rod in the <blank> frame.
This is the maximum level of coherance available from the kenseto.
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:64050551.0205...@posting.google.com...
I'd also <blink> the monosyllably sounding words clock, time, frame,
light, path, length and rod...
Dirk Vdm
and...@attglobal.net
You have just demonstrated that you don't have a clue
about what SR predicts.
John Anderson
rryker1
kenseto wrote:
Rod: I do not agree with LET nor SR.
Someone said, send in the clowns.
Enter, Lorentz and Einstein.
After Lorentz had stopped pulling his
own length contracted finger for a local time,
Einy started pulling his own a different way.
Einstein came to the conclusion that a fart has a flavor
and is different from a fart with another flavor,
produced from assholes who are assholes,
and the great contest was born. :):):)
And no, SR and LET are not always in agreement .
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Vertner Vergon
When an observer in an inertial frame observes the time and longitudinal
length in a
moving frame, due to the finite and invariable velocity of light (the
messenger of his
observations) he observes a distortion. The amount of this distortion is
displayed
by the Lorentz/ Fitzgerald transformation.
This is the same as Ken describes but in a different way.
As an addendum, I would like to point out that a distorted *observation* of
length is
akin to a distorted observation of velocity.
The fact that the velocity of light is c, is the cause of c being the
highest
velocity *observed*. But that does *not* mean that c is the highest velocity
attainable
by a system.
Just as length becomes progressively shorter, so does the "actual" velocity
become
less -- *observationally*.
That means as the Newtonian velocity goes to infinity, the *observed*
velocity goes
to c. So c as a limit is that of the *observation* only.
Thus superluminal velocities are a reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3CDCBB26...@fuse.net...
rryker1
Vertner Vergon wrote:
> Vergon:
>
> When an observer in an inertial frame observes the time and longitudinal
> length in a
> moving frame, due to the finite and invariable velocity of light (the
> messenger of his
> observations) he observes a distortion. The amount of this distortion is
> displayed
> by the Lorentz/ Fitzgerald transformation.
Rod: No sir, there is no length contraction.
There is no dilation of time.
> This is the same as Ken describes but in a different way.
>
> As an addendum, I would like to point out that a distorted *observation* of
> length is akin to a distorted observation of velocity.
>
> The fact that the velocity of light is c, is the cause of c being the
> highest velocity *observed*. But that does *not* mean that c is the highest
> velocity attainable by a system.
>
> Just as length becomes progressively shorter, so does the "actual" velocity
> become less -- *observationally*.
>
> That means as the Newtonian velocity goes to infinity, the *observed*
> velocity goes to c. So c as a limit is that of the *observation* only.
>
> Thus superluminal velocities are a reality.
>
Rod: Consider three systems.
Two that comove parallel.
And one at rest.
1 (A )-------(B ) >.5c
2 (A1) (B1) >.5c
3 (Arest)-----(Brest)
System 3 (at rest), observes both 1 and 2 propagating at .5c
in 3's frame. System 1 is separated by a rod and system 2
is _not_ and yet the same spacing is observed between
both A's wrt both B's of systems 1 and 2, according to
system 3's observations.
According to SR, the length of system1 and
system 2 will be equal as measured by system 3.
According to LET, the length of system 1 will be
shorter than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
I know I'm a little non responsive to your post,
but I couldn't resist this IMPORTANT info.
As to your statement above, it is sUmwhat cryptic. ;)
M&M showed Aether as being non static.
However, I think there is an Aether and
it's motion is chaotic, it's speed is faster than light.
This is _not_ my theory, but the one I think is correct.
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Etherman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:qdXC8.68865$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Might as well <blank> out the word "use" since Ken hasn't mastered the
art of verb conjugation either.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:abhdro$s7h$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3cdbcb0e$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > The answers are as follows:
> > 1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in the
> > observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the
observer's
> > frame.
>
> Can you please show me how to use the Lorentz transform to
> find the clock time reading of a 10 second interval of absolute time?
Assuming the observer is more at rest then the LT becomes
t'= (t - xv/c^2)/gamma
When x=0 this equation is reduced to t'=t/gamma
Therefore t'=10/gamma seconds
Assuming that the observed frame is more at rest then the LT becomes
t'=gamma(t + xv/c^2)
When x=0 this equation is reduced to t'=gamma*t
Therefore t'=10*gamma seconds
>
> > 2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
> > physical rod in the observed frame.
>
> I have a 1 metre long rod on my desk, Ken.
> Can you please show me how to use the Lorentz transform
> to find the light path length of the rod?
Assuming the observer is more at rest then the LT becomes
x'=gamma(x+vt)
When t =0 this equation is reduced to x'=x*gamma
Therefore the solution to your question is: x'=1*gamma meters
Assuming the observed frame is more at rest then the LT becomes
x'=(x-vt)/gamma
When t=0 this equation is reduced to x'=x/gamma
Therefore the solution to your question is: x'=1/gamma meters
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3cdd1048$0$3335$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
A brilliant one.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
"To be or not to be More At Rest"
Dirk Vdm
Vertner Vergon
Vergon:
You have missed the boat by dealing in desiderata.
Always look for the underlying principle. It will aid understanding and
forward progress.
I have given such elsewhere in this thread.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>
Vertner Vergon
Vergon:
When an observer in an inertial frame observes the time and longitudinal
length in a
moving frame, due to the finite and invariable velocity of light (the
messenger of his
observations) he observes a distortion. The amount of this distortion is
displayed
by the Lorentz/ Fitzgerald transformation.
This is the same as Ken describes but in a different way.
As an addendum, I would like to point out that a distorted *observation* of
length is
akin to a distorted observation of velocity.
The fact that the velocity of light is c, is the cause of c being the
highest
velocity *observed*. But that does *not* mean that c is the highest velocity
attainable
by a system.
Just as length becomes progressively shorter, so does the "actual" velocity
become
less -- *observationally*.
That means as the Newtonian velocity goes to infinity, the *observed*
velocity goes
to c. So c as a limit is that of the *observation* only.
Thus superluminal velocities are a reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vertner Vergon
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3CDC91...@attglobal.net...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Vergon:
Never criticize unless you have something better to offer.
So YOU "have a clue" --?
What is it?
show us your smarts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kenseto
>
> kenseto wrote:
>
> > The answers are as follows:
> > 1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in the
> > observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the
observer's
> > frame.
> > 2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
> > physical rod in the observed frame.
> >
> > Ken Seto
>
> Rod: I do not agree with LET nor SR.
> Someone said, send in the clowns.
> Enter, Lorentz and Einstein.
What I said was not LET or SR so what is your point??
Ken Seto
kenseto
kenseto
What I said was that the "light path length" for systems 1 and 2 as measured
by the system 3 observer will be the same. BTW are you trying to tell us
that your example illustrates that there is no length contraction in SR? I
can agree to that. The length of a rod remains the same in all frames of
reference. However, the light path length of a rod will vary from frame to
frame.
Ken Seto
kenseto
I was not talking about what SR predicts. Einstein didn't invent the Lorentz
Transformation.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.02051...@posting.google.com...
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:<3cdbcb0e$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>...
> > The answers are as follows:
> > 1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in the
> > observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the
observer's
> > frame.
> > 2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
> > physical rod in the observed frame.
> >
> > Ken Seto
>
> The purpose of LET is to make the SRist look good,it is a highly
> useful outrigger of relativity and as long as it remains,relativity
> can expect to enjoy years of profitable use,so
> help-yourself-to-a-reference frame and bring your clock with you.
Apparently you don't read too well. I was not talking about SR or LET.
Ken Seto
beda pietanza
Vertner Vergon <Ver...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
uJ1D8.3052$Iy2.61...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> Vergon:
>
> When an observer in an inertial frame observes the time and longitudinal
> length in a
> moving frame, due to the finite and invariable velocity of light (the
> messenger of his
> observations) he observes a distortion. The amount of this distortion is
> displayed
> by the Lorentz/ Fitzgerald transformation.
you are wrong here: the Lorentz transformation respect to the Galilean
Tranform introduces: 1) the apparent length contraction; 2) the apparent
clock dilation; 3) the relativity of simultaneity.
What you are trying to say is totally different: the distortion due to the
transit time of light dipend on the position of the observer and on the
abs. speed of the source
>
> This is the same as Ken describes but in a different way.
>
> As an addendum, I would like to point out that a distorted *observation*
of
> length is
> akin to a distorted observation of velocity.
>
> The fact that the velocity of light is c, is the cause of c being the
> highest
> velocity *observed*. But that does *not* mean that c is the highest
velocity
> attainable
> by a system.
>
> Just as length becomes progressively shorter, so does the "actual"
velocity
> become
> less -- *observationally*.
>
> That means as the Newtonian velocity goes to infinity, the *observed*
> velocity goes
> to c. So c as a limit is that of the *observation* only.
>
> Thus superluminal velocities are a reality.
if you get a little faster then, say, .01 C the ship might just melt down
for the
interaction with the cosmic dust and the cosmic radiation; and with the
....ether.
In any case the absolute maximum speed is C, in vacuum.
regards
beda pietanza
beda pietanza
rryker1 <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message 3CDCE002...@fuse.net...
be careful,
your systems could be seen as
> 1 (A )-------(B ) at 0 C
> 2 (A1) (B1) at 0 C
> 3 (A)-----(B) << at - .5 C
then you would have system 3) contracting, how can you tell??
by the way, if you are a LET substainer have you got
the LET tranform at hand??
best regards
beda pietanza
rryker1
kenseto wrote:
Rod: And this does agree with SR.
But would not agree with LET.
> BTW are you trying to tell us
> that your example illustrates that there is no length contraction in SR? I
> can agree to that.
Rod: No, I am using LET and SR at their face values for comparison. :)
But, I also agree with you that lengths of objects do not contract.
LET would require matter in order for a length of
this matter to contract, as system 1.
No length contraction is possible of system 2 re LET.
SR does not care, both systems 1 and 2 will length contract,
or we may say contract between points in the dir of motion. :)
> The length of a rod remains the same in all frames of
> reference. However, the light path length of a rod will vary from frame to
> frame.
>
> Ken Seto
Rod: I must agree.
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Vertner Vergon
>
> "rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:3CDCE002...@fuse.net...
> > Hi Vertner
> >
> > Vertner Vergon wrote:
> >
> > > Vergon:
> > >
> > > When an observer in an inertial frame observes the time and
longitudinal
> > > length in a
> > > moving frame, due to the finite and invariable velocity of light (the
> > > messenger of his
> > > observations) he observes a distortion. The amount of this distortion
is
> > > displayed
> > > by the Lorentz/ Fitzgerald transformation.
> >
> > Rod: No sir, there is no length contraction.
> > There is no dilation of time.
Vergon:
I didn't say there was length contraction -- I said there was a distorted
*observation* of length. That observation shows the length as contracted
'though it's not. The operational word is "observation".
This is all generally accepted so I didn't think it was necessary to go
into a long dissertation. I was concentrating on the Lorentz transformation.
As to dilation of time, I have written many a post explaining there is no
such thing.
What I said above is that the observation of time was "distorted". The
normal
Doppler effect is distorted -- the amount being that of the Lorentz
transform.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
V.
Before you criticize my statement, look at your own.
It is not only cryptic but shows no logic or foundation.
And in addition it is off topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> > M&M showed Aether as being non static.
> > However, I think there is an Aether and
> > it's motion is chaotic, it's speed is faster than light.
> > This is _not_ my theory, but the one I think is correct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.
There is no such thing as aether -- so let it rest in peace.
I had one guy tell me about the function of the *surface tension*
of the aether!
The only use I found for it is I have it in my coffee every morning.
Does wonders for the liver.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rryker1
kenseto wrote:
Rod: Ken, I now see you are discussing
your theory as it applies to the transforms.
"light path length"
You are correct, we reacted too quickly.
What is your web site's URL ?
Regards,
Rod Ryker
rryker1
beda pietanza wrote:
Rod: Your example is not homogenous with my post.
If systems 2 and 3 were in relative motion wrt system 1,
then this would satisfy the relative motion parameters
of my example.
My example compares two systems in relative motion
wrt a rest system.
One system in motion is separated by a rod.
The other system in motion is separated by empty space.
SR says that both systems in motion will length contract.
LET says only the system with the rod will length contract.
Hence, LET and SR do not always agree.
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Vertner Vergon
"beda pietanza" <beda-p...@libero.it> wrote in message
news:uWbD8.44734$5k4.9...@twister2.libero.it...
>
> Vertner Vergon <Ver...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> uJ1D8.3052$Iy2.61...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > Vergon:
> >
> > When an observer in an inertial frame observes the time and longitudinal
> > length in a
> > moving frame, due to the finite and invariable velocity of light (the
> > messenger of his
> > observations) he observes a distortion. The amount of this distortion is
> > displayed
> > by the Lorentz/ Fitzgerald transformation.
>
> you are wrong here:
### NEVER say I am wrong!! (Vergon) :-) ###
> the Lorentz transformation respect to the Galilean
> Tranform introduces: 1) the apparent length contraction; 2) the apparent
> clock dilation; 3) the relativity of simultaneity.
> What you are trying to say is totally different:
Really?
> the distortion due to the
> transit time of light depends on the position of the observer
The "observer in an inertial frame" as stated above.
> and on the
> abs. speed of the source
"... observes...in a moving frame".
Can't you see you have merely restated my posit.
That means you didn't understand it in the first place.
As an aside, there is no such thing as "abs. speed".
All is relative or haven't you heard?
> > This is the same as Ken describes but in a different way.
> >
> > As an addendum, I would like to point out that a distorted *observation*
> of
> > length is
> > akin to a distorted observation of velocity.
> >
> > The fact that the velocity of light is c, is the cause of c being the
> > highest
> > velocity *observed*. But that does *not* mean that c is the highest
> velocity
> > attainable
> > by a system.
> >
> > Just as length becomes progressively shorter, so does the "actual"
> velocity
> > become
> > less -- *observationally*.
> >
> > That means as the Newtonian velocity goes to infinity, the *observed*
> > velocity goes
> > to c. So c as a limit is that of the *observation* only.
> >
> > Thus superluminal velocities are a reality.
>
> if you get a little faster then, say, .01 C the ship might just melt down
> for the
> interaction with the cosmic dust and the cosmic radiation; and with the
> ....ether.
There's no such thing as aether.
And as for "cosmic radiation"????
What planet did you get that kind of physics from?
Dust cloud, maybe. Anyway a laser beam
could clear the way.
> In any case the absolute maximum speed is C, in vacuum.
I just explained to you that speeds greater than c exist.
Vergon
> regards
>
> beda pietanza
>
>
>
kenseto
No it does not agree with SR. SR does not deal with light path length at
all. SR asserts that there is rod length contraction.
> But would not agree with LET.
In a way it agrees with LET. Physical rod length contraction is the same as
light path length increase.
>
> > BTW are you trying to tell us
> > that your example illustrates that there is no length contraction in SR?
I
> > can agree to that.
>
> Rod: No, I am using LET and SR at their face values for comparison.
:)
Then you interpret both incorrectly.
> But, I also agree with you that lengths of objects do not contract.
> LET would require matter in order for a length of
> this matter to contract, as system 1.
Same effect. Physical length contraction in LET is the same as light path
length increase.
Ken Seto
kenseto
rryker1
kenseto wrote:
Rod: Ken, I did not realize you were talking of your theory.
I jumped to a wrong conclusion.
My apologeeez.
>
> >
> > > BTW are you trying to tell us
> > > that your example illustrates that there is no length contraction in SR?
> I
> > > can agree to that.
> >
> > Rod: No, I am using LET and SR at their face values for comparison.
> :)
> Then you interpret both incorrectly.
Rod: How so?
>
> > But, I also agree with you that lengths of objects do not contract.
> > LET would require matter in order for a length of
> > this matter to contract, as system 1.
>
> Same effect. Physical length contraction in LET is the same as light path
> length increase.
>
> Ken Seto
Rod: I need to study your theory before I can comment.
Do you still have a web site with excerpts?
Regards,
Rod Ryker
rryker1
Vertner Vergon wrote:
Rod: My sincere apologies. I did not realize you too had
a theory you were sharing.
Do you have a web site explaining your theory?
Rod: OT yes.
Cryptic, no.
If you do not understand something, tell me,
I will elaborate.
But it is based upon SR and LET and _is_ just as
I demonstrate, sir.
>
> > > M&M showed Aether as being non static.
> > > However, I think there is an Aether and
> > > it's motion is chaotic, it's speed is faster than light.
> > > This is _not_ my theory, but the one I think is correct.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> V.
>
> There is no such thing as aether -- so let it rest in peace.
>
> I had one guy tell me about the function of the *surface tension*
> of the aether!
>
> The only use I found for it is I have it in my coffee every morning.
> Does wonders for the liver.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Rod: I am convinced there is an Aether and it is necessary.
But that is another thread. :)
Regards,
Rod Ryker
and...@attglobal.net
Take a look at any accepted text on SR.
LTs aren't used to relate "absolute times".
They also aren't used to calculate the "light path length of a
physical rod in the observed frame", whatever that may be.
These are products of Seto's fervid imagination.
John Anderson
Kees Roos
"rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> schreef in bericht
news:3CDCE002...@fuse.net...
> Rod: Consider three systems.
> Two that comove parallel.
> And one at rest.
>
> 1 (A )-------(B ) >.5c
> 2 (A1) (B1) >.5c
> 3 (Arest)-----(Brest)
>
> System 3 (at rest), observes both 1 and 2 propagating at .5c
> in 3's frame. System 1 is separated by a rod and system 2
> is _not_ and yet the same spacing is observed between
> both A's wrt both B's of systems 1 and 2, according to
> system 3's observations.
>
> According to SR, the length of system1 and
> system 2 will be equal as measured by system 3.
> According to LET, the length of system 1 will be
> shorter than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
>
> I know I'm a little non responsive to your post,
> but I couldn't resist this IMPORTANT info.
>
> As to your statement above, it is sUmwhat cryptic. ;)
>
> M&M showed Aether as being non static.
> However, I think there is an Aether and
> it's motion is chaotic, it's speed is faster than light.
> This is _not_ my theory, but the one I think is correct.
>
> Regards,
> Rod Ryker
>
1:> the same spacing is observed between
> both A's wrt both B's of systems 1 and 2, according to
> system 3's observations.
2:> According to LET, the length of system 1 will be
> shorter than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
Are you trying to tell me that:
when - in a stationary system a spacing l is observed between
two objects moving at equal velocities
then - according to LET the length between these two objects,
as measured in the stationary system, is different than l
?
Could you explain how the observation of the spacing between A
and B differs from the measurement of the length between A and B,
yielding different results?
--
regards, Kees Roos
Oriel36
The only reason that SR and its exotic offshoots exist is because it
is contrasted as a valid concept by people like yourself who adhere to
the same rules,same vocabulary and same everything as the SRist.I find
relativity is a charming smoke and mirrors concept but I strongly
oppose the deception that is foisted on those who have little
understanding of these things yet are expected to believe that the
aether/relativity debate is played out in a profound intellectual
atmosphere.
So it seems that discussing fine points of relativity can distract
from what really matters,how did a bunch of people hijack a once noble
tradition by using a methodology that is normally found in the
playground or the courtroom and present it to the public as
representative of the highest flights of thought ever seen on the
planet.
What has occured is that the study of nature has turned into a meal
ticket,however there will be desperate attempts to generate the
novelty that has existed for years on a public that has become jaded
and stopped listening, in fact the most outrageous pronouncements by
pubically visible scientists are now treated like those who walked
along with banners proclaiming the end of the world, the trouble is
that scientists may actually talk themselves into it.
Carry on Ken and make the SRist look good,after all that is your job.
mathnphy...@hotmail.com
On 10.5.02, 12.54.23, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote regarding
What Is The Purposes of Lorentz's Transformation??:
> The answers are as follows:
> 1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in
the
> observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the
observer's
> frame.
> 2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
> physical rod in the observed frame.
No. A Lorentz transformation is defined by mathematicians
as being a coordinate transformation such that lengths
in the manifold are preserved. In Relativity, the manifold
is the space of events. The Lorentz transformation
associated with Relativity is such that the lengths, as
defined by the constraints of the speed of light being
the same for all viewers, are preserved.
The length/time dilation formulas are a result of
the Lorentz transformation. To get them, you look
at colocal events for the time formula and cotemporal
events for the length contraction formula.
mathnphy...@hotmail.com
On 12.5.02, 8.38.15, geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote
regarding Re: What Is The Purposes of Lorentz's Transformation??:
[...]
> So it seems that discussing fine points of relativity can distract
> from what really matters,how did a bunch of people hijack a once noble
> tradition by using a methodology that is normally found in the
> playground or the courtroom and present it to the public as
> representative of the highest flights of thought ever seen on the
> planet.
Whoa. Bullys run the playground and most courtrooms
wouldn't know the truth if it were presented to them
in front of a judge. I for one relish in the fact that
science is not tainted by the piggish filthy corruption
so prevalent in other parts of our "noble" society.
> What has occured is that the study of nature has turned into a meal
> ticket,however there will be desperate attempts to generate the
Obviously you've never done real research. The "meal
ticket" usually only comes after you've proven your-
self, not during the "study of nature."
[...]
mathnphy...@hotmail.com
On 11.5.02, 7.35.40, "Etherman" <donk...@yahoo.com> wrote regarding Re:
> Might as well <blank> out the word "use" since Ken hasn't mastered the
> art of verb conjugation either.
Mmmm. I don't agree with everything that Ken Seto
has posted, but let's give the guy some kind of
break, since English is probably not his native
language. I can think of about 120+ languages in
this world that I haven't mastered either. [smile]
mathnphy...@hotmail.com
On 11.5.02, 14.21.39, "Vertner Vergon" <Ver...@prodigy.net> wrote
[...]
> Vergon:
> Never criticize unless you have something better to offer.
> So YOU "have a clue" --?
> What is it?
Funny, I seem to recall a statement similar to that
attributed to Jim Jones, while he was encouraging
everyone to drink Kool-Aid.
I seem to also recall some really bizarre criticisms
from a Vertner Vergon here and in other NGs about
5 years ago.
kenseto
<mathnphy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20020512...@mis.configured.host...
That's exactly what I said. See my response to Paul Andersen's post in this
thread.
Ken Seto
Oriel36
. I for one relish in the fact that
> science is not tainted by the piggish filthy corruption
> so prevalent in other parts of our "noble" society.
You have got to be kidding me !.
Paul Cardinale
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:64050551.0205...@posting.google.com...
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:<3cdbcb0e$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>...
> > > 1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in the
> > > observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the observer's
> > > frame.
> > > 2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
> > > physical rod in the observed frame.
> > >
> >
> > The errors here are due to the fact that the kenseto erroneously
> > believes that he knows the definitions the multisyllable words he
> > used.
> >
> > For fun, let's re-write it, blanking out the words beyond his
> > comprehension:
> >
> > Subject: What Is The <blank> of <blank> <blank>??
> > The <blank> are as <blank> :
> > 1. It is use by the <blank> to <blank> the clock time <blank> in the
> > <blank> frame for a <blank> <blank> of <blank> time in the <blank>
> > frame.
> > 2. It is use by the <blank> to <blank> the light path length of a
> > <blank> rod in the <blank> frame.
> >
> > This is the maximum level of coherance available from the kenseto.
>
> I'd also <blink> the monosyllably sounding words clock, time, frame,
> light, path, length and rod...
>
> Dirk Vdm
Which leads us to:
Subject: What Is The <blank> of <blank> <blank>??
The <blank> are as <blank> :
1. It is use by the <blank> to <blank> the <blank> <blank> <blank> in the
<blank> <blank> for a <blank> <blank> of <blank> <blank> in the <blank>
<blank> .
2. It is use by the <blank> to <blank> the <blank> <blank> <blank> of a
<blank> <blank> in the <blank> <blank>.
This is a very clear picture of kenseto's mind.
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:64050551.02051...@posting.google.com...
And let's not overlook the two grammatical errors that are
still there.
Dirk Vdm
rryker1
Kees Roos wrote:
Rod: I made a mistake, and thank you for bringing
this to our attention. :)
Systems 1 and 2 should observe their lengths as equal,
when comparing their lengths to each other.
> 2:> According to LET, the length of system 1 will be
> > shorter than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
Rod: This is correct, according to system 3.
> Are you trying to tell me that:
> when - in a stationary system a spacing l is observed between
> two objects moving at equal velocities
Rod: You must take my mistake above into consideration.
I can answer no more until you re study what I say,
and repost accordingly.
I apologize for temp. wasting your time. :)
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Kees Roos
Reformulation of your thought experiment, according to
your correction:
> Rod: Consider three systems.
> Two that comove parallel.
> And one at rest.
>
> 1 (A )-------(B ) >.5c
> 2 (A1) (B1) >.5c
> 3 (Arest)-----(Brest)
>
> System 3 (at rest), observes both 1 and 2 propagating at .5c
> in 3's frame. System 1 is separated by a rod and system 2
> is _not_.
> Systems 1 and 2 should observe their lengths as equal,
> when comparing their lengths to each other.
>
> According to SR, the length of system1 and
> system 2 will be equal as measured by system 3.
> According to LET, the length of system 1 will be
> shorter than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
>
> Regards,
> Rod Ryker
>
You state that SR and LET give different results in their
predictions of the lengths of systems 1 and 2 relative to
system 3.
You are wrong. SR and LET are equivalent in any prediction
they make.
Both SR and LET predict that systems 1 and 2 have equal
lengths as measured by system 3.
--
Regards, Kees Roos
Paul Cardinale
So we we examine only those words that he both knows the meaning of
and knows how to use, we have:
One noun: it
One verb: is
Five prepositions: by, for, in, of, to
Two articles: the, a
wow. That's nine words (averaging 2.11 letters/word)!
But I'm not sure we can give him credit for all nine; he might not
know what the meaning of "is" is.
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:64050551.02051...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<RgwE8.79855$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:64050551.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<qdXC8.68865$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > > > "Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:64050551.0205...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:<3cdbcb0e$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>...
> > > > > > The answers are as follows:
> > > > > > 1. It is use by the observer to determine the clock time reading in the
> > > > > > observed frame for a specific interval of absolute time in the observer's
> > > > > > frame.
> > > > > > 2. It is use by the observer to calculate the light path length of a
> > > > > > physical rod in the observed frame.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ken Seto
[snip]
>
> So we we examine only those words that he both knows the meaning of
> and knows how to use, we have:
> One noun: it
> One verb: is
> Five prepositions: by, for, in, of, to
> Two articles: the, a
> wow. That's nine words (averaging 2.11 letters/word)!
> But I'm not sure we can give him credit for all nine; he might not
> know what the meaning of "is" is.
>
> Paul Cardinale
Indeed.
Too bad that we can't google-verify his statements
anymore. None of the remaining words are indexed :-(
Dirk Vdm
rryker1
Kees Roos wrote:
> "rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> schreef in bericht
> news:3CE34014...@fuse.net...
>
> Reformulation of your thought experiment, according to
> your correction:
>
> > Rod: Consider three systems.
> > Two that comove parallel.
> > And one at rest.
> >
> > 1 (A )-------(B ) >.5c
> > 2 (A1) (B1) >.5c
> > 3 (Arest)-----(Brest)
> >
> > System 3 (at rest), observes both 1 and 2 propagating at .5c
> > in 3's frame. System 1 is separated by a rod and system 2
> > is _not_.
> > Systems 1 and 2 should observe their lengths as equal,
> > when comparing their lengths to each other.
> >
> > According to SR, the length of system1 and
> > system 2 will be equal as measured by system 3.
> > According to LET, the length of system 1 will be
> > shorter than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
>
> You state that SR and LET give different results in their
> predictions of the lengths of systems 1 and 2 relative to
> system 3.
>
Rod: Yes sir.
>
> You are wrong. SR and LET are equivalent in any prediction
> they make.
> Both SR and LET predict that systems 1 and 2 have equal
> lengths as measured by system 3.
> --
> Regards, Kees Roos
Rod: No sir, SR and LET do not.
LET requires matter for length to contract.
SR requires no matter for length contraction.
Can you think of an example where I'm correct?
Will you at _least_ try?
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Kees Roos
> Hi Kees
>
> Kees Roos wrote:
>
> > "rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> schreef in bericht
> > news:3CE34014...@fuse.net...
> >
> > Reformulation of your thought experiment, according to
> > your correction:
> >
> > > Rod: Consider three systems.
> > > Two that comove parallel.
> > > And one at rest.
> > >
> > > 1 (A )-------(B ) >.5c
> > > 2 (A1) (B1) >.5c
> > > 3 (Arest)-----(Brest)
> > >
> > > System 3 (at rest), observes both 1 and 2 propagating at .5c
> > > in 3's frame. System 1 is separated by a rod and system 2
> > > is _not_.
> > > Systems 1 and 2 should observe their lengths as equal,
> > > when comparing their lengths to each other.
> > >
> > > According to SR, the length of system1 and
> > > system 2 will be equal as measured by system 3.
> > > According to LET, the length of system 1 will be
> > > shorter than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
> >
> LET requires matter for length to contract.
> SR requires no matter for length contraction.
>
Could you show how you think the lengths as measured in
system 3 are calculated in LET, yielding different
results for the lengths of systems 1 and 2?
Then we could try to find out where we differ and maybe
settle which of the two of us is right.
> Can you think of an example where I'm correct?
> Will you at _least_ try?
>
Unfortunately I cannot. There is mathematical proof that
SR and LET are equivalent in their predictions, so any
example I could think of would give the same values for the
SR and LET results.
> Regards,
> Rod Ryker
>
--
Regards, Kees Roos
rryker1
Kees Roos wrote:
Rod: Why did you snip my correction to you where I
say that systems 1 and 2 will measure their lengths as
equal according to themselves?
Praps, you do not understand what you understood before.
Who knows, this is Usenet. :)
> > LET requires matter for length to contract.
> > SR requires no matter for length contraction.
> >
> So you state. Again I say you're wrong. Stalemate?
Rod: I say you're wrong, stalemate?
> Could you show how you think the lengths as measured in
> system 3 are calculated in LET, yielding different
> results for the lengths of systems 1 and 2?
>
Rod: No, because above you snipped my correction
to you which I amended of my mistake. ;)
You are merrily playing games.
Admit it. :):):)
> Then we could try to find out where we differ and maybe
> settle which of the two of us is right.
Rod: We are both correct because you ignore my position/words
and I do not ignore yours. :)
> > Can you think of an example where I'm correct?
> > Will you at _least_ try?
> >
> Unfortunately I cannot. There is mathematical proof that
> SR and LET are equivalent in their predictions, so any
> example I could think of would give the same values for the
> SR and LET results.
>
> Regards, Kees Roos
Rod: I do not think you understand English
wery vell. ;)
Please, try again sir.
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Kees Roos
I now quote from there:
1:
> > > > Reformulation of your thought experiment, according to
> > > > your correction:
> > > > > Systems 1 and 2 should observe their lengths as equal,
> > > > > when comparing their lengths to each other.
So, I did not just snip your correction, I incorporated it
in your own description of your experiment and deleted the
first version which you yourself declared wrong.
This removed an inconsistency in your experiment, so that
we could start to discuss your statement about your alleged
difference between SR and LET.
Consequently, in my subsequent post I did not ignore your
position/words, and did not merrily play games, because
I was discussing your amended experiment.
I repeat my comments in my previous post which I think
are relevant after all:
> LET requires matter for length to contract.
> SR requires no matter for length contraction.
>
So you state. Again I say you're wrong. Stalemate?
Could you show how you think the lengths as measured in
system 3 are calculated in LET, yielding different
results for the lengths of systems 1 and 2?
Then we could try to find out where we differ and maybe
settle which of the two of us is right.
[snip]
> > > Can you think of an example where I'm correct?
> > > Will you at _least_ try?
> > >
> > Unfortunately I cannot. There is mathematical proof that
> > SR and LET are equivalent in their predictions, so any
> > example I could think of would give the same values for the
> > SR and LET results.
> >
> > Regards, Kees Roos
>
> Rod: I do not think you understand English
> wery vell. ;)
>
Enlighten me, exactly what didn't I understand
wery vell (I did not understand that very well, did
you perhaps mean "very well"? If so I understand it
wery vell after all.)? ;-/
> Please, try again sir.
>
> Regards,
> Rod Ryker
>
--
Regards, Kees Roos
rryker1
Kees Roos wrote:
Rod: My apologeeeez sir.
>
> I repeat my comments in my previous post which I think
> are relevant after all:
>
> > LET requires matter for length to contract.
> > SR requires no matter for length contraction.
> >
> So you state. Again I say you're wrong. Stalemate?
Rod: Not here. :)
> Could you show how you think the lengths as measured in
> system 3 are calculated in LET, yielding different
> results for the lengths of systems 1 and 2?
> Then we could try to find out where we differ and maybe
> settle which of the two of us is right.
Rod: Yes, I could if it were relevant.
But since system 2 has no matter to contract,
it cannot length contract. Unless, the Lorentz Ether length contracts
the Lorentz Ether. Is this your claim?
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Kees Roos
> Hi Kees
[snip]
I clean up a bit, to make things more readeable.
> Rod: Consider three systems.
> Two that comove parallel.
> And one at rest.
>
> 1 (A )-------(B ) >.5c
> 2 (A1) (B1) >.5c
> 3 (Arest)-----(Brest)
>
> System 3 (at rest), observes both 1 and 2 propagating at .5c
> in 3's frame. System 1 is separated by a rod and system 2
> is _not_.
> Systems 1 and 2 should observe their lengths as equal,
> when comparing their lengths to each other.
>
> According to SR, the length of system1 and
> system 2 will be equal as measured by system 3.
> According to LET, the length of system 1 will be
> shorter than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
>
[snip]
> > Could you show how you think the lengths as measured in
> > system 3 are calculated in LET, yielding different
> > results for the lengths of systems 1 and 2?
> > Then we could try to find out where we differ and maybe
> > settle which of the two of us is right.
>
> Rod: Yes, I could if it were relevant.
>
Isn't this just a tiny little bit evasive?
When you could if you think it were relevant then of course
you can also if you think it is not relevant. So, you think
you can anyway. You just decided not to do so.
Essentially you state that:
1:According to LET, the length of system 1 will be shorter
than the length of system 2 as measured by system 3.
2:How LET calculates that is irrelevant in a discussion where
your first statement is challenged.
I doubt very much that I can get you to show your calculation
so to get out of our little stalemate, I shall show you how I
think LET calculates the lengths of systems 1 and 2 as measured
by system 3.
In fact I reverse my proposed procedure; you can now show me
where I go wrong instead of me discussing your calculation.
For simplicity's sake I calculate the case where sytem 3 is
stationary relative to the ether frame. The case where system 3
is not stationary relative to the ether frame is more elaborate
but, unsurprisingly to me and probably surprisingly to you, yields
the same result. (if you insist I will show you, but only after
we have agreement on this case)
Let's call system 1's length as measured in system 1 L1 and
system 2's length as measured in system 1 L2'
Let's call system 2's length as measured in system 2 L2 and
system 1's length as measured in system 2 L1''
Let's call system 1's length as measured in system 3 L1''' and
system 2's length as measured in system 3 L2'''
System 1 observes that L1 = L2' (defined)
System 2 observes that L2 = L1'' (defined)
This implies that when A1 and A2 coincide then also B1 and B2 do so,
and consequently L1 = L2 = L2' = L1'' (1)
Next we have to establish the lengths L1''' and L2''',
according to LET's predictions.
Measuring the length of a moving object constitutes two
simultaneous spatial measurements of the two ends of the
object.
The simplest case is when system 3 measures the lengths at time
0, when A, A1 and A3 coincide. Again, other times are equally
valid, only more elaborate.
According to LET (inverse Lorentz transformation),
L1''' = sqrt(1 - .5^2)(L1 + .5 * 0) - sqrt(1 - .5^2)(0 + .5 * 0)
= .86603 * L1
L2''' = sqrt(1 - .5^2)(L2 + .5 * 0) - sqrt(1 - .5^2)(0 + .5 * 0)
= .86603 * L2
According to (1), L1 = L2, so
L1''' = .86603 * L1 = .86603 * L2 = L2'''
L1''' = L2''' means that the lengths of systems 1 and 2 as measured
by system 3 are equal.
This contradicts your statement. Now please tell me where I went wrong.
> But since system 2 has no matter to contract,
> it cannot length contract.
>
Matter is not mentioned anywhere in the Lorentz transformation, only
spacetime coordinates of events relative to relatively moving inertial
frames as a function of the speed between the frames.
So, matter does not matter.
> Unless, the Lorentz Ether length contracts
> the Lorentz Ether. Is this your claim?
>
I don't understand this wery vell, so I can't say if it is my claim. :-)
> Regards,
> Rod Ryker
[snip]
rryker1
Kees Roos wrote:
Rod: We disagree where Lorentz determines that
LET does not require matter for a **length contraction**
to be observed.
I say matter is required, you say no.
Enlighten me sir, as to what publication and SPECIFIC
quote _OF_ Lorentz's that support your claims where
Lorentz states no matter is required for **length contraction** .
Regards,
Rod Ryker
Kees Roos
> Hi Kees
>
> Kees Roos wrote:
>
> > According to LET (inverse Lorentz transformation),
> > L1''' = sqrt(1 - .5^2)(L1 + .5 * 0) - sqrt(1 - .5^2)(0 + .5 * 0)
> > = .86603 * L1
> > L2''' = sqrt(1 - .5^2)(L2 + .5 * 0) - sqrt(1 - .5^2)(0 + .5 * 0)
> > = .86603 * L2
> >
> > According to (1), L1 = L2, so
> > L1''' = .86603 * L1 = .86603 * L2 = L2'''
> >
> > L1''' = L2''' means that the lengths of systems 1 and 2 as measured
> > by system 3 are equal.
> > This contradicts your statement. Now please tell me where I went wrong.
> >
mean that you have found no error in it? So, you agree that LET
predicts that L1''' = L2'''?
It contradicts your statement. If you don't show any error in it,
that means you agree with me that your statement is wrong.
> > > But since system 2 has no matter to contract,
> > > it cannot length contract.
> > >
> > Matter is not mentioned anywhere in the Lorentz transformation, only
> > spacetime coordinates of events relative to relatively moving inertial
> > frames as a function of the speed between the frames.
> > So, matter does not matter.
[snip]
> Rod: We disagree where Lorentz determines that
> LET does not require matter for a **length contraction**
> to be observed.
> I say matter is required, you say no.
> Enlighten me sir, as to what publication and SPECIFIC
> quote _OF_ Lorentz's that support your claims where
> Lorentz states no matter is required for **length contraction** .
>
I don't know any such quote. That does not imply that you are
right, neither does the fact that you will be unable to give
any such quote that you didn't kill J.F. Kennedy imply that
you did kill him.
On the other hand, your statement would gain credibility if
you could point to any publication and SPECIFIC quote
_OF_Lorentz's that support your claims where Lorentz states
matter is required for **length contraction**. That would
imply that you are right.
> Regards,
> Rod Ryker
>
Regards, Kees Roos
rryker1
Kees Roos wrote:
> "rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> schreef in bericht
> news:3CE8587C...@fuse.net...
> > Hi Kees
> >
> > Kees Roos wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > > According to LET (inverse Lorentz transformation),
> > > L1''' = sqrt(1 - .5^2)(L1 + .5 * 0) - sqrt(1 - .5^2)(0 + .5 * 0)
> > > = .86603 * L1
> > > L2''' = sqrt(1 - .5^2)(L2 + .5 * 0) - sqrt(1 - .5^2)(0 + .5 * 0)
> > > = .86603 * L2
> > >
> > > According to (1), L1 = L2, so
> > > L1''' = .86603 * L1 = .86603 * L2 = L2'''
> > >
> > > L1''' = L2''' means that the lengths of systems 1 and 2 as measured
> > > by system 3 are equal.
> > > This contradicts your statement. Now please tell me where I went wrong.
> > >
> Does the fact that you don't in any way comment on my calculation
> mean that you have found no error in it? So, you agree that LET
> predicts that L1''' = L2'''?
> It contradicts your statement. If you don't show any error in it,
> that means you agree with me that your statement is wrong.
Rod: What can one say, it is the work of Kees. :)
> > > > But since system 2 has no matter to contract,
> > > > it cannot length contract.
> > > >
> > > Matter is not mentioned anywhere in the Lorentz transformation, only
> > > spacetime coordinates of events relative to relatively moving inertial
> > > frames as a function of the speed between the frames.
> > > So, matter does not matter.
> [snip]
> > Rod: We disagree where Lorentz determines that
> > LET does not require matter for a **length contraction**
> > to be observed.
> > I say matter is required, you say no.
> > Enlighten me sir, as to what publication and SPECIFIC
> > quote _OF_ Lorentz's that support your claims where
> > Lorentz states no matter is required for **length contraction** .
> >
> I don't know any such quote. That does not imply that you are
> right, neither does the fact that you will be unable to give
> any such quote that you didn't kill J.F. Kennedy imply that
> you did kill him.
>
> On the other hand, your statement would gain credibility if
> you could point to any publication and SPECIFIC quote
> _OF_Lorentz's that support your claims where Lorentz states
> matter is required for **length contraction**. That would
> imply that you are right.
Rod: Ahh, this is certainly the work of Roos. :)
Welcome to the theatre of pain... <G>
Dunke,