Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR
Martin Miller
Given two clocks (in the same standard inertial reference
frame) which have been related per Einstein's definition of
clock synchronization, let one clock be at the frame's origin,
and let the other be some arbitrary distance away. We know
that whenever the origin clock reads some time, the other
clock must read something. Mathematically speaking, if the
origin clock reads T, then the other clock must read a time
that is >T, <T, or = T.
Case I
If the distant clock reading is >T or <T, then the two clocks
would not be synchronous (in the true sense of the word).
Thus, Einstein's clocks would be improperly related.
Case II
If the distant clock reading = T, then the two clocks would be
(absolutely) synchronous, but this is disallowed by Einstein's
basal dictum that simultaneity is merely relative.
Either way, Einstein loses, and mere simple math wipes out SR.
(Either SR's clocks are incorrectly related, or Einstein's basis
for SR - his relativity of simultaneity - is invalid.)
QED
Addendum A
Astute readers of Einstein's 1905 relativity paper will have
noticed the following dire discrepancy: Even though Einstein
showed us mathematically _how_ to set two clocks in the same
frame, he failed to show us how they _are_ set (after the
application of his definition. In other words, despite the
mathematical _precision_ of his clock-setting procedure,
Einstein either did not know or did not want us to know the
end result, i.e., the clocks' actual temporal relationship.
This is a very serious sin of omission on Einstein's part
because it is impossible to properly assess or even understand
his definition of clock synchronization unless we are given
the clocks' temporal relationship (at least in general math
terms).
Addendum B
Of course, Einstein's sin of omission had to be paid for,
and it was via the above deadly dichotomy.
"signed, sealed and delivered" by MM
Mike Varney
"Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com...
> -------------Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR--------------
<SNIP Tons of shit>
> "signed, sealed and delivered" by MM
Not sealed very well since we can still smell it.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> Case I
> If the distant clock reading is >T or <T, then the two clocks
> would not be synchronous (in the true sense of the word).
> Thus, Einstein's clocks would be improperly related.
>
> Case II
> If the distant clock reading = T, then the two clocks would be
> (absolutely) synchronous, but this is disallowed by Einstein's
> basal dictum that simultaneity is merely relative.
What would you conclude if you requested the distant clock to report its
time, and it reported back the time was always: time_of_receipt -
(arbitrary_distance / c)? Assume only that the "processing and formatting
of request" by the remote clock takes no time...
Either Case I or II could be true, and we'll never know which it is.
Live with it.
David A. Smith
Jan Bielawski
> -------------Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR--------------
>
> Given two clocks (in the same standard inertial reference
> frame) which have been related per Einstein's definition of
> clock synchronization, let one clock be at the frame's origin,
> and let the other be some arbitrary distance away. We know
> that whenever the origin clock reads some time, the other
> clock must read something. Mathematically speaking, if the
> origin clock reads T, then the other clock must read a time
> that is >T, <T, or = T.
>
> Case I
> If the distant clock reading is >T or <T, then the two clocks
> would not be synchronous (in the true sense of the word).
> Thus, Einstein's clocks would be improperly related.
>
> Case II
> If the distant clock reading = T, then the two clocks would be
> (absolutely) synchronous, but this is disallowed by Einstein's
> basal dictum that simultaneity is merely relative.
>
> Either way, Einstein loses, and mere simple math wipes out SR.
> (Either SR's clocks are incorrectly related, or Einstein's basis
> for SR - his relativity of simultaneity - is invalid.)
> QED
Hahahahaha! Wish life was that easy...
Jan Bielawski
Martin Hogbin
>
> Given two clocks (in the same standard inertial reference
> frame) which have been related per Einstein's definition of
> clock synchronization, let one clock be at the frame's origin,
> and let the other be some arbitrary distance away. We know
> that whenever the origin clock reads some time, the other
> clock must read something. Mathematically speaking, if the
> origin clock reads T, then the other clock must read a time
> that is >T, <T, or = T.
If the clocks are in the same inertial frame they will always
agree.
> Case I
> If the distant clock reading is >T or <T,
This is not the case.
> Case II
> If the distant clock reading = T, then the two clocks would be
> (absolutely) synchronous, but this is disallowed by Einstein's
> basal dictum that simultaneity is merely relative.
Not for clocks in the same frame. You clearly have no
understanding of the subject that you purport to criticise.
> Either way, Einstein loses, and mere simple math wipes out SR.
> (Either SR's clocks are incorrectly related, or Einstein's basis
> for SR - his relativity of simultaneity - is invalid.)
> QED
Quick reality check: how do you suppose that this basic
and obvious mistake has gone unnoticed by many thousands
of physicists for nearly a century?
Martin Hogbin
Paul B. Andersen
I have seen quite a few naive attempts to prove SR inconsistent.
I think this beats them all! :-)
Paul
HenriWilson
Unfortunately the SRians can easily squash this argument. Einstein was
perfectly aware that E-synching is not 'true-synching'. His method was a
'fiddle' that allowed him to concoct a theory which fluked a few
approximately correct answers and thus fooled the whole physics
establishment until usenet appeared.
As I have pointed out before, to no avail, the use of a 'Wilsonian frame of
reference' is the only legitimate way to measure true space/time effects.
My rest frame contains an infinite 3D grid of perfect clocks that were
presynched before being transported into position.
All measurements are done by the clocks which subsequently relay the
information to me. This process effectively provides instantaneous
measurement throughout the universe.
Note: I cannot check that the clocks are in synch. It is presumed on the
basis that there is no reason why they should have gone out of synch.
Henri Wilson.
Philosopher
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Marco Nelissen
> My rest frame contains an infinite 3D grid of perfect clocks that were
> presynched before being transported into position.
> All measurements are done by the clocks which subsequently relay the
> information to me. This process effectively provides instantaneous
> measurement throughout the universe.
>
> Note: I cannot check that the clocks are in synch. It is presumed on the
> basis that there is no reason why they should have gone out of synch.
And after "presynching" the clocks, how do you get them to their
final destination? Surely that involves some kind of movement? And
you think that movement (think "velocity") is no reason for them
to go out of sync? Suppose you manage to sync them all in their
rest-frame though, what do you hope to achieve with this? What
measurement does your clock-grid allow you to perform that a single
clock does not allow you to perform?
Jan Bielawski
news:<8grmpuki49ubmbsjp...@4ax.com>...
> Einstein was
> perfectly aware that E-synching is not 'true-synching'. His method was a
> 'fiddle' that allowed him to concoct a theory which fluked a few
> approximately correct answers and thus fooled the whole physics
> establishment until usenet appeared.
HAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha! Unbelievable. That adults would say things like
this is mindboggling. Hee hee... "Fooled the whole physics
establishment", that's hilarious. Like you would have a clue.
Jan Bielawski
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jan Bielawski" <j...@nostalghia.com> wrote in message news:db455fa2.02100...@posting.google.com...
Nice:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#FiddleFluke
Dirk Vdm
Jan Bielawski
> Nice:
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#FiddleFluke
Your web site is just too much! Thanks for all the effort you are putting into it.
Jan Bielawski
Dirk Van de moortel
Thanks and @your service.
The process of inserting a fumble does not take much effort though...
just a minute or so. I did put a bit more time in writing the little program
that helps me doing so. Since the page is growing in size, sooner or
later I'll have to review the design and the storage system. That'll take
some more effort... I love this kind of effort ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
I echo that.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Miller
Laughter may be good for the soul, but it is not all that
useful for physics.
I challenge Jan (or any other believer in SR as a scientific
theory) to "put his money where his mouth is" by simply showing
us mathematically how Einstein's clocks are set.
Unless and until this is done, no one can properly judge
SR because all its results are based on the use of Einstein's
definition of clock synchronization.
Jan's mission, should he decide to accept it (and judging from
his belly laugh above, I feel that he must), is to mathematically
show the temporal relationship between any two Einsteinian clocks
in one and the same frame.
MM
Arfur Dogfrey
before they try to give the answers. It would save a lot
of sillyness.
mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) wrote in message news:<a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com>...
HenriWilson
Physical properties DO NOT change with velocity. Ask any good SRian. (is
that a contradiction of terms).
If you don't believe them, see the demo "contractions.exe" on my website.
The clocks in the grid all remain in true synch. There is no reason why
they should go out of synch.
HenriWilson
The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and truly
refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened few
against the brainwashed majority.
Jan Bielawski
> The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and truly
> refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened few
> against the brainwashed majority.
You are an ignorant fool. Educate yourself and stop fantasising about
some nonexistent infantile "brainwashings" and "true refutations" - I
understand that in the absence of knowledge of the facts it's the only
thing you have to cling onto but I would normally expect an adult to
recognise these as mirages and wishful thinking that they are.
Jan Bielawski
HenriWilson
They wouldn't know how to.
I told them the answer months ago but they couldn't even understand what I
was talking about.
Einstein obviously believed in a Aether when he concocted his theory. But
he made it redundant by synching clocks according to his definition.
>
>MM
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
HenriWilson
Being ridiculed by an SRian is a most satisfying experience.
I would hate to be supported by anyone with such a closed mind.
>
> Jan Bielawski
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
Jan Bielawski
news:<840vpu0aidm5p4q6c...@4ax.com>...
> On 4 Oct 2002 19:30:34 -0700, j...@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
news:<g92spu45o148adkvc...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and
truly
> >> refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened
few
> >> against the brainwashed majority.
> >
> >You are an ignorant fool. Educate yourself and stop fantasising about
> >some nonexistent infantile "brainwashings" and "true refutations" - I
> >understand that in the absence of knowledge of the facts it's the only
> >thing you have to cling onto but I would normally expect an adult to
> >recognise these as mirages and wishful thinking that they are.
>
> Being ridiculed by an SRian is a most satisfying experience.
This is not ridicule. You actually, really, do not know enough physics
to state with clear conscience the things you say. The only excuse is
the innocence of ignorance. But that excuse is normally reserved for
people who are too young to know otherwise. In an adult this sort of
insane chatter is puzzling and a bit revolting.
People like you have the luxury of being able to pick and choose a
fragment of the entire field (some paradox in relativity or quantum
mechanics, say) and start pulling it apart. It's the easiest thing in
the world - provided you have no knowledge of (or simply do not care)
about all the interconnections. Especially if the fragmentary
knowledge you choose happens to be technically unusually undemanding
(like SR). Scientists, OTOH, cannot afford that luxury: they are all
too aware of the many dependencies and connections within their domain
of study of which you haven't the faintest idea. That's how it is in
life: there is no free lunch. Unless you do your homework, you won't
know the stuff. It's as simple as that.
> I would hate to be supported by anyone with such a closed mind.
You know nothing about my mind, plus you are particularly unsuited to
declare anything about its closedness. You simply do not know enough
to be able to tell a closed mind from an open one.
Jan Bielawski
Martin Miller
> On 4 Oct 2002 10:44:17 -0700, mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) wrote:
>
> >j...@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote in message news:<db455fa2.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> >> He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
> >> news:<8grmpuki49ubmbsjp...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> > Einstein was
> >> > perfectly aware that E-synching is not 'true-synching'.
> >> > His method was a 'fiddle' that allowed him to concoct a
> >> > theory which fluked a few approximately correct answers
> >> > and thus fooled the whole physics establishment until
> >> > usenet appeared.
> >>
> >> HAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha! Unbelievable. That adults would say things like
> >> this is mindboggling. Hee hee... "Fooled the whole physics
> >> establishment", that's hilarious. Like you would have a clue.
> >>
> >> Jan Bielawski
[snip some MM stuff]
[MM wrote:]
> >Jan's mission, should he decide to accept it (and judging from
> >his belly laugh above, I feel that he must), is to mathematically
> >show the temporal relationship between any two Einsteinian clocks
> >in one and the same frame.
>
> They wouldn't know how to.
> I told them the answer months ago but they couldn't even understand
> what I was talking about.
>
Your blunder, Henri, was improper debating; one must always
place the burden of proof upon one's opponent's shoulders
(if it does indeed belong there, as it does in this case).
This is why I challenged the SR folk to show how Einstein's
clocks are set. Your telling them does no good because then
they can reply however they want to, leaving the burden of
proof upon you.
Here is the picture I am painting:
The relativists have made a claim.
They have claimed to have the proper definition for setting
clocks. They have even stated this procedure mathematically.
However, the failed to state the end result of this process;
i.e., they failed to say how their clocks are set. Clearly,
this is improper science; indeed, vagueness is a crime in
physics, and the relativists omitted the most important step.
I demand to see two clocks on paper reading exactly whatever
Einstein's silly definition says they should read.
Heck, I'll even be helpful by giving the "enemy" 50 percent
of the solution; i.e., I'll say that the left clock reading
is zero.
Now all they have to do is fill in one blank.
And given that most relativists are up to their nerdy necks
in math, this should be a piece of bloody cake!
But I know why it will never happen; they cannot fill in that
critical blank because that simple act would totally destroy
special relativity.
Why?
Well, as I am sure you know, Henri, the math formula that
must be placed in that blank area is simply xS/c^2; it may
appear benign, but that S is a major problem for the relativist
because it is not one of Einstein's mere relative speeds, but is
instead a speed through space.
Einstein explicitly stated that there is no meaning to the notion
of motion through space, and he went on to state that the only
sort of motion which physicists could discuss is the mere relative
movement of one inertial ref. frame relative to another.
However, as his own definition of clock synchronization shows (even
though not in any relativity books of course), motion through space is
certainly a physically meaningful notion.
> Einstein obviously believed in a Aether when he concocted his theory.
> But he made it redundant by synching clocks according to his definition.
>
> Henri Wilson.
> Technologist.
Although the standard luminiferous aether cannot exist, such an aether
is irrelevant to both relativists and nonrelativists; all that matters
is motion wrt the universe as a whole (or, equivalently, relative to
the fixed-in-space emission point of any light ray).
In case you are interested, here is why there can be no aether:
If there were an aether, then light emitted from a moving source
would instantly enter that aether, and would therefore "break free"
from the source's influence, and would therefore not be "bent by" the
source's motion; however, experiment shows that light's motion direction
is indeed affected by the motion of the source, so there can be no aether.
(For example, if I aim a flashlight down a long tube, then the light will
always travel all the way through the tube along its center regardless of
the motion of the tube and the source through space. If there were an
aether, then the light would become aether waves at the instant of
emission, and the source and tube would move on through space, leaving
the light waves behind. Then of course the light waves would crash into
the tube wall and never again see the light of day.)(In other words, the
result of the directional Michelson-Morley experiment is nonnull.)
But not having an aether is no problem because what we really need
to relate to is light itself, as I hinted at above.
Why? Well, as Lorentz hinted, the fundamental processes of space time
physics (clock rhythm, ruler length, and mass) vary, but they do not
vary with speed wrt the aether, but simply with speed wrt the universe
(or to, as I said, the fixed-in-space emission point of light).
I say this because I see that we cannot have absolute motion detection
because we cannot prove that the universe as a whole is motionless.
(Note that this defect would remain even with an aether because the
aether would have to move along with the universe of course.)
Now we can see even more clearly why the relativists dare not
publicize Einstein's clocks' relationship!
But no scientific theory can be properly judged unless its
critical details are given explicitly.
MM
Bilge
Re: Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR to usenet:
>On 4 Oct 2002 19:30:34 -0700, j...@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:
>
>>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<g92spu45o148adkvc...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>> The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and truly
>>> refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened few
>>> against the brainwashed majority.
>>
>>You are an ignorant fool. Educate yourself and stop fantasising about
>>some nonexistent infantile "brainwashings" and "true refutations" - I
>>understand that in the absence of knowledge of the facts it's the only
>>thing you have to cling onto but I would normally expect an adult to
>>recognise these as mirages and wishful thinking that they are.
>
>Being ridiculed by an SRian is a most satisfying experience.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Bringing down SR by proving that photons are not all identical is hardly
crap, Bilgey.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:g92spu45o148adkvc...@4ax.com...
> The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and truly
> refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened few
> against the brainwashed majority.
Considering what those "enlightened few" have written on those pages,
this posting of yours show that there is no accident that you are
one of them.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:8q81quc9bsjtefclm...@4ax.com...
You can always be confident that Henry Wilson will give
a response which illustrates your point. :-)
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:ans4n1$8m$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Quite indeed ;-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BestSeller
Dirk Vdm
Edward Green
> -------------Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR--------------
>
> Given two clocks (in the same standard inertial reference
> frame) which have been related per Einstein's definition of
> clock synchronization, let one clock be at the frame's origin,
> and let the other be some arbitrary distance away. We know
> that whenever the origin clock reads some time, the other
> clock must read something. Mathematically speaking, if the
> origin clock reads T, then the other clock must read a time
> that is >T, <T, or = T.
You are already making the mistake of thinking that "whenever", i.e.
"simultaneously", has some obvious meaning.
> Case I
> If the distant clock reading is >T or <T, then the two clocks
> would not be synchronous (in the true sense of the word).
The "true" sense of the word?
> Thus, Einstein's clocks would be improperly related.
Perverted chronologs!
> Case II
> If the distant clock reading = T, then the two clocks would be
> (absolutely) synchronous, but this is disallowed by Einstein's
> basal dictum that simultaneity is merely relative.
Your thought gibberish is truly breathtaking. It is a thing of
misbegotten beauty. If the clocks are synchronized according to some
operational definition of synchronization, then they are "absolutely"
synchronized (says who?), and hence "destroy relativity".
> Either way, Einstein loses, and mere simple math wipes out SR.
> (Either SR's clocks are incorrectly related, or Einstein's basis
> for SR - his relativity of simultaneity - is invalid.)
Thank you for confining your drivel to sci.physics.relativity, where
it may be destroyed by enzymatic action without polluting the
remainder of the net.
HenriWilson
that page is very close to being defamatory.
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
HenriWilson
Well of course some of the people mentioned there do say some strange
things at times. However when one considers that we thinkers are probing
new ground all the time, in contrast to the SRian practice of never
venturing beyond what is written in the texts, it is not surprising that
some novel ideas DO turn out to be rather amusing.
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
HenriWilson
Why don't you answer his question then.
It isn't all that difficult you know.
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> Well of course some of the people mentioned there do say some strange
> things at times. However when one considers that we thinkers are probing
> new ground all the time, in contrast to the SRian practice of never
> venturing beyond what is written in the texts, it is not surprising that
> some novel ideas DO turn out to be rather amusing.
You're about as pompous as Hammond was...
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:fvq4qu0tmcpn0hga9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:03:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:g92spu45o148adkvc...@4ax.com...
> >> The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and truly
> >> refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened few
> >> against the brainwashed majority.
> >
> >Considering what those "enlightened few" have written on those pages,
> >this posting of yours show that there is no accident that you are
> >one of them.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> Well of course some of the people mentioned there do say some strange
> things at times.
At times?
Show me one that is not strange and I will remove it immediately.
> However when one considers that we thinkers are probing
> new ground all the time,
New ground. You can say that again ;-)
> in contrast to the SRian practice of never
> venturing beyond what is written in the texts,
Exactly which texts have you studied?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:ltq4qu8f3bfn06crv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:48:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:ans4n1$8m$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> >>
> >> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:g92spu45o148adkvc...@4ax.com...
> >> > The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and truly
> >> > refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened few
> >> > against the brainwashed majority.
> >>
> >> Considering what those "enlightened few" have written on those pages,
> >> this posting of yours show that there is no accident that you are
> >> one of them.
> >
> >Quite indeed ;-)
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BestSeller
>
> that page is very close to being defamatory.
Absolutely impossible.
Besides, it is partly *your* page ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:ltq4qu8f3bfn06crv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:48:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:ans4n1$8m$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> >>
> >> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:g92spu45o148adkvc...@4ax.com...
> >> > The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and truly
> >> > refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened few
> >> > against the brainwashed majority.
> >>
> >> Considering what those "enlightened few" have written on those pages,
> >> this posting of yours show that there is no accident that you are
> >> one of them.
> >
> >Quite indeed ;-)
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BestSeller
>
> that page is very close to being defamatory.
I can understand your feelings.
If I had written what you have written in a public medium,
and someone had published that in a public medium,
I would indeed have been very offended.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:fvq4qu0tmcpn0hga9...@4ax.com...
The ground you are probing is quite obviously new and unknown to you,
with a mind uncontaminated by written knowledge.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:69r4quo12gogqcgdj...@4ax.com...
And what is the question that isn't difficult?
This thinker is probing new ground, you know.
It is not surprising that his novel ideas DO turn
out to be rather amusing.
Paul
Robert Kolker
HenriWilson wrote:
> Well of course some of the people mentioned there do say some strange
> things at times. However when one considers that we thinkers are probing
> new ground all the time, in contrast to the SRian practice of never
> venturing beyond what is written in the texts, it is not surprising that
> some novel ideas DO turn out to be rather amusing.
Dirac "ventured beyond what is written in the texts" when he correct
quantum mechanics to take into accoutn relativistic effects. One of the
useful consequences of this correction was the prediction of
anti-matter. A year after he published, Anderson found the positive
electron or positron.
Bob Kolker
Edward Green
...
> Why don't you answer his question then.
> It isn't all that difficult you know.
I have reviewd the post I was responding to, and I don't see anything
in the form of a question. I don't actually even see a mark of
interrogation.
What question are you referring to?
Jan Bielawski
> However when one considers that we thinkers
Does this mean we are non-thinkers?
> are probing new ground all the time,
New to you. Those who actually study these things have been there
decades ago.
> in contrast to the SRian practice of never
> venturing beyond what is written in the texts,
And where did you get that idea from? Obviously, if a text says
"2+2=4", I am not going to "venture beyond what is written" - it would
be nonsensical.
But then this is one of the standard claims of the blissfully ignorant
and proud of it: since they themselves are unable (for whatever
reason) to learn the stuff, the only road left open to them is to
declare any such knowledge unimportant, and to claim that all those
who do possess it are unable to go beyond written texts, and are
repeating (or "regurgitating" - the standard crank usage) what they
have been taught at school, etc. etc.
All of the above betrays at once a lack of understanding of what
research in mathematics or physics is really like and in what way
creative thinking enters the picture. But then what can you expect
when Hollywood constantly presents laughingly naive and completely
unreal picture of science and scientists, even in films pretending to
make sure science is shown realistically.
Jan Bielawski
Bilge
Re: Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR to usenet:
>
>> ltq4qu8f3bfn06crv...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:48:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>
>> that page is very close to being defamatory.
>
>Absolutely impossible.
About the only way to defame henry is to say he knows what he's
talking about.
>Besides, it is partly *your* page ;-)
>
Don't forget - If you ever turn that almost defamatory page into a book,
defamatory or otherwise, I want a signed copy.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnaq6if...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
[snip]
> Don't forget - If you ever turn that almost defamatory page into a book,
> defamatory or otherwise, I want a signed copy.
I won't forget.
Paul will get a free copy for his recent work with Seto.
And of course, Ralph Rabbidge gets a free copy too.
If anyone deserves a free copy, it must be Ralph Rabbidge.
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Dirk Van de moortel said some stuff about
>Re: Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR to usenet:
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:
> >> ltq4qu8f3bfn06crv...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:48:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> >>
> >> that page is very close to being defamatory.
> >
> >Absolutely impossible.
>
> About the only way to defame henry is to say he knows what he's
>talking about.
That's more than you do Bilgey.
>
> >Besides, it is partly *your* page ;-)
> >
>
> Don't forget - If you ever turn that almost defamatory page into a book,
>defamatory or otherwise, I want a signed copy.
>
HenriWilson
hello! We have a new contributor here. Welcome m4rcone.
HenriWilson
I can only assume taht most of the SRians here got their entire education
from Hollywood.
>
> Jan Bielawski
HenriWilson
Derive the equation for the difference between E-synched clocks and
true-synched ones.
David Evens
>On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:48:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
><dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:ans4n1$8m$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>>>
>>> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:g92spu45o148adkvc...@4ax.com...
>>> > The book of fumbles will be a best seller when SR has been well and truly
>>> > refuted. It will become a memorial to the struggle by the enlightened few
>>> > against the brainwashed majority.
>>>
>>> Considering what those "enlightened few" have written on those pages,
>>> this posting of yours show that there is no accident that you are
>>> one of them.
>>
>>Quite indeed ;-)
>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BestSeller
>
>that page is very close to being defamatory.
Telling the TRUTH about you is DEFAMATORY?
>Henri Wilson.
>Delusionist.
>
>See my erroneous animations at:
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
David Evens
>On 8 Oct 2002 16:47:18 -0400, ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge)
>wrote:
>>Dirk Van de moortel said some stuff about
>>Re: Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR to usenet:
>> >
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:
>> >> ltq4qu8f3bfn06crv...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:48:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> >>
>> >> that page is very close to being defamatory.
>> >
>> >Absolutely impossible.
>>
>> About the only way to defame henry is to say he knows what he's
>>talking about.
>
>That's more than you do Bilgey.
Of course it is. Bilge NEVER says that you know what you're talking
about.
>> >Besides, it is partly *your* page ;-)
>> >
>>
>> Don't forget - If you ever turn that almost defamatory page into a book,
>>defamatory or otherwise, I want a signed copy.
>>
>
>
>Henri Wilson.
Randy Poe
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:48:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Quite indeed ;-)
>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BestSeller
>
>
> that page is very close to being defamatory.
Can you explain how quoting you verbatim is defamatory?
Does that make google defamatory for also containing your
words in its archives?
If I print out the results of a google search on your
name, have I defamed you?
- Randy
YBM
[...]
1. How could you imagine that any kind of animation can
be a proof ?
2. How could you imagine that others than fool people will
download AND execute binary executables coming from the
Internet ? (btw I suppose you are as ignorant in computers
as you are in physics and assume everybody is running
Windows)
Edward Green
> On 8 Oct 2002 11:28:34 -0700, null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<69r4quo12gogqcgdj...@4ax.com>...
> >...
> >
> >> Why don't you answer his question then.
> >> It isn't all that difficult you know.
> >
> >I have reviewd the post I was responding to, and I don't see anything
> >in the form of a question. I don't actually even see a mark of
> >interrogation.
> >
> >What question are you referring to?
>
> Derive the equation for the difference between E-synched clocks and
> true-synched ones.
I _still_ don't find that in the post I replied to. Would you care to
quote the lines where that question is asked?
What I did find is some peculiar arguments which assumed that there is
some meaning to "at the same time" without an operational definition
("true-synched"?), and some even more peculiar arguments that if the
clocks read the same time at the same implicit absolute time, that
this somehow is a problem.
Not even wrong.
Bilge
Re: Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR to usenet:
>[...]
>> See my animations at:
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
>1. How could you imagine that any kind of animation can
>be a proof ?
enthusiast and over-did-it-himself with a dremel tool.
>2. How could you imagine that others than fool people will
>download AND execute binary executables coming from the
>Internet ? (btw I suppose you are as ignorant in computers
>as you are in physics and assume everybody is running
>Windows)
That's a little harder to explain, since that should be obvious to
any moron, but henry is a moron's moron - literally. Ignorance over-
estimates his skills.
HenriWilson
If you sink two clocks while they are together, you can move them anywhere
you like and they will remain in true synch.
If you try to synch them using EM, you will get a bullshit result.
If you synch them using Einy's method and you accept his assumption that
the back and forth travel times are L/(c-v) and L/(c+v) in accordance with
his belief in an aether, you will set one clock ahead of the other by
L/[c(1-(v/c)^2)]
HenriWilson
The use of the word 'fumble' is derogatory by inference. A more appropriate
title would be "strokes of genius' or "sci.physics masterpieces".
>
> - Randy
HenriWilson
wrote:
>YBM said some stuff about
>Re: Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR to usenet:
> >HenriWilson a écrit:
> >[...]
> >> See my animations at:
> >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
> >
> >1. How could you imagine that any kind of animation can
> >be a proof ?
>
> Mainly because henry is a do-it-yourself home trepanning
>enthusiast and over-did-it-himself with a dremel tool.
Bilgey, you know that a great deal of modern technology relies heavily on
computer simulations.
>
> >2. How could you imagine that others than fool people will
> >download AND execute binary executables coming from the
> >Internet ? (btw I suppose you are as ignorant in computers
> >as you are in physics and assume everybody is running
> >Windows)
>
> That's a little harder to explain, since that should be obvious to
>any moron, but henry is a moron's moron - literally. Ignorance over-
>estimates his skills.
>
Have you taken your Alzheimers pills today Bilgey?
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
Bilge
Re: Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR to usenet:
>On 10 Oct 2002 03:36:37 -0400, ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge)
>wrote:
>
>>YBM said some stuff about
>>Re: Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR to usenet:
>> >HenriWilson a écrit:
>> >[...]
>> >> See my animations at:
>> >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>> >
>> >1. How could you imagine that any kind of animation can
>> >be a proof ?
>>
>> Mainly because henry is a do-it-yourself home trepanning
>>enthusiast and over-did-it-himself with a dremel tool.
>
>Bilgey, you know that a great deal of modern technology relies heavily on
>computer simulations.
Performed by people that know what the program is supposed to
calculates, pay attention to the details with respect to how the computer
performs the arithmetic operations. You have no idea what your program
calculates, nor do you know how a computer works. The odds that you'll
discover any "technology" doing what you refer to as "modeling" is
less likely than the the proverbial monkeys eventually typing a sonnet,
since there's only one of you.
>Have you taken your Alzheimers pills today Bilgey?
Yes, right down to the mailbox. You They should arrive soon.
>
>Henri Wilson.
Stenchnologist.
>See my enemations at:
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/rumpgrabb/YOW.htm
Martin Miller
> mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) wrote in message news:<a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> > -------------Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR--------------
> >
> > Given two clocks (in the same standard inertial reference
> > frame) which have been related per Einstein's definition of
> > clock synchronization, let one clock be at the frame's origin,
> > and let the other be some arbitrary distance away. We know
> > that whenever the origin clock reads some time, the other
> > clock must read something. Mathematically speaking, if the
> > origin clock reads T, then the other clock must read a time
> > that is >T, <T, or = T.
>
> You are already making the mistake of thinking that "whenever", i.e.
> "simultaneously", has some obvious meaning.
>
Silly me! I could have sworn that whenever one (operating)
clock reads some time, any other (operating) clock must
also be reading some time.
Since you have implied otherwise, what exactly is your view?
[snip]
> Your thought gibberish is truly breathtaking.
[snip]
What sort of mind emits disparaging remarks at total strangers?
MM
Stephen Speicher
> Edward Green wrote:
>
> > Your thought gibberish is truly breathtaking.
> >
>
> What sort of mind emits disparaging remarks at total strangers?
>
The sort of mind capable of discerning ignorance from knowledge,
such ignorance presented with a revolting arrogance
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daryl McCullough
>
>null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in message
>news:<2a0cceff.02100...@posting.google.com>...
>>mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) wrote in message
>>news:<a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com>...
>> > -------------Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR--------------
>> >
>> > Given two clocks (in the same standard inertial reference
>> > frame) which have been related per Einstein's definition of
>> > clock synchronization, let one clock be at the frame's origin,
>> > and let the other be some arbitrary distance away. We know
>> > that whenever the origin clock reads some time, the other
>> > clock must read something. Mathematically speaking, if the
>> > origin clock reads T, then the other clock must read a time
>> > that is >T, <T, or = T.
>>
>> You are already making the mistake of thinking that "whenever", i.e.
>> "simultaneously", has some obvious meaning.
>>
>
>Silly me! I could have sworn that whenever one (operating)
>clock reads some time, any other (operating) clock must
>also be reading some time.
Let's make your question concrete by letting T=5. You are
then asking this: Does the first clock read T=5 before,
at the same time, or after the second clock reads T=5?
Special Relativity says that there is no absolute answer.
According to some coordinate systems, the first clock shows
T=5 first. According to some coordinate systems, they show
T=5 at the same time. According to some coordinate systems,
the second clock shows T=5 first. So, you are asking for
an absolute answer when there is none. There are only
answers relative to a coordinate system.
Your question is analogous to this situation: Suppose that there
are two rocks in a yard, a red rock and a black rock. Suppose
I ask you: Is the red rock to the left of the black rock, or
to the right of the black rock? There is no answer to that
question until I specify which way you are facing. Left and
right are relative descriptions, not absolute ones.
In Special Relativity, the notion of "at the same time" is
relative, rather than absolute.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Paul Cardinale
> null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in message news:<2a0cceff.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> > mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) wrote in message news:<a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > -------------Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR--------------
> > >
> > > Given two clocks (in the same standard inertial reference
> > > frame) which have been related per Einstein's definition of
> > > clock synchronization, let one clock be at the frame's origin,
> > > and let the other be some arbitrary distance away. We know
> > > that whenever the origin clock reads some time, the other
> > > clock must read something. Mathematically speaking, if the
> > > origin clock reads T, then the other clock must read a time
> > > that is >T, <T, or = T.
> >
> > You are already making the mistake of thinking that "whenever", i.e.
> > "simultaneously", has some obvious meaning.
> >
>
> Silly me! I could have sworn that whenever one (operating)
> clock reads some time, any other (operating) clock must
> also be reading some time.
Thus proving your ignorance.
"Whenever" is meaningless without specifying a frame.
Paul Cardinale
Bilge
>Silly me! I could have sworn that whenever one (operating)
>clock reads some time, any other (operating) clock must
>also be reading some time.
Your point being exactly what?
[...]
>What sort of mind emits disparaging remarks at total strangers?
One that recognizes a thinly disguised and poorly executed troll
without difficulty. Why?
Martin Miller
> mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) says...
> >
> >null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in message
> >news:<2a0cceff.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> >>mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) wrote in message
> >>news:<a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > -------------Mere Simple Math Wipes Out SR--------------
> >> >
> >> > Given two clocks (in the same standard inertial reference
> >> > frame) which have been related per Einstein's definition of
> >> > clock synchronization, let one clock be at the frame's origin,
> >> > and let the other be some arbitrary distance away. We know
> >> > that whenever the origin clock reads some time, the other
> >> > clock must read something. Mathematically speaking, if the
> >> > origin clock reads T, then the other clock must read a time
> >> > that is >T, <T, or = T.
> >>
> >> You are already making the mistake of thinking that "whenever", i.e.
> >> "simultaneously", has some obvious meaning.
> >>
> >
> >Silly me! I could have sworn that whenever one (operating)
> >clock reads some time, any other (operating) clock must
> >also be reading some time.
>
> Let's make your question concrete by letting T=5. You are
> then asking this: Does the first clock read T=5 before,
> at the same time, or after the second clock reads T=5?
>
Your analysis of my example is incorrect;
I was not asking that which you said above.
I was simply stating the scientific fact that all
clocks must read some time at all times.
Here it is again, described a little differently:
If you touch a clock in your living room, and it
then reads a time T1, then a clock in your kitchen
must then read some time, and this time must be either
greater than T1, less than T1, or equal to T1. This
is a physical fact that no sane person can deny.
I am _not_ saying - as you tried to get me to say -
that I want to know or think I can know which of
these three physical possibilities is the true one.
Here is an analogy:
If there are only three races of people in my house,
say, white, black, and yellow, and I am in a room
with a white man, then I know for certain that in
some other room which also contains some person
that there must be either a black, yellow, or
white person in that other room.
> Special Relativity says that there is no absolute answer.
> According to some coordinate systems, the first clock shows
> T=5 first. According to some coordinate systems, they show
> T=5 at the same time. According to some coordinate systems,
> the second clock shows T=5 first. So, you are asking for
> an absolute answer when there is none. There are only
> answers relative to a coordinate system.
>
Again, I did not claim that there is an absolute answer.
All I said was that there must be some answer.
Both clocks always read some time.
> Your question is analogous to this situation: Suppose that there
> are two rocks in a yard, a red rock and a black rock. Suppose
> I ask you: Is the red rock to the left of the black rock, or
> to the right of the black rock? There is no answer to that
> question until I specify which way you are facing. Left and
> right are relative descriptions, not absolute ones.
>
Of course left and right and up and down are merely relative;
I ain't that damn stupid!
However, your rock example has zilch to do with my clocks example.
Not to mention the fact that I did not have a question.
I was making the observation that SR cannot "win" no
matter what the distant clock reads.
As I tried to get across, either SR's clocks are incorrectly
related, or Einstein's basis for SR - his relativity of
simultaneity - is invalid.
You job, in case you did not see this, is to back up Einstein's
claim that his clocks are indeed correctly related in any single
frame.
The burden of proof (a powerful concept for any debate or trial)
is on you.
You must prove mathematically that Einstein's clocks in a single
frame are set correctly.
And to do this, you must show how they are set.
> In Special Relativity, the notion of "at the same time" is
> relative, rather than absolute.
First of all, I was not speaking of one set of observers
viewing another set; I was speaking solely of a single
frame; and in this single frame were two clocks; and both
of these clocks were constantly running.
Second of all, I challenge you to provide the physical
reason behind Einstein's relative time. Why is the notion
of "at the same time" is relative, rather than absolute
in SR?
Why is simultaneity relative in SR?
Please provide the explicit physical cause.
And please bear in mind always that the burden of proof
is always on the one making the claim or presenting the
theory.
MM
Martin Miller
"Whenever" does not mean "simultaneous."
The only fact my example relies on is the following one:
All operating clocks must always read some time.
With which part of this fact do you disagree?
MM
Dirk Van de moortel
"Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02101...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> And please bear in mind always that the burden of proof
> is always on the one making the claim or presenting the
> theory.
The burden of proof is always on the underdog.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
Writing "whenever" in a context of pathetically attempting
to debunk a firmly established theory like special relativity,
is instant self-debunking.
Dirk Vdm
Russell Blackadar
[snip]
> If you touch a clock in your living room, and it
> then reads a time T1, then a clock in your kitchen
^^^^
> must then read some time, and this time must be either
^^^^
> greater than T1, less than T1, or equal to T1.
And you claim that you are not talking about simultaneity??
There it is, staring you right in the face.
Look, just try to rephrase your argument without any word
"then", or any synonym of "then".
You will find it can't be done.
[snip]
Dirk Van de moortel
"Russell Blackadar" <rus...@mdli.com> wrote in message news:3DADC838...@mdli.com...
I would have concluded with:
"Then you will find it can't be done"
Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Daryl McCullough
>> Let's make your question concrete by letting T=5. You are
>> then asking this: Does the first clock read T=5 before,
>> at the same time, or after the second clock reads T=5?
>>
>
>Your analysis of my example is incorrect;
>I was not asking that which you said above.
What you said was this:
Mathematically speaking, if the origin clock reads T,
then the other clock must read a time that is >T, <T,
or = T.
In the particular case T=5, this becomes
Mathematically speaking, if the origin clock reads 5,
then the other clock must read a time that is >5, <5,
or = 5.
So, you are talking about three possibilities:
(1) The time on the other clock is > 5.
In that case, then at some earlier time, the other clock reads 5.
So in that case, the other clock reads t=5 before the origin
clock reads t=5.
(2) The time on the other clock is < 5.
In that case, then at some later time, the other clock reads 5.
So in that case, the other clock reads t=5 after the origin
clock reads t=5.
(3) The time on the other clock is = 5.
In that case, then the other clock reads t=5 at the same time
the origin clock reads t=5.
Your three possibilities correspond exactly to my three possibilites:
(1) the origin clock reads t=5 after the other clock reads t=5.
(2) the origin clock reads t=5 before the other clock reads t=5.
(3) the origin clock reads t=5 at the same time that the
other clock reads t=5.
So, your three possibilities are exactly the same as my
three possibilities.
You are assuming that one of the possibilities is right, and
the other possibilities are wrong. But according to SR, each
possibility is right in some frames and wrong in other frames.
In the frame in which the clocks are at rest, possibility (3)
holds: When the origin clock reads T=5, the other clock also
reads T=5.
In a frame that is travelling in the direction from the
origin clock towards the other clock, possibility (1) holds.
When the origin clock reads T=5, the other clock reads
some time greater than 5.
In a frame that is travelling in the direction from the other
clock towards the origin clock, possibility (2) holds.
When the origin clock reads T=5, the other clock reads some
time less than 5.
>Again, I did not claim that there is an absolute answer.
>All I said was that there must be some answer.
>Both clocks always read some time.
There is some answer. There are three answers. The answers
are different in different inertial frames.
>
>> Your question is analogous to this situation: Suppose that there
>> are two rocks in a yard, a red rock and a black rock. Suppose
>> I ask you: Is the red rock to the left of the black rock, or
>> to the right of the black rock? There is no answer to that
>> question until I specify which way you are facing. Left and
>> right are relative descriptions, not absolute ones.
>>
>
>Of course left and right and up and down are merely relative;
>I ain't that damn stupid!
>
>However, your rock example has zilch to do with my clocks example.
To the contrary---in the same way that left and right are
relative, before and after for distant events is *also* relative.
>I was making the observation that SR cannot "win" no
>matter what the distant clock reads.
SR wins by giving all three answers.
>As I tried to get across, either SR's clocks are incorrectly
>related, or Einstein's basis for SR - his relativity of
>simultaneity - is invalid.
>
>You job, in case you did not see this, is to back up Einstein's
>claim that his clocks are indeed correctly related in any single
>frame.
The only support Einstein's claim has (and the only support that
any theory of physics *can* have) is this: The observable predictions
made by his theory are all born out by experiment.
>You must prove mathematically that Einstein's clocks in a single
>frame are set correctly.
What does "correctly" mean? Correct according to what criterion?
>And to do this, you must show how they are set.
There are many different ways to set clocks. One way is
"slow clock transport". You bring the clocks together,
synchronize them, and then slowly separate them (travelling
at a speed that is very slow compared with the speed of light).
A second way is light signal synchronization. You separate
two clocks by a distance L. Then when one clock shows time
t=0, you send a light signal to the other clock. When the
second clock receives the signal, the time is set to t= L/c.
You want to know why is it correct to set clocks that way.
The answer is: there is no such thing as the "correct time"
any more than there is a "correct zipcode" or
"correct time zone". Time is a human-created label we put
on events. We call a certain event "July 1, 2000", and that's
just an arbitrary label. We could have called it something
else.
There is nothing special about Einstein's synchronization
convention. It's just that the laws of physics are much
simpler to state using that convention. You can use
whatever convention you like, if you're willing to
suffer through the messy details.
It's like in Newtonian physics, his laws of motion seem
simplest in an inertial coordinate system. In a rotating
coordinate system, thing are messier---you have to introduce
terms corresponding to "coriolis forces" and "centrifugal
forces".
>> In Special Relativity, the notion of "at the same time" is
>> relative, rather than absolute.
>
>First of all, I was not speaking of one set of observers
>viewing another set; I was speaking solely of a single
>frame; and in this single frame were two clocks; and both
>of these clocks were constantly running.
In the frame in which the clocks are at rest, the clocks
are synchronized. In other frames, they aren't synchronized.
>Second of all, I challenge you to provide the physical
>reason behind Einstein's relative time. Why is the notion
>of "at the same time" is relative, rather than absolute
>in SR?
Because time is just a label we assign to events, and there is
more than one way to do the assignment.
>Why is simultaneity relative in SR?
>
>Please provide the explicit physical cause.
>
>And please bear in mind always that the burden of proof
>is always on the one making the claim or presenting the
>theory.
Relativity theory has had nearly 100 years of success.
It's met the burden of proof pretty well.
Bilge
>Here it is again, described a little differently: If you touch a clock in
>your living room, and it then reads a time T1, then a clock in your
>kitchen must then read some time, and this time must be either greater
>than T1, less than T1, or equal to T1. This is a physical fact that no
>sane person can deny.
Then, I'll give it a shot. OK. I deny it. Now what?
> I am _not_ saying - as you tried to get me to say -
>that I want to know or think I can know which of these three physical
>possibilities is the true one.
>Here is an analogy:
>If there are only three races of people in my house, say, white, black,
>and yellow, and I am in a room with a white man, then I know for certain
>that in some other room which also contains some person that there must be
>either a black, yellow, or white person in that other room.
What if the person in the other room is throwing a rainbow
coalition fundraiser?
[...]
>Again, I did not claim that there is an absolute answer. All I said was
>that there must be some answer. Both clocks always read some time.
What's the question?
[...]
>
>Of course left and right and up and down are merely relative;
>I ain't that damn stupid!
Don't sell yourself short.
>However, your rock example has zilch to do with my clocks example.
And your clocks example had zilch to do with this newsgroup.
Are you claiming some profound message may be inferred from this?
>Not to mention the fact that I did not have a question.
Maybe you overheated.
>I was making the observation that SR cannot "win" no matter what the
>distant clock reads.
>As I tried to get across, either SR's clocks are incorrectly related, or
You failed. You did make the point that leaving ones head in vice too
long is a potential hazard.
[...]
>You must prove mathematically that Einstein's clocks in a single
>frame are set correctly.
The Big hand is on 12 and the little hand is on 1
>And to do this, you must show how they are set.
Open glass cover of clockface. Place the tip of the distal phalanx of
your index finger in contact with the larger of the two hands on the
clock. Apply pressure at the point of contact such that the clock hand
rotates into position. Repeat for smaller hand. Remove distal phalanx
of index finger from clock and insert through your anal sphinctor.
Rotate. You are now synchronized with your clock.
>And please bear in mind always that the burden of proof is always on
>the one making the claim or presenting the theory.
Then you shouldn't mind going away until you meet the burden.
>MM
aka "Mighty Muff"
Martin Miller
> mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) says...
>
[snip, to cut to the chase:]
> In the frame in which the clocks are at rest, the clocks
> are synchronized. In other frames, they aren't synchronized.
OK, OK, Einstein's clocks are "synchronized" in the frame in which
they're at rest, and they aren't "synchronized" in other frames.
Vagueness will get you nowhere.
This is a physics forum, not some supermarket tabloid.
How are Einstein's clocks related temporally in a given frame?
Either you know or you don't.
And unless we know, we cannot properly judge the basis
of SR, his definition of clock synchronization.
(Nothing happens in SR until all clocks are set per
this definition, so all of SR is based on it.)
And of course, you must do it mathematically.
MM
Dirk Van de moortel
> > mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) says...
> >
> [snip, to cut to the chase:]
>
> > In the frame in which the clocks are at rest, the clocks
> > are synchronized. In other frames, they aren't synchronized.
>
> OK, OK, Einstein's clocks are "synchronized" in the frame in which
> they're at rest, and they aren't "synchronized" in other frames.
>
> Vagueness will get you nowhere.
So you need sharpness like for instance:
| -------------2 Men & a Beam----------------
|
| Two men are walking toward each other along a
| straight path. A light ray is approaching them
| from the right. As the men meet in passing at
| essentially a single point, the light ray is
| also at a single point. The ray is therefore
| equidistant from the men. A moment later, one
| man sees the ray before the other does.
|
| The scientific question:
| Why do the men see the ray differently?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com
Dirk Vdm
Daryl McCullough
>
>da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote
>
>[snip, to cut to the chase:]
>
>> In the frame in which the clocks are at rest, the clocks
>> are synchronized. In other frames, they aren't synchronized.
>
>OK, OK, Einstein's clocks are "synchronized" in the frame in which
>they're at rest, and they aren't "synchronized" in other frames.
>
>Vagueness will get you nowhere.
What is vague about that? Is it that you don't know what "synchronized"
means?
>This is a physics forum, not some supermarket tabloid.
>How are Einstein's clocks related temporally in a given frame?
As measured in the frame in which the two clocks are at rest,
the clocks show the same time. What don't you understand about
that?
>Either you know or you don't.
>
>And unless we know, we cannot properly judge the basis
>of SR, his definition of clock synchronization.
I don't know what you are talking about and, I suspect,
neither do you. Actually, I know that you don't know
what you are talking about, because nothing that you've
said so far makes any sense.
Einstein's clock synchronization is a particular way
of setting up a coordinate system. Coordinate systems
are just conventions, set up for our convenience.
The physics comes in with the two principles:
(1) All laws of physics have the same form in every
inertial coordinate system.
(2) Newtonian physics holds in the limit in which
all relevant velocities are small compared with the
speed of light.
>And of course, you must do it mathematically.
The mathematics of relativity is well-known. If you
can ask a specific question about it, I can give you
a specific answer. But so far, you haven't been able
to formulate a question that makes any sense.
HenriWilson
Why should the fact that our communicartion is apparently limited to light
speed rule out the possibility of an absolute 'instantaneousness'?
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
HenriWilson
because they didn't use their ears.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com
>
>Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:6qbuquoleljq1eauv...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> >
> >Relativity theory has had nearly 100 years of success.
> >It's met the burden of proof pretty well.
>
> Why should the fact that our communicartion is apparently limited to light
> speed rule out the possibility of an absolute 'instantaneousness'?
The possibility of an absolute 'instantaneousness' is not ruled out.
We just don't have a theory about it. We only have theories about
stuff that we can verify.
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Like length contraction?
>
>Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:f7mvqugn6ttmjgpps...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:36:56 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:6qbuquoleljq1eauv...@4ax.com...
> >> On 16 Oct 2002 14:06:31 -0700, da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
> >>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >
> >> >Relativity theory has had nearly 100 years of success.
> >> >It's met the burden of proof pretty well.
> >>
> >> Why should the fact that our communicartion is apparently limited to light
> >> speed rule out the possibility of an absolute 'instantaneousness'?
> >
> >The possibility of an absolute 'instantaneousness' is not ruled out.
> >We just don't have a theory about it. We only have theories about
> >stuff that we can verify.
>
> Like length contraction?
I don't know if length contraction has been directly verified or not,
and I wouldn't care if it wasn't. Some things can be hard - or maybe
even practically impossible - to verify, but the things that have been
verified, seem to match the theory.
If you don't like the theory, provide another one that does a better
job and, very important, convince the world that it does so.
If you can't do that, stick to what you are good at: playing golf...
Enjoy :-)
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:f7mvqugn6ttmjgpps...@4ax.com...
>>Like length contraction?
>
>
> I don't know if length contraction has been directly verified or not,
> and I wouldn't care if it wasn't.
Didn't Lorentz originally propose the Lorentz transformation
because of astronomical observations? In other words, because
observations of distant objects showed a velocity-dependent
distance contraction?
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:aop8l...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Don't think so: the distant objects that were known at that time
weren't so distant as the ones we now know, and afaik Lorentz
used his transformation to keep Maxwell's equations invariant...
I've always read (also here on this group) that length contraction
never has been measured *directly*.
Nothing in the FAQ:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.%20early%20experiments
Good idea for a fresh thread targeted at the historians.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:aop8l...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:f7mvqugn6ttmjgpps...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>Like length contraction?
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know if length contraction has been directly verified or not,
>>>and I wouldn't care if it wasn't.
>>
>>Didn't Lorentz originally propose the Lorentz transformation
>>because of astronomical observations? In other words, because
>>observations of distant objects showed a velocity-dependent
>>distance contraction?
>>
>
> weren't so distant as the ones we now know, and afaik Lorentz
> used his transformation to keep Maxwell's equations invariant...
OK, a little googling convinces me that the Michaelson-Morley
experiment was the actual motivation, that Lorentz-Fitzgerald
was an attempt to reconcile the null result.
This paper:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/02/18/PITT-PHIL-SCI00000218-00/Origins%2520of%2520contraction.pdf
claims that length contraction is not necessary to explain
MMX, but I haven't fully digested it.
- Randy
Martin Miller
[snip]
[MM asked:]
> >How are Einstein's clocks related temporally in a given frame?
>
> As measured in the frame in which the two clocks are at rest,
> the clocks show the same time. What don't you understand about
> that?
[snip]
I am willing to bet that it takes more creativity on
your part to come up with stuff like your above than
it would to simply answer my question. But I know why
you are avoiding me. And that is also why you are
trying your best to return the burden of proof back to
me.
But I am a patient dude, so let's look at your above,
just for the pure fun of it.
You said "As measured in the frame in which the two
clocks are at rest, the clocks show the same time."
My question to you re that is How is this measurement made?
> Einstein's clock synchronization is a particular way
> of setting up a coordinate system. Coordinate systems
> are just conventions, set up for our convenience.
>
Not according to Einstein. He clearly stated that
one-way, two-clock light speed invariance is a law
of physics, and not merely a convention.
Here is what the Main Man said:
[Quoting Einstein:]
"w is the required velocity of light with respect to
the carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative
to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c.
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of
relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other
general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light
in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be
the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when
the rails are the body of reference."
[snip]
> >And of course, you must do it mathematically.
>
> The mathematics of relativity is well-known. If you
> can ask a specific question about it, I can give you
> a specific answer. But so far, you haven't been able
> to formulate a question that makes any sense.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I see
nothing nonsensical about my simple question.
Here it is again, worded slightly differently:
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Given two mutually-at-rest (or same-frame) clocks
which have been started and related temporally per
Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, what
is the mathematical formula which describes this
given temporal relationship?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"Warning" 1:
I do not care at all about how some passing frame's
observers see, view, measure, or smell these two
clocks.
"Warning" 2:
Your answer must be mathematically specific. It must
not be mere words, especially not words such as your
above-given "As measured in the frame in which the
two clocks are at rest, the clocks show the same time."
"Warning" 3:
I am not - I repeat, not - asking for the math which
Einstein gave which told us HOW to set the clocks;
I am asking for the result of this setting process.
MM
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:aopju...@enews4.newsguy.com...
[snip]
> OK, a little googling convinces me that the Michaelson-Morley
> experiment was the actual motivation, that Lorentz-Fitzgerald
> was an attempt to reconcile the null result.
>
> This paper:
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/02/18/PITT-PHIL-SCI00000218-00/Origins%2520of%2520contraction.pdf
> claims that length contraction is not necessary to explain
> MMX, but I haven't fully digested it.
Thanks for the link. Saved and stacked on the ever growing pile.
Sigh :-(
Dirk Vdm
Daryl McCullough
>
>da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote in message
>news:<aon9l...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>
>[snip]
>
>[MM asked:]
>> >How are Einstein's clocks related temporally in a given frame?
>>
>> As measured in the frame in which the two clocks are at rest,
>> the clocks show the same time. What don't you understand about
>> that?
>
>[snip]
>
>I am willing to bet that it takes more creativity on
>your part to come up with stuff like your above than
>it would to simply answer my question.
What is your question? How are the clocks related temporally?
The answer is: in the clock's rest frame the clocks show the
same time. What more do you want to know?
>But I know why you are avoiding me.
I'm not avoiding you. I'm answering your questions,
to the extent that I can understand what they mean.
>And that is also why you are
>trying your best to return the burden of proof back to
>me.
The only burden of proof I am putting on you is
clear communication. Make it clear what your point
is, what your question is.
>You said "As measured in the frame in which the two
>clocks are at rest, the clocks show the same time."
>
>My question to you re that is How is this measurement made?
That wasn't your question. Your question was "How are the
clocks related, temporally?" That's a question about the
*theory*. Measurements come into play when you are *testing*
the theory.
But as to how the measurement
is made, there are many different ways to compare two
clocks, and the all give the same answer:
Method 1: Slow clock transport. Slowly (as measured in the
rest frame of the first clock) move the second clock to
rejoin the first clock. Compare the times. If they are
the same, then the clocks are synchronized.
Method 2: Light synchronization: Measure the distance
between the clocks. Call that distance L. At time T (according
to the first clock) send a light signal from the first
clock to the second clock. Let T1 be the time at which
the light signal reaches the second clock. If
T1 = T + L/c, then the clocks are synchronized.
>> Einstein's clock synchronization is a particular way
>> of setting up a coordinate system. Coordinate systems
>> are just conventions, set up for our convenience.
>>
>
>Not according to Einstein. He clearly stated that
>one-way, two-clock light speed invariance is a law
>of physics, and not merely a convention.
No, it's a convention. If I set up coordinates differently
than the way Einstein suggested, then the speed of light
will not be invariant.
What is true is this: if you propose an *operational*
definition of "speed", and the operations don't depend
on any a priori choice of preferred coordinate system,
then the speed of light will come out the same in all
inertial coordinate systems. That's the point of his
synchronization convention, it is a procedure that can
be applied equally well in any inertial coordinate system,
and there is no need for any preferred reference frame.
>Here is what the Main Man said:
>
>[Quoting Einstein:]
>"w is the required velocity of light with respect to
>the carriage, and we have
>
> w = c - v.
>
>The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative
>to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c.
>
>But this result comes into conflict with the principle of
>relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other
>general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light
>in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be
>the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when
>the rails are the body of reference."
>Here it is again, worded slightly differently:
>
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>Given two mutually-at-rest (or same-frame) clocks
>which have been started and related temporally per
>Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, what
>is the mathematical formula which describes this
>given temporal relationship?
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I can't make any sense of your question. What is a
"temporal relationship"? That could mean almost anything.
Can you operationalize your question: put it into the
form of a question about the results of a specific
experiment?
>"Warning" 1:
>I do not care at all about how some passing frame's
>observers see, view, measure, or smell these two
>clocks.
>
>"Warning" 2:
>Your answer must be mathematically specific.
Then make your question mathematically specific.
"Temporal relationship" is not very specific. I
don't know what that means.
>"Warning" 3:
>I am not - I repeat, not - asking for the math which
>Einstein gave which told us HOW to set the clocks;
>I am asking for the result of this setting process.
What do you mean by "result"? Do you mean experimental
result? What experiment are proposing to perform with
these clocks?
HenriWilson
The answer MM wants is that the clocks differ by L.gamma^2/c where L is
their distance apart.
How v is established, you will have to ask Einy.
HenriWilson
So it is now agreed by you two that length is a frame dependent intrinsic
property, yes?
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:urv0ru0oasseg1bj6...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:11:31 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:aopju...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> OK, a little googling convinces me that the Michaelson-Morley
> >> experiment was the actual motivation, that Lorentz-Fitzgerald
> >> was an attempt to reconcile the null result.
> >>
> >> This paper:
> >> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/02/18/PITT-PHIL-SCI00000218-00/Origins%2520of%2520contraction.pdf
> >> claims that length contraction is not necessary to explain
> >> MMX, but I haven't fully digested it.
> >
> >Thanks for the link. Saved and stacked on the ever growing pile.
> >Sigh :-(
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
> >
> So it is now agreed by you two that length is a frame dependent intrinsic
> property, yes?
I don't know about Randy, but it is agreed by me that you
should stick to golf playing.
Dirk Vdm
Patrick Reany
HenriWilson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:36:56 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:6qbuquoleljq1eauv...@4ax.com...
> >> On 16 Oct 2002 14:06:31 -0700, da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
> >>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >
> >> >Relativity theory has had nearly 100 years of success.
> >> >It's met the burden of proof pretty well.
> >>
> >> Why should the fact that our communicartion is apparently limited to light
> >> speed rule out the possibility of an absolute 'instantaneousness'?
> >
> >The possibility of an absolute 'instantaneousness' is not ruled out.
> >We just don't have a theory about it. We only have theories about
> >stuff that we can verify.
Simultaneity is manifestly a reference frame
dependent concept. A concept that may have
no existence apart from the human mind anyway.
In any case, Einstein did NOT deal with
metaphysical simultaneity; rather, he merely
claimed that time (as thought of by humans and
as measured by clocks) could not be defined
absolutely for use in physics, another invention
of the human mind. The limitations are simply
those imposed on humans, not necessarily on
Nature. Henri, when are you ever going to get
this crucial principle? Human science has
intrisic limitations.
Patrick
HenriWilson
Instantaneous measurements can be made throughout the universe by using a
'Wilsonian frame of reference'. That is one which contains an infinite grid
of perfect clocks that were synchronized before being transfered to their
positions. All measurements are done with the clocks then the results
relayed to the observer.
If you think that is stupid I should remind you that one of SR's most
sacred experiments, the 'atmospheric muon lifetime measurement' uses just
such an FoR.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
singularity of infinite density and infinite space-time curvature,it is
also predicting its own breakdown. Bert
Martin Miller
> mmti...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote in message
> >news:<aon9l...@drn.newsguy.com>...
[snip]
> What is your question? How are the clocks related temporally?
> The answer is: in the clock's rest frame the clocks show the
> same time. What more do you want to know?
I want you to simply fill in the blanks:
Clock 1 Clock 2
[____]------------------------[_____]
MM
Dirk Van de moortel
"Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02102...@posting.google.com...
Okay, let me help you:
_
/ \
__/___\__
Clock 1 { o + } Clock 2
[____]-----ooo0-(_)-0ooo------[_____]
Dirk Vdm
Daryl McCullough
>> What is your question? How are the clocks related temporally?
>> The answer is: in the clock's rest frame the clocks show the
>> same time. What more do you want to know?
>
>I want you to simply fill in the blanks:
>
>Clock 1 Clock 2
>[____]------------------------[_____]
In the frame of reference in which the clocks are at rest, we
have:
Clock 1 Clock 2
[12:00 p.m.]------------------------[12:00 p.m.]
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:c0i3ru0qgl9pd97k5...@4ax.com...
> Instantaneous measurements can be made throughout the universe by using a
> 'Wilsonian frame of reference'. That is one which contains an infinite grid
> of perfect clocks that were synchronized before being transfered to their
> positions. All measurements are done with the clocks then the results
> relayed to the observer.
And why do you call this a "Wilsonian frame of reference"?
Wouldn't an "Einsteinian frame of reference" be more appropriate?
Or why not use its conventional name: an inertial frame of reference?
Why would you - of all people - claim credit for an Einstein invention?
But such a grid is only possible in flat space time.
Space time isn't flat.
So inertial frames only exists as an approximation when
the region of space time is small enough for the deviation
from flatness to be ignored compared to the precision of
the measurements.
Just like the water surface in your bathtub can be considered
flat unless the precisions of your bathtub confined measurements
are extreme.
But you cannot consider the Earth to be flat for global
measurements.
Using an inertial frame for measurments "throughout the universe"
is equivalent to considering the Earth to be flat.
> If you think that is stupid I should remind you that one of SR's most
> sacred experiments, the 'atmospheric muon lifetime measurement' uses just
> such an FoR.
Indeed.
Because the region of space time in this case is small
enough for the curvature to be ignored compared to the
rather crude precision of this particular experiment.
You may of course take the curvature into consideration
by using GR on the problem in stead of SR.
But the difference in their predictions is extremely
small, much less than the error bar.
The reason is obvious. The "speed term" which is common
for SR and GR dominates due to the high speed of the muons.
The "gravitation term" of GR can be neglected in comparison.
The "temporal extension" of the region of space time is so
short that the curvature can be neglected.
This is very different from experiments like H&K, Alley,
Vessot and the GPS. Then the curvature can't be ignored.
It is however interesting to note that in the Pound Rebka
experiment the involved region of spacetime was much smaler
than in the muon experiment.
(Few metres, few ns as opposed to several km and us)
Yet the effects of the curvature was measured.
The reason is the truly amazing precision of
the measurements due to the Moessbauer effect.
(Like measuring the radius of the Earth by the curvature
of the water in your coffee cup.)
Paul
Stephen Speicher
Definitely today's winner! I do not have to see any others.
At least MM is good for comedic straightlines.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
and...@attglobal.net
GR doesn't predict anything without assumptions being made
about initial conditions or symmetries of the solutions.
These are what produce singularities because they are
idealized assumptions.
John Anderson
Daryl McCullough
Is that true? I thought that sufficiently massive objects were
predicted to collapse into singularities, without any idealized
assumptions.
Stephen Speicher
This is a two-step process which contains several assumptions. A
theorem due to Schoen and Yau states that, when there exists a
large enough amount of matter in a small enough area, that a
trapped surface must form. It is then the singularity theorems
themselves which predict the spacetime singularity. In
particular, theorem 2 (due to Hawking and Penrose) in Hawking and
Ellis' "The large scale structure of space-time," applies, as
long as assumptions regarding energy conditions and the
non-violation of causality are all met. Note that Hawking and
Ellis point out that "Thus we have shown that there is a non-zero
measure set of initial conditions which lead to a closed trapped
surface and hence to a singularity by theorem 2."
Randy Poe
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:11:31 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> So it is now agreed by you two that length is a frame dependent intrinsic
> property, yes?
Lost track of this thread for a couple days.
I don't know what a "frame-dependent intrinsic property"
is supposed to be, so I can't agree that length is one
of those. Nor do I know why my finding confirmation that
Lorentz-Fitzgerald was motivated by the MMX supposedly
leads to this conclusion.
I agree that length measurements are frame-dependent, if
that's what you're saying. "Intrinsic property" suggests
invariance to me, which length certainly is not.
- Randy
HenriWilson
True length IS invariant.
Nothing physically happens to the length of a rod when it changes velocity.
The proof is trivial, as I have shown.
But that doesn't mean that ALL intrinsic properties are invariant.
and...@attglobal.net
The initial mass of the object is an initial condition.
John Anderson