For josX: A lead cube!
Eric Gisse
want to see if you can follow along. If you see an error, point it out
and re-do it the "right way" in your reply.
Note for Spaceman: Same as the note for josX
Note for others: This is for everyone's benefit, really. This
reinforces what i learn, and hopefully i will be able to teach others.
Also, if Spaceman and josX get a clue, reading
sci.physics/sci.physics.relativity will be oh-so-much more pleasant.
~~~
Lets start off by defining a few things....
c = 3x10^8 m/s
(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
(gamma) = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
(1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
m/s.
Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
talk about momentum.
In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
That is a lot, dont get in its way.
Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
So, (1/sqrt(1-[7.29x10^16 m/s / 9x10^16 m/s]))(.5)(11340
kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s)
Note gamma = 2.294. Gamma is a dimensionless constant which will be
useful later.
As you get closer to lightspeed, gamma gets big.
SR Ek yeilds an awnser of 9.48x10^20 kgm/s of momentum. Woah, talk
about deviation.
Still following? Gooood.
That cube is moving at a hefty clip. Or is it really a cube? Our
"cube" is moving along the x axis relative to some observer. Length
contraction is determinted by d/(gamma)
Since our cube is moving along the x axis, it will contract along that
axis.
x' = x/(gamma)
(1m)/(2.294) = .436
Our cube, when moving at .9c, relative to a stationary observer, has
the dimensions of .436m x 1m x 1m! Note that this is "aparrenty" and
the cube does not notice the contraction.
This *is* as simple as i remember it being. Neat.
Lets say for argument, that our cube could record the passage of time.
Since it can now record time, once our cube comes to a rest (we will
ignore acelleration, since relativistic accelration is beyond me right
now. So, from .9c to 0 in a "small" amount of time") , we will notice
something odd. The observer's watch and the cube dont synch up. Why?
Time dilation!
Say, the cube was moving for 5 days at that speed.
Without using any silly diagrams i will do this.
t' = t/(gamma)
(5 days)/(2.294) = 2.18 days.
t' = observed time
t = observer time
No diagrams, no nothing. Simple algebra. All i needed for this post
was http://www.motionmountain.org/C-2-CLSC.pdf,
http://www.webelements.com and my High School background.
Yes, i am aware is SR reduced to a very simple level.
josX, spaceman, either of you, if there are things "wrong" with what i
have said, please correct them and explain in detail. But before you
comment.
1) Newtonian mechanics and SR are NOT reconcilable, do not mix
predictions from either.
2) You cannot use light as a reference frame.
This is mostlly directed to josx/spaceman, but i do appreciate input
from other people :)
Also, josX.....When will you reply to this?
>>>>>>>>>It's not corroberated, there is no basis for SR in physical evidence.
>>>>>>>>>The experiment which shows light's speed is the same for all observers
>>>>>>>>>was never conducted (same lightbeam, moving and stationary equipment).
>>>>>>>>>GPS, nuclear reactors, particle-accelerators and whatever have you have
>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with SR and the fact that they work has no relation to SR
>>>>>>>>>(outside of physics fairy tales spinning them together, not making any).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As you approach ~5% c, SR starts to signifigantly deviate from Newton,
>>>>>>>>when you try to solve for kinetic energy. Can you guess how that is
>>>>>>>>important for particle acellerators? Hint: momentum is always
>>>>>>>>conserved. Conservation is important.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you continue to deny that particle acellerators work with SR, i
>>>>>>>>encourage you to explain how they do. Bonus points if you can keep
>>>>>>>>people who work at the acellerators from laughing at you, eg, Eric
>>>>>>>>Prebys. Also, im pretty sure everyone would pitch in a few bucks to
>>>>>>>>send you to fermilab to play as the endpoint of the proton beam.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You glossed over this. I post again for comment.
>>>>I re-post this yet again. Quit ignoring this.
>>
>>I repost for the 5th time. Respond to the above paragraphs.
>
Mike Varney
"Eric Gisse" <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:gksqlusnml11tdj9b...@4ax.com...
Or rotatate? Or does it rotatate? :-)
What does it appear to an inertial observer to do?
(Oh and spaceman, forget it, you are too dumb to add, much less understand
SR.)
Jim
>
>"Eric Gisse" <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
>news:gksqlusnml11tdj9b...@4ax.com...
>> Note for josX: I am going to do some stuff with a simple lead cube. I
>> want to see if you can follow along. If you see an error, point it out
>> and re-do it the "right way" in your reply.
>>
>> Note for Spaceman: Same as the note for josX
<snip>
>
>Or rotatate? Or does it rotatate? :-)
>What does it appear to an inertial observer to do?
>(Oh and spaceman, forget it, you are too dumb to add, much less understand
>SR.)
>
Specifically mentioned. Let him take his shot.
Add? Maybe not. Spell?... "rotatate"... twice in the same sentence?
Jim
Mike Varney
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:uhjrlu0sk6hriqg5a...@4ax.com...
That was for the benefit of spaceman, but I am sure you were also able to
understand it. Did you see the smiley?
josX
>Note for josX: I am going to do some stuff with a simple lead cube. I
>want to see if you can follow along. If you see an error, point it out
>and re-do it the "right way" in your reply.
Sure ;).
>Note for Spaceman: Same as the note for josX
>
>Note for others: This is for everyone's benefit, really. This
>reinforces what i learn, and hopefully i will be able to teach others.
>Also, if Spaceman and josX get a clue, reading
>sci.physics/sci.physics.relativity will be oh-so-much more pleasant.
>
>~~~
>
>Lets start off by defining a few things....
>
>c = 3x10^8 m/s
>(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
>(gamma) = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
You realize you go wrong here?
"gamma" is not a real entity, it cannot be because of it's mutual
exclusion proporty.
>We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
>1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
>
>(1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
>
>This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
>m/s.
>
>Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
>talk about momentum.
>
>In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
>So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
>That is a lot, dont get in its way.
>
>Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
Unproven assertion.
>In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>
>So, (1/sqrt(1-[7.29x10^16 m/s / 9x10^16 m/s]))(.5)(11340
>kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s)
>
>Note gamma = 2.294. Gamma is a dimensionless constant which will be
>useful later.
Gamma is NOT dimensionless dude.
>As you get closer to lightspeed, gamma gets big.
>
>SR Ek yeilds an awnser of 9.48x10^20 kgm/s of momentum. Woah, talk
>about deviation.
>
>Still following? Gooood.
sure pal
>That cube is moving at a hefty clip. Or is it really a cube? Our
>"cube" is moving along the x axis relative to some observer. Length
>contraction is determinted by d/(gamma)
That would be "mutual length contraction", thank you. It means there's
now two realities, one in which we are shorter, and one in which the
cube is shorter. Be explicit.
>Since our cube is moving along the x axis, it will contract along that
>axis.
>
>x' = x/(gamma)
>
>(1m)/(2.294) = .436
>
>Our cube, when moving at .9c, relative to a stationary observer, has
>the dimensions of .436m x 1m x 1m! Note that this is "aparrenty" and
>the cube does not notice the contraction.
But are this visual illusions?
No. The answer is, it's irrational illusions.
>This *is* as simple as i remember it being. Neat.
I am amazed that your ability to do this simple math clouds your thinking
into believing you actually have done something and understood it. You
only understood it on the level of operations, not on the level of
understanding.
Suppose the cube was sliding along a rail, and there was a gab of 1m
wide in the rail. Would the cube fall in? Answer: yes and no, depending
on which universe you talk about. Do you understand these implications
of SR ?
>Lets say for argument, that our cube could record the passage of time.
>Since it can now record time, once our cube comes to a rest (we will
>ignore acelleration, since relativistic accelration is beyond me right
>now. So, from .9c to 0 in a "small" amount of time") , we will notice
>something odd. The observer's watch and the cube dont synch up. Why?
>Time dilation!
My my, you really are bright aren't you. Tell me bright guy, why is the
cubes watch behind while from the pov of the cube WE were the ones moving
and had the time dilation. Get it?
>Say, the cube was moving for 5 days at that speed.
>
>Without using any silly diagrams i will do this.
If you are referring to my diagrams, they are not silly, just simple
and accurate.
>t' = t/(gamma)
>(5 days)/(2.294) = 2.18 days.
>
>t' = observed time
>t = observer time
>
>No diagrams, no nothing. Simple algebra. All i needed for this post
>was http://www.motionmountain.org/C-2-CLSC.pdf,
>http://www.webelements.com and my High School background.
>
>Yes, i am aware is SR reduced to a very simple level.
>
>josX, spaceman, either of you, if there are things "wrong" with what i
>have said, please correct them and explain in detail. But before you
>comment.
I did. You just applied SR. I can apply SR too, big deal. The problem
comes with thinking a bit beyond the simple applyance.
>1) Newtonian mechanics and SR are NOT reconcilable, do not mix
>predictions from either.
>
>2) You cannot use light as a reference frame.
I never did.
>This is mostlly directed to josx/spaceman, but i do appreciate input
>from other people :)
>
>Also, josX.....When will you reply to this?
Ah right, the troll shows himself.
>>>>>>>>>>It's not corroberated, there is no basis for SR in physical evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>The experiment which shows light's speed is the same for all observers
>>>>>>>>>>was never conducted (same lightbeam, moving and stationary equipment).
>>>>>>>>>>GPS, nuclear reactors, particle-accelerators and whatever have you have
>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with SR and the fact that they work has no relation to SR
>>>>>>>>>>(outside of physics fairy tales spinning them together, not making any).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As you approach ~5% c, SR starts to signifigantly deviate from Newton,
>>>>>>>>>when you try to solve for kinetic energy. Can you guess how that is
>>>>>>>>>important for particle acellerators? Hint: momentum is always
>>>>>>>>>conserved. Conservation is important.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you continue to deny that particle acellerators work with SR, i
>>>>>>>>>encourage you to explain how they do. Bonus points if you can keep
>>>>>>>>>people who work at the acellerators from laughing at you, eg, Eric
>>>>>>>>>Prebys. Also, im pretty sure everyone would pitch in a few bucks to
>>>>>>>>>send you to fermilab to play as the endpoint of the proton beam.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You glossed over this. I post again for comment.
>>>>>I re-post this yet again. Quit ignoring this.
>>>
>>>I repost for the 5th time. Respond to the above paragraphs.
When are you going to respond to my simple and correct diagrams ?
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
> want to see if you can follow along. If you see an error, point it out
> and re-do it the "right way" in your reply.
>
> Note for Spaceman: Same as the note for josX
>
> Note for others: This is for everyone's benefit, really. This
> reinforces what i learn, and hopefully i will be able to teach others.
> Also, if Spaceman and josX get a clue, reading
> sci.physics/sci.physics.relativity will be oh-so-much more pleasant.
>
>
> ~~~
>
> Lets start off by defining a few things....
>
> c = 3x10^8 m/s
> (rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
Ha. You should have included Donald Shead.
He devoures densities.
> (gamma) = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
You should have left out Spaceman. It can't even multiply.
Which neuron do you think will fire when it sees "sqrt"?
>
>
> We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
> 1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
>
> (1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
Oh yes, definitely Shead!
And since there is multiplication, definitely not for Spaceman,
this one.
>
>
>
> This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
> m/s.
Velocity! This one is for Robert Winn.
>
> Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
> talk about momentum.
>
> In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
> So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
> That is a lot, dont get in its way.
>
> Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>
> In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>
> So, (1/sqrt(1-[7.29x10^16 m/s / 9x10^16 m/s]))(.5)(11340
> kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s)
>
> Note gamma = 2.294. Gamma is a dimensionless constant which will be
> useful later.
> As you get closer to lightspeed, gamma gets big.
>
> SR Ek yeilds an awnser of 9.48x10^20 kgm/s of momentum. Woah, talk
> about deviation.
>
> Still following? Gooood.
>
>
> That cube is moving at a hefty clip. Or is it really a cube? Our
> "cube" is moving along the x axis relative to some observer. Length
> contraction is determinted by d/(gamma)
>
> Since our cube is moving along the x axis, it will contract along that
> axis.
>
> x' = x/(gamma)
That's one for Marcel Luttgens
He will object that this is impossible: "this equation is false.
It must be
x' = gamma( x - vt )"
>
> (1m)/(2.294) = .436
>
> Our cube, when moving at .9c, relative to a stationary observer, has
> the dimensions of .436m x 1m x 1m! Note that this is "aparrenty" and
> the cube does not notice the contraction.
>
> This *is* as simple as i remember it being. Neat.
>
>
>
> Lets say for argument, that our cube could record the passage of time.
> Since it can now record time, once our cube comes to a rest (we will
> ignore acelleration, since relativistic accelration is beyond me right
> now. So, from .9c to 0 in a "small" amount of time") , we will notice
> something odd. The observer's watch and the cube dont synch up. Why?
> Time dilation!
>
> Say, the cube was moving for 5 days at that speed.
>
> Without using any silly diagrams i will do this.
>
> t' = t/(gamma)
No, according to Marcel Luttgens, this must be
t' = gamma( t - vx/c^2 )
> (5 days)/(2.294) = 2.18 days.
>
> t' = observed time
> t = observer time
Yes, Marcel Luttgens will love this.
Too bad there is nothing for Henry Wilson :-(
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajl0oj$10e$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> In article <gksqlusnml11tdj9b...@4ax.com>, Eric Gisse wrote:
> >Note for josX: I am going to do some stuff with a simple lead cube. I
> >want to see if you can follow along. If you see an error, point it out
> >and re-do it the "right way" in your reply.
>
> Sure ;).
>
> >Note for Spaceman: Same as the note for josX
> >
> >Note for others: This is for everyone's benefit, really. This
> >reinforces what i learn, and hopefully i will be able to teach others.
> >Also, if Spaceman and josX get a clue, reading
> >sci.physics/sci.physics.relativity will be oh-so-much more pleasant.
> >
> >~~~
> >
> >Lets start off by defining a few things....
> >
> >c = 3x10^8 m/s
> >(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
> >(gamma) = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>
> You realize you go wrong here?
> "gamma" is not a real entity, it cannot be because of it's mutual
> exclusion proporty.
What do you mean with "it cannot because it is mutual
exclusion property"?
Why would gamma "be mutual exclusion property"?
And what the hell does it mean?
Is this an attempt at forming an English sentence or something?
>
> >We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
> >1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
> >
> >(1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
> >
> >This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
> >m/s.
> >
> >Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
> >talk about momentum.
> >
> >In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
> >So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
> >That is a lot, dont get in its way.
> >
> >Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>
> Unproven assertion.
>
> >In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
> >
> >So, (1/sqrt(1-[7.29x10^16 m/s / 9x10^16 m/s]))(.5)(11340
> >kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s)
> >
> >Note gamma = 2.294. Gamma is a dimensionless constant which will be
> >useful later.
>
> Gamma is NOT dimensionless dude.
Second fumble in two days.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosXGamma
Nice.
I'll stop here ;-)
Dirk Vdm
josX
It means that if two people are moving with respect to eachother,
the 'other' /is/ shorter. Now the fuzzcircuit in your brain activates
the "visual illusion" hormone, but SR isn't about visual illusions.
Considder the car-on-the-road-with-gap-in-the-road-paradox.
Only one thing can happen in the world, but SR's predictions exclude
eachother depending on what coordinate system you are in.
>>>We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
>>>1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
>>>
>>>(1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
>>>
>>>This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
>>>m/s.
>>>
>>>Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
>>>talk about momentum.
>>>
>>>In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
>>>So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
>>>That is a lot, dont get in its way.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>>
>>Unproven assertion.
>>
>>>In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>>>
>>>So, (1/sqrt(1-[7.29x10^16 m/s / 9x10^16 m/s]))(.5)(11340
>>>kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s)
>>>
>>>Note gamma = 2.294. Gamma is a dimensionless constant which will be
>>>useful later.
>>
>>Gamma is NOT dimensionless dude.
>
>Second fumble in two days.
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosXGamma
>Nice.
>
>I'll stop here ;-)
oh shit you are right, the dimensions drop away against eachother. Sorry.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> When are you going to respond to my simple and correct diagrams ?
So you say. Show the math. It is much more convincing than ascii drawn
diagrams. Diagrams are, at best, a crutch and a pedigogical tool. To
show a correct argument (logically speaking) the math is what counts.
Of which speaking, since all of your assertions are contradicted by
experiment you should go back to square 1. In the world of science, fact
is the determinent of truth, or more exactly the lack of fact is sure
proof of being wrong.
Which is why you are wrong. One hundred years of experiment prove you
are a twit and a fool.
All of the mathematically elegant proofs that bumblebees cannont fly are
for naught. Bumblebees can and do fly.
Bob Kolker
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajl4gs$7qu$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Language is not your strongest point, is it? ;-)
Don't you even see that I was pulling your leg?
You don't understand what I was referring to? No idea?
Never mind then.
[snip rest of attempt at explanation unread]
> >>Gamma is NOT dimensionless dude.
> >
> >Second fumble in two days.
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosXGamma
> >Nice.
> >
> >I'll stop here ;-)
>
> oh shit you are right, the dimensions drop away against eachother. Sorry.
That's the second time this happens.
You "work" to fast. The fumble stays where it is
and another is added with "terugwerkende kracht":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DontEven
Dirk Vdm
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>> When are you going to respond to my simple and correct diagrams ?
>
>So you say. Show the math. It is much more convincing than ascii drawn
>diagrams. Diagrams are, at best, a crutch and a pedigogical tool. To
>show a correct argument (logically speaking) the math is what counts.
Lousy excuse. You don't want to look at the math because you know it
shows you so wrong.
I could do the math without the diagrams, but that would only highten
your possibilities of getting away with outright lies.
Tell me exactly what you do not understand about this time/distance
diagram, i'll be happy to explain.
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 300,000,000 meter per 1 second = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2 2/14th * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second =
2.2556 * 100,000,000 = 225563.9098 km/sec, 75% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 2 / .942809041 = 2.121320344 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 / 1.060660172 =
.942809041 second = 2.25 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 2.25 *
100,000,000 meter = 225,000 km/sec, 75% of lighspeed.)
Do you notice the math just above here? numbers, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,
operators '/', '*', the '=' sign. Does any of this ring a bell with you ?
>Of which speaking, since all of your assertions are contradicted by
>experiment you should go back to square 1. In the world of science, fact
>is the determinent of truth, or more exactly the lack of fact is sure
>proof of being wrong.
>
>Which is why you are wrong. One hundred years of experiment prove you
>are a twit and a fool.
There is no proof of SR, nothing good enough to base SR on.
>All of the mathematically elegant proofs that bumblebees cannont fly are
>for naught. Bumblebees can and do fly.
Oh, now you got me.
--
jos
Jim
I read it late at night... That's it.
Very late at night. :)
Jim
Uncle Al
If it comes at your nose it relativistically flattens. If it whizzees
by it Terrell rotates. We thus have the delicious quandry of a
relativistic choo-choo passing by. In the bad old analytical days it
went chugga-chugga on apparently elliptical wheels without going
wunga-wunga up and down. In the good new numerical simulation days it
flashes by sideways with its wheels still locked in the tracks.
The cranks and crackpots will need update their spews.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Mike Varney
Onoang Blood
>
> In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>
Actually this is wrong. E = mc^2. m = m_0 gamma. Hence: E = m_0 * gamma
* c^2. If you Fourier transform gamma, you will find for slow speeds gamma
~ 1/2 v^2/c^2. Hence E ~ 1/2 m_0 v^2.
> So, (1/sqrt(1-[7.29x10^16 m/s / 9x10^16 m/s]))(.5)(11340
> kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s)
>
> Note gamma = 2.294. Gamma is a dimensionless constant which will be
> useful later.
> As you get closer to lightspeed, gamma gets big.
>
> SR Ek yeilds an awnser of 9.48x10^20 kgm/s of momentum. Woah, talk
> about deviation.
>
> Still following? Gooood.
>
>
> That cube is moving at a hefty clip. Or is it really a cube? Our
> "cube" is moving along the x axis relative to some observer. Length
> contraction is determinted by d/(gamma)
I may be uselfull to note for more advanced readers that this "contraction"
is the result of a changing meter stick. Basically, it results from a
change in how meters are measured in the first place. It is NOT the result
of some physical process like "pressure of Aether" etc. as some crackpots
will try to make you believe.
>
> Since our cube is moving along the x axis, it will contract along that
> axis.
>
> x' = x/(gamma)
>
> (1m)/(2.294) = .436
>
> Our cube, when moving at .9c, relative to a stationary observer, has
> the dimensions of .436m x 1m x 1m! Note that this is "aparrenty" and
> the cube does not notice the contraction.
Because in the cubes own frame of referece, it is not moving at all. It is
the rest of the world that is moving.
>
> This *is* as simple as i remember it being. Neat.
>
>
>
> Lets say for argument, that our cube could record the passage of time.
> Since it can now record time, once our cube comes to a rest (we will
> ignore acelleration, since relativistic accelration is beyond me right
> now. So, from .9c to 0 in a "small" amount of time") , we will notice
> something odd. The observer's watch and the cube dont synch up. Why?
> Time dilation!
>
> Say, the cube was moving for 5 days at that speed.
>
> Without using any silly diagrams i will do this.
>
> t' = t/(gamma)
> (5 days)/(2.294) = 2.18 days.
>
> t' = observed time
> t = observer time
>
>
>
> No diagrams, no nothing. Simple algebra. All i needed for this post
> was http://www.motionmountain.org/C-2-CLSC.pdf,
> http://www.webelements.com and my High School background.
Yes. Indeed the math of SR isn't beyond High School Algebra. That is why
it is so funny to see these crackpots complain about the math. It only
shows how stupid they are!
>
> Yes, i am aware is SR reduced to a very simple level.
>
> josX, spaceman, either of you, if there are things "wrong" with what i
> have said, please correct them and explain in detail. But before you
> comment.
>
> 1) Newtonian mechanics and SR are NOT reconcilable, do not mix
> predictions from either.
>
> 2) You cannot use light as a reference frame.
>
> This is mostlly directed to josx/spaceman, but i do appreciate input
> from other people :)
>
> Also, josX.....When will you reply to this?
josX is a moron. He knows it but won't admit it. Hence, you will end up
waiting forever for a response from him. He has no intelligent response.
josX
<snip blabla>
>> Also, josX.....When will you reply to this?
>
>josX is a moron. He knows it but won't admit it. Hence, you will end up
>waiting forever for a response from him. He has no intelligent response.
Does it frighten you to know all of modern science in one huge scale
lie or fuckup ?
Let's examin:
SR: "light speed is the same for all inertial observers in a vacuo"
Bob: |
|
|
1-->2-->3-->4-->5
5<--4<--2<--2<--1
x---------+-------------
|
|
|
|
|
z
This is Bob, he is standing still with us. There you see two lightbeams
traveling through his coordinate system.
Here we have Alice, but she goes to the left.
Alice: | |
| |
| |
| 1-->2-->3-->4-->5
| 5<--4<--2<--2<--1
x-------+----------- x---------+-------------
| |
| |
| <-------- |
| moving |
| |
z z
Now you can use your magic wand and make Alice lengthcontract to any
amount that will satisfy you, you can impose the speed limit of the
speed of light for Alice's movement, and you can timedilate Alice for
everything you like.
And i'll show you that the speed of light cannot be 300,000km/sec for Alice
if it's 300,000km/sec for Bob.
--
jos
ps, i already responded to the original post, you must have missed it.
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Does it frighten you to know all of modern science in one huge scale
> lie or fuckup ?
The computer you are nattering with is sqarely based on quantum theory
and relativity.
Every time a high powered particle accelerator is revved up and works
according to specs is another experimantal verification of SR.
Every time GPS correct locates a postion is another proof of GTR.
A theory is tested and judged by the conformance of its predictions
with experiment and nothing else matters.
Bob Kolker
Eric Gisse
<snip>
>>Lets start off by defining a few things....
>>
>>c = 3x10^8 m/s
>>(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
>>(gamma) = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>
>You realize you go wrong here?
>"gamma" is not a real entity, it cannot be because of it's mutual
>exclusion proporty.
Mutual exclusion? WTF does that have to do with relativity? The
CLOSEST thing i can think of that could even relate to what you said
is pauli's exclusion principle, which deals with electron shells.
You are a moron.
>>We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
>>1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
>>
>>(1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
>>
>>This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
>>m/s.
>>
>>Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
>>talk about momentum.
>>
>>In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
>>So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
>>That is a lot, dont get in its way.
>>
>>Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>
>Unproven assertion.
Newtonian mechanics cannot accurately predict the orbit of Mercury,
this has been known for years.
All it takes is 1 contradiction to disprove a theory.
You are a moron.
>>In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>>
>>So, (1/sqrt(1-[7.29x10^16 m/s / 9x10^16 m/s]))(.5)(11340
>>kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s)
>>
>>Note gamma = 2.294. Gamma is a dimensionless constant which will be
>>useful later.
>
>Gamma is NOT dimensionless dude.
Whoops i said constant, when i meant factor, and it shouldve been
m^2/s^2 but either way the point is lost upon you.
Aparrently "algebra" is something that eludes you, still. Remember the
identity property of division? Something divided by itself equals 1,
the two m^2/s^2 units cancel out leaving a dimensionless factor.
You are a moron.
>>As you get closer to lightspeed, gamma gets big.
>>
>>SR Ek yeilds an awnser of 9.48x10^20 kgm/s of momentum. Woah, talk
>>about deviation.
>>
>>Still following? Gooood.
>
>sure pal
>
>>That cube is moving at a hefty clip. Or is it really a cube? Our
>>"cube" is moving along the x axis relative to some observer. Length
>>contraction is determinted by d/(gamma)
>
>That would be "mutual length contraction", thank you. It means there's
>now two realities, one in which we are shorter, and one in which the
>cube is shorter. Be explicit.
The length contraction is aparrent, it is all relative to the
observer. Neither object actually changes size.
You must be trying to digest some stuff about QM in order for you to
start babbling about "two realities".
Still a moron.
>>Since our cube is moving along the x axis, it will contract along that
>>axis.
>>
>>x' = x/(gamma)
>>
>>(1m)/(2.294) = .436
>>
>>Our cube, when moving at .9c, relative to a stationary observer, has
>>the dimensions of .436m x 1m x 1m! Note that this is "aparrenty" and
>>the cube does not notice the contraction.
>
>But are this visual illusions?
>No. The answer is, it's irrational illusions.
Who says physics is rational? We used to think there was aether,
spontaneous generation of macroscopic matter, atoms were
indivisible...
>>This *is* as simple as i remember it being. Neat.
>
>I am amazed that your ability to do this simple math clouds your thinking
>into believing you actually have done something and understood it. You
>only understood it on the level of operations, not on the level of
>understanding.
Wow you actually got something right, good job. I understand SR at the
very basic level, the more advanced applications of it are not in my
realm at the moment.
>Suppose the cube was sliding along a rail, and there was a gab of 1m
>wide in the rail. Would the cube fall in? Answer: yes and no, depending
>on which universe you talk about. Do you understand these implications
>of SR ?
Perhaps you meant "gap"
As far as i know, the awnser is "no" because the cube would be moving
fast enough to traverse that 1m distance for it not to fall in.
Besides, your example is shit because my example was out in space.
Perhaps i shouldve made things even more obvious. "There is a cube and
an observer in this universe, NOTHING ELSE"
>>Lets say for argument, that our cube could record the passage of time.
>>Since it can now record time, once our cube comes to a rest (we will
>>ignore acelleration, since relativistic accelration is beyond me right
>>now. So, from .9c to 0 in a "small" amount of time") , we will notice
>>something odd. The observer's watch and the cube dont synch up. Why?
>>Time dilation!
>
>My my, you really are bright aren't you. Tell me bright guy, why is the
>cubes watch behind while from the pov of the cube WE were the ones moving
>and had the time dilation. Get it?
Its all relative to the observer...
>>Say, the cube was moving for 5 days at that speed.
>>
>>Without using any silly diagrams i will do this.
>
>If you are referring to my diagrams, they are not silly, just simple
>and accurate.
Just because you say so doesnt make it true. Your diagrams are a
figment of your imagination with no math to back them up. Your
diagrams are uncomprehensable drivel which are rightly not found
ANYWHERE.
Why dont you tell us where you learned to create those diagrams? I
doubt 6 months of college was where you learned.
>>t' = t/(gamma)
>>(5 days)/(2.294) = 2.18 days.
>>
>>t' = observed time
>>t = observer time
>>
>>No diagrams, no nothing. Simple algebra. All i needed for this post
>>was http://www.motionmountain.org/C-2-CLSC.pdf,
>>http://www.webelements.com and my High School background.
>>
>>Yes, i am aware is SR reduced to a very simple level.
>>
>>josX, spaceman, either of you, if there are things "wrong" with what i
>>have said, please correct them and explain in detail. But before you
>>comment.
>
>I did. You just applied SR. I can apply SR too, big deal. The problem
>comes with thinking a bit beyond the simple applyance.
Spelling, grammar, and division are constant troubles and irritances
for you. You did not last 1 year in college. SR works in every
application imaginable: GPS, Reactors, Acellerators, Orbital
Mechanics, EVERYTHING.
>>1) Newtonian mechanics and SR are NOT reconcilable, do not mix
>>predictions from either.
>>
>>2) You cannot use light as a reference frame.
>
>I never did.
Message-ID: <ajft0e$rbg$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>
"The '*' at 0,0 is the beginning of the lightpulse to the right...
below
the lightpulse 'v' at time t=1, and the K' system has moved to the
right.
The Lorentz timedilation and length-contraction are portrayed to scale
for a speed of 1/3 c, which is the speed of K' in K."
~~~
You cannot apply transforms to the light beam. Twit.
>
>>This is mostlly directed to josx/spaceman, but i do appreciate input
>>from other people :)
>>
>>Also, josX.....When will you reply to this?
>
>Ah right, the troll shows himself.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>It's not corroberated, there is no basis for SR in physical evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>The experiment which shows light's speed is the same for all observers
>>>>>>>>>>>was never conducted (same lightbeam, moving and stationary equipment).
>>>>>>>>>>>GPS, nuclear reactors, particle-accelerators and whatever have you have
>>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with SR and the fact that they work has no relation to SR
>>>>>>>>>>>(outside of physics fairy tales spinning them together, not making any).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As you approach ~5% c, SR starts to signifigantly deviate from Newton,
>>>>>>>>>>when you try to solve for kinetic energy. Can you guess how that is
>>>>>>>>>>important for particle acellerators? Hint: momentum is always
>>>>>>>>>>conserved. Conservation is important.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If you continue to deny that particle acellerators work with SR, i
>>>>>>>>>>encourage you to explain how they do. Bonus points if you can keep
>>>>>>>>>>people who work at the acellerators from laughing at you, eg, Eric
>>>>>>>>>>Prebys. Also, im pretty sure everyone would pitch in a few bucks to
>>>>>>>>>>send you to fermilab to play as the endpoint of the proton beam.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You glossed over this. I post again for comment.
>>>>>>I re-post this yet again. Quit ignoring this.
>>>>
>>>>I repost for the 5th time. Respond to the above paragraphs.
>
>When are you going to respond to my simple and correct diagrams ?
The moment they are "simple" ,"correct" and backed up by actual math
instead of handwaving and simple division.
The onus is on you, jos. SR has been working for 9 decades and
counting, then you come along and say its crap and expect us to
believe it because you do a lot of handwaving and say "my diagrams
prove its crap!" You have to prove to US that its crap, not the other
way around.
Science doesnt work that way, its too bad that you lack the critical
thinking skills required to see that.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>(snip)
>>
>> In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>>
>
>Actually this is wrong. E = mc^2. m = m_0 gamma. Hence: E = m_0 * gamma
>* c^2. If you Fourier transform gamma, you will find for slow speeds gamma
>~ 1/2 v^2/c^2. Hence E ~ 1/2 m_0 v^2.
Fourier transform? Im not familiar with that. Remember, High School
education? :)
Ive seen this mentioned before, but not with an explanation. What does
it matter if you just use m_0 instead of m(gamma)? It seems the same
to me, unless there is something in the derivations of it that make it
different.
<snip>
>
>josX is a moron. He knows it but won't admit it. Hence, you will end up
>waiting forever for a response from him. He has no intelligent response.
I know, but its a way to pass the time. Its also not without
entertainment and educational value too.
Eric Gisse
>Onoang Blood wrote:
><snip blabla>
>>> Also, josX.....When will you reply to this?
>>
>>josX is a moron. He knows it but won't admit it. Hence, you will end up
>>waiting forever for a response from him. He has no intelligent response.
>
>Does it frighten you to know all of modern science in one huge scale
>lie or fuckup ?
Apply some critical thinking, if you can.
For 90 years SR has been around with experimental basis, do you
honestly believe that it took NINTY YEARS for someone to "break" the
theory depite the *fact* that it has worked in every concievable
application for that time?
<snip meaningless drivel>
>
>And i'll show you that the speed of light cannot be 300,000km/sec for Alice
>if it's 300,000km/sec for Bob.
Again, jos. The speed of light is constant for all inertial observers.
Among other things, it appears you have a problem gasping that
postulate.
Onoang Blood
Bob of course you are right. JosX doesn't even have his equations for SR
correct. And it's just based on simple algrebra for Christ sake. He has
convinced himself that his version of the Lorentz transforms are correct and
they aren't. Then he uses his wrong equations to derive an inconsistancy in
SR. Christ even Richeter realizes the error. And he's another moron!!
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>> Does it frighten you to know all of modern science in one huge scale
>> lie or fuckup ?
>
>The computer you are nattering with is sqarely based on quantum theory
>and relativity.
Thanks for lying, makes things easy for me.
--
jos
josX
>On 17 Aug 2002 08:16:19 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Lets start off by defining a few things....
>>>
>>>c = 3x10^8 m/s
>>>(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
>>>(gamma) = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>>
>>You realize you go wrong here?
>>"gamma" is not a real entity, it cannot be because of it's mutual
>>exclusion proporty.
>
>Mutual exclusion? WTF does that have to do with relativity? The
>CLOSEST thing i can think of that could even relate to what you said
>is pauli's exclusion principle, which deals with electron shells.
>
>You are a moron.
I think i just broke the sekret coding of your brains. It works
through complicated words! If i am clear, you don't care in the least,
but when i use a "complicated (fantasy) word" you go heywire (however
you write that i dunno). "mutual exclusion proporty" gets them angry,
and i know why: it hacks into their games of using fancy meaningless
terms for themselves.
Do you have a square root on your calculator? Probably not otherwise
you would know my numerical examples work out fine, so i suggest you
get one, casio is a great brand, i can recommend it!
>>>We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
>>>1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
>>>
>>>(1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
>>>
>>>This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
>>>m/s.
>>>
>>>Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
>>>talk about momentum.
>>>
>>>In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
>>>So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
>>>That is a lot, dont get in its way.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>>
>>Unproven assertion.
>
>Newtonian mechanics cannot accurately predict the orbit of Mercury,
>this has been known for years.
Neither does "constancy of the speed of light" predict the orbit of
Mercury. Newtonian/classical mechanics can meanwhile perfectly fine model
the behaviour of Mercury.
>All it takes is 1 contradiction to disprove a theory.
Excellent, you have a whole array of contradictions to chose from when
you finally are ready emotionally to say goodbye to your old scam SR.
>You are a moron.
>
>>>In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>>>
>>>So, (1/sqrt(1-[7.29x10^16 m/s / 9x10^16 m/s]))(.5)(11340
>>>kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s)
>>>
>>>Note gamma = 2.294. Gamma is a dimensionless constant which will be
>>>useful later.
>>
>>Gamma is NOT dimensionless dude.
>
>Whoops i said constant, when i meant factor, and it shouldve been
>m^2/s^2 but either way the point is lost upon you.
>
>Aparrently "algebra" is something that eludes you, still. Remember the
>identity property of division? Something divided by itself equals 1,
>the two m^2/s^2 units cancel out leaving a dimensionless factor.
Trying to drain blood from a dead horse?
>You are a moron.
>
>>>As you get closer to lightspeed, gamma gets big.
>>>
>>>SR Ek yeilds an awnser of 9.48x10^20 kgm/s of momentum. Woah, talk
>>>about deviation.
>>>
>>>Still following? Gooood.
>>
>>sure pal
>>
>>>That cube is moving at a hefty clip. Or is it really a cube? Our
>>>"cube" is moving along the x axis relative to some observer. Length
>>>contraction is determinted by d/(gamma)
>>
>>That would be "mutual length contraction", thank you. It means there's
>>now two realities, one in which we are shorter, and one in which the
>>cube is shorter. Be explicit.
>
>The length contraction is aparrent, it is all relative to the
>observer. Neither object actually changes size.
That your personal version of SR?
You realize SR is not about visual illusions?
You realize the speed of light still cannot be constant with or without
lengthcontraction and/or timedilation? no? buy that calculator!
>You must be trying to digest some stuff about QM in order for you to
>start babbling about "two realities".
I try to make sense of SR, unfortunately it is not possible. Not logically,
not mathematically, and not experimentally either.
>Still a moron.
>
>>>Since our cube is moving along the x axis, it will contract along that
>>>axis.
>>>
>>>x' = x/(gamma)
>>>
>>>(1m)/(2.294) = .436
>>>
>>>Our cube, when moving at .9c, relative to a stationary observer, has
>>>the dimensions of .436m x 1m x 1m! Note that this is "aparrenty" and
>>>the cube does not notice the contraction.
>>
>>But are this visual illusions?
>>No. The answer is, it's irrational illusions.
>
>Who says physics is rational?
Sigh, you really sink low, sad.
> We used to think there was aether,
>spontaneous generation of macroscopic matter, atoms were
>indivisible...
>
>>>This *is* as simple as i remember it being. Neat.
>>
>>I am amazed that your ability to do this simple math clouds your thinking
>>into believing you actually have done something and understood it. You
>>only understood it on the level of operations, not on the level of
>>understanding.
>
>Wow you actually got something right, good job. I understand SR at the
>very basic level, the more advanced applications of it are not in my
>realm at the moment.
Guess what, i get a whole lot more right, for instance that the speed
of light cannot be a constant for everybody however their relative
motions.
>>Suppose the cube was sliding along a rail, and there was a gab of 1m
>>wide in the rail. Would the cube fall in? Answer: yes and no, depending
>>on which universe you talk about. Do you understand these implications
>>of SR ?
>
>Perhaps you meant "gap"
Yes gap.
>As far as i know, the awnser is "no" because the cube would be moving
>fast enough to traverse that 1m distance for it not to fall in.
Fine fine fine. There was a much better example of this recently
posted to the group:
Suppose your cube travel along, but at a right angle to it's direction
of movement a spaceship comes flying wich has a gap in it of 1 meter
in the direction of movement of the cube, and the gap is 2 meter high
(for instance):
----cube----[]--->
^
|
(|) spaceship
|
|
|
Does or doesn't the cube slide into the gap of the spaceship ?
Considder it the improved car-on-the-road+gap paradox. Bullitproved
against yet another anal evasion of our dear SRist trolling these groups.
>Besides, your example is shit because my example was out in space.
>Perhaps i shouldve made things even more obvious. "There is a cube and
>an observer in this universe, NOTHING ELSE"
thanks for showing what you are made off
>>>Lets say for argument, that our cube could record the passage of time.
>>>Since it can now record time, once our cube comes to a rest (we will
>>>ignore acelleration, since relativistic accelration is beyond me right
>>>now. So, from .9c to 0 in a "small" amount of time") , we will notice
>>>something odd. The observer's watch and the cube dont synch up. Why?
>>>Time dilation!
>>
>>My my, you really are bright aren't you. Tell me bright guy, why is the
>>cubes watch behind while from the pov of the cube WE were the ones moving
>>and had the time dilation. Get it?
>
>Its all relative to the observer...
You may get away with that when you talk to yourself, but not here.
>>>Say, the cube was moving for 5 days at that speed.
>>>
>>>Without using any silly diagrams i will do this.
>>
>>If you are referring to my diagrams, they are not silly, just simple
>>and accurate.
>
>Just because you say so doesnt make it true. Your diagrams are a
>figment of your imagination with no math to back them up. Your
>diagrams are uncomprehensable drivel which are rightly not found
>ANYWHERE.
>
>Why dont you tell us where you learned to create those diagrams? I
>doubt 6 months of college was where you learned.
?
>>>t' = t/(gamma)
>>>(5 days)/(2.294) = 2.18 days.
>>>
>>>t' = observed time
>>>t = observer time
>>>
>>>No diagrams, no nothing. Simple algebra. All i needed for this post
>>>was http://www.motionmountain.org/C-2-CLSC.pdf,
>>>http://www.webelements.com and my High School background.
>>>
>>>Yes, i am aware is SR reduced to a very simple level.
>>>
>>>josX, spaceman, either of you, if there are things "wrong" with what i
>>>have said, please correct them and explain in detail. But before you
>>>comment.
>>
>>I did. You just applied SR. I can apply SR too, big deal. The problem
>>comes with thinking a bit beyond the simple applyance.
>
>Spelling, grammar, and division are constant troubles and irritances
>for you. You did not last 1 year in college. SR works in every
>application imaginable: GPS, Reactors, Acellerators, Orbital
>Mechanics, EVERYTHING.
toiletpaper, fuel injection, computers, calculators, satalites, watches...
As a matter of fact animals even use it. Is that where we will be in
another 100 years of this bullshit ?
>>>1) Newtonian mechanics and SR are NOT reconcilable, do not mix
>>>predictions from either.
>>>
>>>2) You cannot use light as a reference frame.
>>
>>I never did.
>
>Message-ID: <ajft0e$rbg$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>
>
>"The '*' at 0,0 is the beginning of the lightpulse to the right...
>below
>the lightpulse 'v' at time t=1, and the K' system has moved to the
>right.
>The Lorentz timedilation and length-contraction are portrayed to scale
>for a speed of 1/3 c, which is the speed of K' in K."
That is light moving in a coordinate system.
>You cannot apply transforms to the light beam. Twit.
I cannot compute where the lightbeam is in a certain coordinate
system?
You think you can keep that bullshit long enough in the air until you
grow old ?
Division isn't allowed in SR ?
>The onus is on you, jos. SR has been working for 9 decades and
>counting, then you come along and say its crap and expect us to
>believe it because you do a lot of handwaving and say "my diagrams
>prove its crap!" You have to prove to US that its crap, not the other
>way around.
I do proof it, and easily so.
>Science doesnt work that way, its too bad that you lack the critical
>thinking skills required to see that.
Here, read some actual physics, and there is math in too, although i
have to excuze myself because i also have used "simple division", i wasn't
aware it was forbidden.
*
Investigation into length contraction and time dilation, K is a coordinate
system, K' is a coordinate system in movement with respect to K in the
direction of Ks positive x axis with a speed of 1 unit distance per 1
unit time:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
To make this incoherency mathematically (seemingly) right, you might do
this, contract the length-measure in K', the famous length contraction
i presume:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----------^
Speeds are the same numerically in both coordinate systems: 3 ticks
per time.
That's one solution, but it doesn't work:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^--------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------*
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^-----------------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------------------*
Which is 3 ticks in K per time, but (15-3=12)/2=6 ticks per time in K'.
Therefore length-contraction doesn't work and will never work to make
c a constant in all frames of reference, because it produces the oposite
results depending on whether the direction of the light was along or
head-on with the translation of the moving coordinate system. Like
time dilation, it is also in contradiction with the principle of relativity,
because you can't take one of the coordinate systems to be the preferred
frame, which produces the impossible *mutual* length-contraction, producing
paradoxes like the car which does or doesn't fall through a hole in the
road depending on your frame of reference.
Then there is time-dilation (well there isn't, but there is the hypotheses):
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|--======v
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2|-----============v
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
For K 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
For K' 4 distance for 1 3/9 time tick = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
So this works out, so it SEEMS.
But it doesn't because:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1| v=========---
||
||
||
|| distance>
00--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2| v==================------
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
K -> (10-4=6) distance / 2 time = 3 distance per 1 time
K' -> (10-2=8) distance / 1 3/9 time = 6 distance per 1 time
3 <> 6
So time dilation produces oposite results for beams in the oposite
direction of the translation of the moving coordinate system, and
can therefore not make the speed of light a constant generally accross
reference frames which are moving with respect to one another.
A combination of the above two solutions to constancy of c (timedilation
lengthcontraction) will not work for the same reason that they don't work
in isolation either:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
0*----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|----==========v
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16-
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2|---------====================v
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K' -> 5 distance for 1 4/6 time = 3 distance for 1 time
So far so good, but:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1| v===============-----
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10--11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2| v==============================----------
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> (10-4=6) / 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K'-> (12 1/2 - 2 1/2 = 10) / 1 4/6 = 6 distance for 1 time
For a speed of the moving coordinate-system of '1' per '1'
time and a lightspeed of '3' per '1' time: 1 distance=100,000km, 1
time=1 sec. The Lorentz transformations give then a lengthcontraction of:
<quote Einstein>
x(beginning of the rod) = 0 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
x(end of the rod) = 1 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
</quote>
x' = x * (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
Which comes out as:
x' = x * 0.942809041
Then the Lorentz timedilation effect:
<quote Einstein>
As judged from K, the clock is moving with teh velocity v; as
judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a con-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly thean when at
rest.
</quote>
Which comes out as
t' = t * 1/(1 - 100,000^2/300,000^2)^.5 = t * 1.060660172
Because of the constraints of usenet linelength we can only do t0 and t1
(the below is on scale):
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v==========================================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 400,000,000 - 100,000,000 = 300,000,000 meter per 1 second
= 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 4 4/14 *100,000,000 - 0=4 2/7 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second,
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter = 451,127.8 km/sec = 150% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 4 * 100,000,000) / .942809041 = 4.242640687 * 100,000,000 per
1 / 1.060660172 = 0.942809041 seconds =
4.5 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 4.5 * 100,000,000 meter
= 450,000 km/sec, 150% of lightspeed
If we force lightspeed in both frames, we get light which is at multiple
points in space:
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v--------v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2.85 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second, 2.85/19/20 =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
(Exactly: 2.828427 * 100,000,000 meter per .94280 second =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec)
The difference in position of both hypothetical light wavefronts is,
written as a position in K:
light-1(x) = 3 * 100,000,000 meter = 300,000,000 meter
light-2(x) = 3 * .942809041 + 1 = 3.82842712, * 100,000,000
= 382,842,712.5 meter
300,000,000<>382,842,712.5 -> the light has splitted into multiple discrete
beams.
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v--------------v===========================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
Same story, you can compute yourself what the difference in position of
both hypothetical lightbeams is under the Lorentz-transformations.
If you do, you have disproved the validity of the Lorentz-transformations
yourself! (unless you subscribe to a world-splitting solution to SR, which
is not endorsed officially).
--
jos
josX
>On 17 Aug 2002 19:28:45 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>
>>Onoang Blood wrote:
>><snip blabla>
>>>> Also, josX.....When will you reply to this?
>>>
>>>josX is a moron. He knows it but won't admit it. Hence, you will end up
>>>waiting forever for a response from him. He has no intelligent response.
>>
>>Does it frighten you to know all of modern science in one huge scale
>>lie or fuckup ?
>
>Apply some critical thinking, if you can.
I can, and i do. That's how i found out SR=wrong :).
>For 90 years SR has been around with experimental basis,
No experimental basis.
> do you
>honestly believe that it took NINTY YEARS for someone to "break" the
>theory depite the *fact* that it has worked in every concievable
>application for that time?
Ofcourse i do honestly believe it, don't you?
><snip meaningless drivel>
>
>>And i'll show you that the speed of light cannot be 300,000km/sec for Alice
>>if it's 300,000km/sec for Bob.
>
>Again, jos. The speed of light is constant for all inertial observers.
>Among other things, it appears you have a problem gasping that
>postulate.
No, i have no problem with that in a philosophy group as a game of
trying to see where an insane idea leads to. But this is physics, not
philosophy, so things have to work out and cannot simply be 'assumed
correct'.
There has to be hard experimental evidence that the speed of light is
always the same for every observer. An experiment to show that the same
beam of light has the same speed for stationary and moving measuring
equipment has never been done. That means 98 years of defacto lying
by scientists. That means they have lost every shred of credibility
they might have had by default in this matter, so don't bother coming
up with fake experiments.
The fact that it was a 'postulate' should send shockwaves of horror
into the scientific establishment, how such a grave error could go
unnoticed for so long.
You just cannot make "postulates" out of thin air in science, didn't know?
Here is the reason: everybody can postulate anything, that's no basis
for true knowledge.
--
jos
josX
>>josX wrote:
>> > Does it frighten you to know all of modern science in one huge scale
>> > lie or fuckup ?
>>
>> The computer you are nattering with is sqarely based on quantum theory
>> and relativity.
>>
>> Every time a high powered particle accelerator is revved up and works
>> according to specs is another experimantal verification of SR.
>>
>> Every time GPS correct locates a postion is another proof of GTR.
>>
>> A theory is tested and judged by the conformance of its predictions
>> with experiment and nothing else matters.
>
>correct. And it's just based on simple algrebra for Christ sake.
Sorry pal, but my equations come right from the master.
<quote Einstein>
x(beginning of the rod) = 0 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
x(end of the rod) = 1 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
(...)
As judged from K, the clock is moving with teh velocity v; as
judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a con-
sequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly thean when at
rest.
</quote>
Too bad, better luck next time!
> He has
>convinced himself that his version of the Lorentz transforms are correct and
>they aren't. Then he uses his wrong equations to derive an inconsistancy in
>SR.
You don't need math to proof an inconsistancy in SR, but it's ofcourse nice
if you have it.
> Christ even Richeter realizes the error. And he's another moron!!
Maybe you guys are the morons here, ever contemplated on that one ?
--
jos
Mike Varney
> > From: "Onoang Blood" <OBL...@mn.rr.com>
<SNIP>
>
> You don't need math to proof an inconsistancy in SR, but it's ofcourse
nice
> if you have it.
>
> > Christ even Richeter realizes the error. And he's another moron!!
>
> Maybe you guys are the morons here, ever contemplated on that one ?
Occam's razor leads to the conclusion that you are an utter moron, Jos.
Eric Gisse
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>On 17 Aug 2002 08:16:19 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Lets start off by defining a few things....
>>>>
>>>>c = 3x10^8 m/s
>>>>(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
>>>>(gamma) = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>>>
>>>You realize you go wrong here?
>>>"gamma" is not a real entity, it cannot be because of it's mutual
>>>exclusion proporty.
>>
>>Mutual exclusion? WTF does that have to do with relativity? The
>>CLOSEST thing i can think of that could even relate to what you said
>>is pauli's exclusion principle, which deals with electron shells.
>>
>>You are a moron.
>
>I think i just broke the sekret coding of your brains. It works
>through complicated words! If i am clear, you don't care in the least,
>but when i use a "complicated (fantasy) word" you go heywire (however
>you write that i dunno). "mutual exclusion proporty" gets them angry,
>and i know why: it hacks into their games of using fancy meaningless
>terms for themselves.
Shifting your faults upon me is called projection, you are the one
creating fancy meaningless terms.
Mutual exclusion property, yeilds 0 hits on google.
Also, why do you keep mis-spelling words? "property", not "proporty".
"haywire" not "heywire"
>Do you have a square root on your calculator? Probably not otherwise
>you would know my numerical examples work out fine, so i suggest you
>get one, casio is a great brand, i can recommend it!
I like my TI-83 better.
>>>>We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
>>>>1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
>>>>
>>>>(1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
>>>>
>>>>This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
>>>>m/s.
>>>>
>>>>Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
>>>>talk about momentum.
>>>>
>>>>In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
>>>>So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
>>>>That is a lot, dont get in its way.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>>>
>>>Unproven assertion.
>>
>>Newtonian mechanics cannot accurately predict the orbit of Mercury,
>>this has been known for years.
>
>Neither does "constancy of the speed of light" predict the orbit of
>Mercury. Newtonian/classical mechanics can meanwhile perfectly fine model
>the behaviour of Mercury.
Without using MOND, please predict the behevior of mercury. Me and
many others would like to see you pull that trick off.
>>All it takes is 1 contradiction to disprove a theory.
>
>Excellent, you have a whole array of contradictions to chose from when
>you finally are ready emotionally to say goodbye to your old scam SR.
If SR is wrong, it is for reasons that you will not be able to
comprehend in your lifetime.
<snip>
>>>Gamma is NOT dimensionless dude.
>>
>>Whoops i said constant, when i meant factor, and it shouldve been
>>m^2/s^2 but either way the point is lost upon you.
>>
>>Aparrently "algebra" is something that eludes you, still. Remember the
>>identity property of division? Something divided by itself equals 1,
>>the two m^2/s^2 units cancel out leaving a dimensionless factor.
>
>Trying to drain blood from a dead horse?
Trying to shift the focus?
>
<snip>
>>>>That cube is moving at a hefty clip. Or is it really a cube? Our
>>>>"cube" is moving along the x axis relative to some observer. Length
>>>>contraction is determinted by d/(gamma)
>>>
>>>That would be "mutual length contraction", thank you. It means there's
>>>now two realities, one in which we are shorter, and one in which the
>>>cube is shorter. Be explicit.
>>
>>The length contraction is aparrent, it is all relative to the
>>observer. Neither object actually changes size.
>
>That your personal version of SR?
>You realize SR is not about visual illusions?
>You realize the speed of light still cannot be constant with or without
>lengthcontraction and/or timedilation? no? buy that calculator!
You have made another assertion which has been proven to be false.
Perhaps i should keep count.
>>You must be trying to digest some stuff about QM in order for you to
>>start babbling about "two realities".
>
>I try to make sense of SR, unfortunately it is not possible. Not logically,
>not mathematically, and not experimentally either.
Uncle Al is right, they are trained.
Please explain how these work without SR:
Particle Accellerators
Orbital Mechanics (Eg, Mercury)
GPS (SR and GTR are related, disprove one and you disprove the other)
Time dilation
>>Still a moron.
>>
>>>>Since our cube is moving along the x axis, it will contract along that
>>>>axis.
>>>>
>>>>x' = x/(gamma)
>>>>
>>>>(1m)/(2.294) = .436
>>>>
>>>>Our cube, when moving at .9c, relative to a stationary observer, has
>>>>the dimensions of .436m x 1m x 1m! Note that this is "aparrenty" and
>>>>the cube does not notice the contraction.
>>>
>>>But are this visual illusions?
>>>No. The answer is, it's irrational illusions.
>>
>>Who says physics is rational?
>
>Sigh, you really sink low, sad.
Again, i ask, WHO says that physics has to be rational? You had to
learn to walk, didnt you? Relativity is just another way of doing
things. Im sorry you cant accept that.
>
>> We used to think there was aether,
>>spontaneous generation of macroscopic matter, atoms were
>>indivisible...
>>
>>>>This *is* as simple as i remember it being. Neat.
>>>
>>>I am amazed that your ability to do this simple math clouds your thinking
>>>into believing you actually have done something and understood it. You
>>>only understood it on the level of operations, not on the level of
>>>understanding.
>>
>>Wow you actually got something right, good job. I understand SR at the
>>very basic level, the more advanced applications of it are not in my
>>realm at the moment.
>
>Guess what, i get a whole lot more right, for instance that the speed
>of light cannot be a constant for everybody however their relative
>motions.
Another assertion which you cant back up with math because it has been
proven false.
>>>Suppose the cube was sliding along a rail, and there was a gab of 1m
>>>wide in the rail. Would the cube fall in? Answer: yes and no, depending
>>>on which universe you talk about. Do you understand these implications
>>>of SR ?
>>
>>Perhaps you meant "gap"
>
>Yes gap.
>
>>As far as i know, the awnser is "no" because the cube would be moving
>>fast enough to traverse that 1m distance for it not to fall in.
>
>Fine fine fine. There was a much better example of this recently
>posted to the group:
>
>Suppose your cube travel along, but at a right angle to it's direction
>of movement a spaceship comes flying wich has a gap in it of 1 meter
>in the direction of movement of the cube, and the gap is 2 meter high
>(for instance):
>
>
>----cube----[]--->
> ^
> |
> (|) spaceship
> |
> |
> |
>
>Does or doesn't the cube slide into the gap of the spaceship ?
Not enough information to awnser the question. What was that you were
saying about being explicit? Without the speed one cannot say.
>
>Considder it the improved car-on-the-road+gap paradox. Bullitproved
>against yet another anal evasion of our dear SRist trolling these groups.
Bulletproof by virtue of nothing to shoot at.
>>Besides, your example is shit because my example was out in space.
>>Perhaps i shouldve made things even more obvious. "There is a cube and
>>an observer in this universe, NOTHING ELSE"
>
>thanks for showing what you are made off
Yes, i do take intelligence for granted.
>>>>Lets say for argument, that our cube could record the passage of time.
>>>>Since it can now record time, once our cube comes to a rest (we will
>>>>ignore acelleration, since relativistic accelration is beyond me right
>>>>now. So, from .9c to 0 in a "small" amount of time") , we will notice
>>>>something odd. The observer's watch and the cube dont synch up. Why?
>>>>Time dilation!
>>>
>>>My my, you really are bright aren't you. Tell me bright guy, why is the
>>>cubes watch behind while from the pov of the cube WE were the ones moving
>>>and had the time dilation. Get it?
>>
>>Its all relative to the observer...
>
>You may get away with that when you talk to yourself, but not here.
Relative to the cube the rest of the universe is moving.
<snip>
>>Spelling, grammar, and division are constant troubles and irritances
>>for you. You did not last 1 year in college. SR works in every
>>application imaginable: GPS, Reactors, Acellerators, Orbital
>>Mechanics, EVERYTHING.
>
>toiletpaper, fuel injection, computers, calculators, satalites, watches...
TP is an industrial process.
Fuel injection is an electromechanical process ran by computers.
Computers are a QM process.
Sattelites that just sit in orbit can use newton.
Watches can be anything from a mechanical process to a QM process.
Your examples mean diddly.
>
>As a matter of fact animals even use it. Is that where we will be in
>another 100 years of this bullshit ?
Naw, something will come along and replace SR.
>>>>1) Newtonian mechanics and SR are NOT reconcilable, do not mix
>>>>predictions from either.
>>>>
>>>>2) You cannot use light as a reference frame.
>>>
>>>I never did.
>>
>>Message-ID: <ajft0e$rbg$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>
>>
>>"The '*' at 0,0 is the beginning of the lightpulse to the right...
>>below
>>the lightpulse 'v' at time t=1, and the K' system has moved to the
>>right.
>>The Lorentz timedilation and length-contraction are portrayed to scale
>>for a speed of 1/3 c, which is the speed of K' in K."
>
>That is light moving in a coordinate system.
>
>>You cannot apply transforms to the light beam. Twit.
>
>I cannot compute where the lightbeam is in a certain coordinate
>system?
>
>You think you can keep that bullshit long enough in the air until you
>grow old ?
Apples, oranges. You can compute "where" it is [as far as i know, that
is] but you cannot apply the transforms to it.
>
>>>>This is mostlly directed to josx/spaceman, but i do appreciate input
>>>>from other people :)
>>>>
>>>>Also, josX.....When will you reply to this?
>>>
>>>Ah right, the troll shows himself.
Asking you to prove your assertions is a troll?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not corroberated, there is no basis for SR in physical evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The experiment which shows light's speed is the same for all observers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>was never conducted (same lightbeam, moving and stationary equipment).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>GPS, nuclear reactors, particle-accelerators and whatever have you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with SR and the fact that they work has no relation to SR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>(outside of physics fairy tales spinning them together, not making any).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As you approach ~5% c, SR starts to signifigantly deviate from Newton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>when you try to solve for kinetic energy. Can you guess how that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>important for particle acellerators? Hint: momentum is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>conserved. Conservation is important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If you continue to deny that particle acellerators work with SR, i
>>>>>>>>>>>>encourage you to explain how they do. Bonus points if you can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>people who work at the acellerators from laughing at you, eg, Eric
>>>>>>>>>>>>Prebys. Also, im pretty sure everyone would pitch in a few bucks to
>>>>>>>>>>>>send you to fermilab to play as the endpoint of the proton beam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You glossed over this. I post again for comment.
>>>>>>>>I re-post this yet again. Quit ignoring this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I repost for the 5th time. Respond to the above paragraphs.
>>>
>>>When are you going to respond to my simple and correct diagrams ?
>>
>>The moment they are "simple" ,"correct" and backed up by actual math
>>instead of handwaving and simple division.
>
>Division isn't allowed in SR ?
Not the way you do it.
>
>>The onus is on you, jos. SR has been working for 9 decades and
>>counting, then you come along and say its crap and expect us to
>>believe it because you do a lot of handwaving and say "my diagrams
>>prove its crap!" You have to prove to US that its crap, not the other
>>way around.
>
>I do proof it, and easily so.
>
>>Science doesnt work that way, its too bad that you lack the critical
>>thinking skills required to see that.
>
>Here, read some actual physics, and there is math in too, although i
>have to excuze myself because i also have used "simple division", i wasn't
>aware it was forbidden.
God, you really think thats physics? I want to see you published
somewhere. That would be the day.
Here is time dilation, t'=t/(gamma) where (gamma)=1/sqrt[1-(v^2/c^2)]
Here is proof.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Explain to me where they went wrong with math instead of meaningless
and contentless diagrams.
Again i snip those stupid fucking diagrams, you copy and paste those
from a text file without thinking. I know that because you re-post
the same errors each time.
When you show us of an experiment where light speed does not go at c,
you will get the attention seem to need.
Onoang Blood
Tard. Jesus this is known. This idiot probably thinks computers are part
of some huge conspiracy to bring the downfall of man by getting people to
believe in Einstein. It's dickheads like this that make you wanna smash
stuff.
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajmfu8$f7g$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> Here is the reason: everybody can postulate anything, that's no basis
> for true knowledge.
Hey moron, a postulate is a *consequence* of knowledge.
What do you think Newton's laws are?
Dirk Vdm
josX
Not if you include history in your input parameters.
Remember established science against the roundness of the Earth and it's
movement about the sun ?
Say anything you want, but the Eart flatness and centerdness in the
universe were science of that day. Perhaps not among the most intelligent
at some point, but that is the same situation as now with SR: only the
fools still believe in it.
The lumineferous aether was the science of the day when Einstein lived.
The space/time bending continuum with light as a constant for all is
the science of this day.
It's still a long way before we get anywhere near good science (or should
i say "good scientists").
--
jos
josX
It means something, you just don't understand it well.
>http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22mutual+exclusion+property%22+relativity&meta=
>
>Also, why do you keep mis-spelling words? "property", not "proporty".
>"haywire" not "heywire"
Because i'm not an American or Brit.
>>Do you have a square root on your calculator? Probably not otherwise
>>you would know my numerical examples work out fine, so i suggest you
>>get one, casio is a great brand, i can recommend it!
>
>I like my TI-83 better.
Then why don't you use it.
>>>>>We first start off with a lead cube. It has dimensions of 1m x 1m x
>>>>>1m. It also has a total mass of 11340 kg.
>>>>>
>>>>>(1m^3)*(11340 kg/m^3) = 11340 kg.
>>>>>
>>>>>This cube is cruising in space at .9c, Which is a velocity of 2.7x10^8
>>>>>m/s.
>>>>>
>>>>>Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
>>>>>talk about momentum.
>>>>>
>>>>>In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
>>>>>So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
>>>>>That is a lot, dont get in its way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Unproven assertion.
>>>
>>>Newtonian mechanics cannot accurately predict the orbit of Mercury,
>>>this has been known for years.
>>
>>Neither does "constancy of the speed of light" predict the orbit of
>>Mercury. Newtonian/classical mechanics can meanwhile perfectly fine model
>>the behaviour of Mercury.
>
>Without using MOND, please predict the behevior of mercury. Me and
>many others would like to see you pull that trick off.
Why do you say "behevior" while it's "behaviour".
Why do you think "the speed of light is constant in all inertial
coordinate systems" has anything to do with mercury. BTW, i don't believe
for a second this was predicted, it was probably observed first, then
it was predicted and then it was observed again to take the credit for it.
But don't bother, we are debating the merrits of SR now.
>>>All it takes is 1 contradiction to disprove a theory.
>>
>>Excellent, you have a whole array of contradictions to chose from when
>>you finally are ready emotionally to say goodbye to your old scam SR.
>
>If SR is wrong, it is for reasons that you will not be able to
>comprehend in your lifetime.
SR is wrong, for reasons that you can explain to 10 year old children,
and they'll probably laugh at the sillyness of the scientists.
><snip>
>>>>Gamma is NOT dimensionless dude.
>>>
>>>Whoops i said constant, when i meant factor, and it shouldve been
>>>m^2/s^2 but either way the point is lost upon you.
>>>
>>>Aparrently "algebra" is something that eludes you, still. Remember the
>>>identity property of division? Something divided by itself equals 1,
>>>the two m^2/s^2 units cancel out leaving a dimensionless factor.
>>
>>Trying to drain blood from a dead horse?
>
>Trying to shift the focus?
Trying to score cheap points ?
><snip>
>>>>>That cube is moving at a hefty clip. Or is it really a cube? Our
>>>>>"cube" is moving along the x axis relative to some observer. Length
>>>>>contraction is determinted by d/(gamma)
>>>>
>>>>That would be "mutual length contraction", thank you. It means there's
>>>>now two realities, one in which we are shorter, and one in which the
>>>>cube is shorter. Be explicit.
>>>
>>>The length contraction is aparrent, it is all relative to the
>>>observer. Neither object actually changes size.
>>
>>That your personal version of SR?
>>You realize SR is not about visual illusions?
>>You realize the speed of light still cannot be constant with or without
>>lengthcontraction and/or timedilation? no? buy that calculator!
>
>You have made another assertion which has been proven to be false.
>Perhaps i should keep count.
>
>>>You must be trying to digest some stuff about QM in order for you to
>>>start babbling about "two realities".
>>
>>I try to make sense of SR, unfortunately it is not possible. Not logically,
>>not mathematically, and not experimentally either.
>
>Uncle Al is right, they are trained.
>
>Please explain how these work without SR:
>
>Particle Accellerators
Pretend you used SR/GR, but just do everything experimentally and see
what you get.
>Orbital Mechanics (Eg, Mercury)
Another scam most likely.
>GPS (SR and GTR are related, disprove one and you disprove the other)
Fine, i disproved SR.
>Time dilation
Nonsense with mutual exclusion proporty.
>>>Still a moron.
>>>
>>>>>Since our cube is moving along the x axis, it will contract along that
>>>>>axis.
>>>>>
>>>>>x' = x/(gamma)
>>>>>
>>>>>(1m)/(2.294) = .436
>>>>>
>>>>>Our cube, when moving at .9c, relative to a stationary observer, has
>>>>>the dimensions of .436m x 1m x 1m! Note that this is "aparrenty" and
>>>>>the cube does not notice the contraction.
>>>>
>>>>But are this visual illusions?
>>>>No. The answer is, it's irrational illusions.
>>>
>>>Who says physics is rational?
>>
>>Sigh, you really sink low, sad.
>
>Again, i ask, WHO says that physics has to be rational? You had to
>learn to walk, didnt you? Relativity is just another way of doing
>things. Im sorry you cant accept that.
No i can't. Nor should i.
>>> We used to think there was aether,
>>>spontaneous generation of macroscopic matter, atoms were
>>>indivisible...
>>>
>>>>>This *is* as simple as i remember it being. Neat.
>>>>
>>>>I am amazed that your ability to do this simple math clouds your thinking
>>>>into believing you actually have done something and understood it. You
>>>>only understood it on the level of operations, not on the level of
>>>>understanding.
>>>
>>>Wow you actually got something right, good job. I understand SR at the
>>>very basic level, the more advanced applications of it are not in my
>>>realm at the moment.
>>
>>Guess what, i get a whole lot more right, for instance that the speed
>>of light cannot be a constant for everybody however their relative
>>motions.
>
>Another assertion which you cant back up with math because it has been
>proven false.
No one has even left my math unsnipped if they replied at all.
>>>>Suppose the cube was sliding along a rail, and there was a gab of 1m
>>>>wide in the rail. Would the cube fall in? Answer: yes and no, depending
>>>>on which universe you talk about. Do you understand these implications
>>>>of SR ?
>>>
>>>Perhaps you meant "gap"
>>
>>Yes gap.
>>
>>>As far as i know, the awnser is "no" because the cube would be moving
>>>fast enough to traverse that 1m distance for it not to fall in.
>>
>>Fine fine fine. There was a much better example of this recently
>>posted to the group:
>>
>>Suppose your cube travel along, but at a right angle to it's direction
>>of movement a spaceship comes flying wich has a gap in it of 1 meter
>>in the direction of movement of the cube, and the gap is 2 meter high
>>(for instance):
>>
>>
>>----cube----[]--->
>> ^
>> |
>> (|) spaceship
>> |
>> |
>> |
>>
>>Does or doesn't the cube slide into the gap of the spaceship ?
>
>Not enough information to awnser the question.
liar
> What was that you were
>saying about being explicit? Without the speed one cannot say.
Any speed.
>>Considder it the improved car-on-the-road+gap paradox. Bullitproved
>>against yet another anal evasion of our dear SRist trolling these groups.
>
>Bulletproof by virtue of nothing to shoot at.
Then why are you shooting.
>>>Besides, your example is shit because my example was out in space.
>>>Perhaps i shouldve made things even more obvious. "There is a cube and
>>>an observer in this universe, NOTHING ELSE"
>>
>>thanks for showing what you are made off
>
>Yes, i do take intelligence for granted.
>
>>>>>Lets say for argument, that our cube could record the passage of time.
>>>>>Since it can now record time, once our cube comes to a rest (we will
>>>>>ignore acelleration, since relativistic accelration is beyond me right
>>>>>now. So, from .9c to 0 in a "small" amount of time") , we will notice
>>>>>something odd. The observer's watch and the cube dont synch up. Why?
>>>>>Time dilation!
>>>>
>>>>My my, you really are bright aren't you. Tell me bright guy, why is the
>>>>cubes watch behind while from the pov of the cube WE were the ones moving
>>>>and had the time dilation. Get it?
>>>
>>>Its all relative to the observer...
>>
>>You may get away with that when you talk to yourself, but not here.
>
>Relative to the cube the rest of the universe is moving.
Which means the rest of the universe is contracted in the direction
of movement, do you understand that implication of SR ? (if i have
to feed you thought experiments bitesized then that i will do)
><snip>
>>>Spelling, grammar, and division are constant troubles and irritances
>>>for you. You did not last 1 year in college. SR works in every
>>>application imaginable: GPS, Reactors, Acellerators, Orbital
>>>Mechanics, EVERYTHING.
>>
>>toiletpaper, fuel injection, computers, calculators, satalites, watches...
>
>TP is an industrial process.
>Fuel injection is an electromechanical process ran by computers.
>Computers are a QM process.
Sure dude. NOT. The first computers were macro machines involving plugs
and wires, later machines used the EXPERIMENTALLY found electrical
switch, i had a picture of the very first made on my wall for years.
>Sattelites that just sit in orbit can use newton.
Ah, so we don't use GR after all for space travel, no suprise.
>Watches can be anything from a mechanical process to a QM process.
>
>Your examples mean diddly.
>
>>As a matter of fact animals even use it. Is that where we will be in
>>another 100 years of this bullshit ?
>
>Naw, something will come along and replace SR.
Ofcourse: classical mechanics.
>>>>>1) Newtonian mechanics and SR are NOT reconcilable, do not mix
>>>>>predictions from either.
>>>>>
>>>>>2) You cannot use light as a reference frame.
>>>>
>>>>I never did.
>>>
>>>Message-ID: <ajft0e$rbg$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>
>>>
>>>"The '*' at 0,0 is the beginning of the lightpulse to the right...
>>>below
>>>the lightpulse 'v' at time t=1, and the K' system has moved to the
>>>right.
>>>The Lorentz timedilation and length-contraction are portrayed to scale
>>>for a speed of 1/3 c, which is the speed of K' in K."
>>
>>That is light moving in a coordinate system.
>>
>>>You cannot apply transforms to the light beam. Twit.
>>
>>I cannot compute where the lightbeam is in a certain coordinate
>>system?
>>
>>You think you can keep that bullshit long enough in the air until you
>>grow old ?
>
>Apples, oranges. You can compute "where" it is [as far as i know, that
>is] but you cannot apply the transforms to it.
I only compute /where/ it is in the various coordinate systems.
Let me get my math in here:
(...)
Take for instance "(2.828427 * 100,000,000)/.94280 = 3*10^8", anything the
matter with that (.94280 = .942809041..., 2.828427 = 2.828427125...)?
>>>The onus is on you, jos. SR has been working for 9 decades and
>>>counting, then you come along and say its crap and expect us to
>>>believe it because you do a lot of handwaving and say "my diagrams
>>>prove its crap!" You have to prove to US that its crap, not the other
>>>way around.
>>
>>I do proof it, and easily so.
>>
>>>Science doesnt work that way, its too bad that you lack the critical
>>>thinking skills required to see that.
>>
>>Here, read some actual physics, and there is math in too, although i
>>have to excuze myself because i also have used "simple division", i wasn't
>>aware it was forbidden.
>
>God, you really think thats physics? I want to see you published
>somewhere. That would be the day.
Good idea.
>Here is time dilation, t'=t/(gamma) where (gamma)=1/sqrt[1-(v^2/c^2)]
>
>Here is proof.
>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
>
>Explain to me where they went wrong with math instead of meaningless
>and contentless diagrams.
evasion noticed, also snipping as usual noticed.
>Again i snip those stupid fucking diagrams, you copy and paste those
>from a text file without thinking. I know that because you re-post
>the same errors each time.
But you don't bother pointing the errors out do you. Do you think i
redo these diagrams and math every time i post?
>When you show us of an experiment where light speed does not go at c,
>you will get the attention seem to need.
--
jos
josX
>
>[snip]
>
>> Here is the reason: everybody can postulate anything, that's no basis
>> for true knowledge.
>
>Hey moron, a postulate is a *consequence* of knowledge.
Then where is the experiment SR could be based upon, involving a single
beam and multiple observers moving at different speed relative to it.
>What do you think Newton's laws are?
Results of experiments.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> It's still a long way before we get anywhere near good science (or should
> i say "good scientists").
We have good science. The computer you are nattering on is an example of
what comes from good science (and engineering based on that science). We
live longer and eat better than folks did 100 years ago because of good
science (and engineering). What you are after is -better- science. And
that will come in the fullness of time as we learn more and improve our
technology.
Tycho Brahe practiced good astronomy. He took frequent sightings, and
used the most exact instruments that could be built in his day. Galileo
showed the way to better astronomy by pointing telescopes -up- rather
than -out-. He also cast overboard most of his Aristotelean baggage.
That helped a great deal. Galileo, Kepler and Newton blazed the path for
the rest of us, and Maxwell and Faraday lighted it up so that we may see
it all the better. The field concept has been one of the most fruitful
ideas, ever, in physics. Planck and Einstein showed us that energy is
atomic and descrete just as is matter. Einstein showed us that our
Galilean conception time and space does not work at high velocities.
Aside from the obvious problem of finding a replacement that covers both
quantum theory AND the relativistic theory of gravity, some of our
greatest challanges come from understanding complex systems and how they
come to have properties and modes not possessed by their components. In
short, the next line of development in science is making sense on non
reductionist issues. Up until recently, the Reductionist Program has
been the most successful stratgey and it will always be a good strategy.
It is, however, insufficient to understand living systems fully. Making
sense of emergence is one of the great challanges that is yet to be met
in a satisfactory manner.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajnmit$18u$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajmfu8$f7g$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Here is the reason: everybody can postulate anything, that's no basis
> >> for true knowledge.
> >
> >Hey moron, a postulate is a *consequence* of knowledge.
>
> Then where is the experiment SR could be based upon, involving a single
> beam and multiple observers moving at different speed relative to it.
Everywhere except where the ones who lack any form of
imagination have looked.
>
> >What do you think Newton's laws are?
>
> Results of experiments.
I.e. postulates.
Careful experiments and observations have pointed out that
they are wrong. Highly usable in most circumstances, but
utterly useless in others, ignored by those who use there
bottom as a thinking device.
Come on, say something silly now.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
>>What do you think Newton's laws are?
>>
>
> Results of experiments.
Not so. The 3-rd law was pure inspiration.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>You realize you go wrong here?
>"gamma" is not a real entity, it cannot be because of it's mutual
>exclusion proporty.
I want to know what "magic hat"
(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
was pulled out of too!
:)
P =?
b=?
r=?
h=?
o=?
so far.
he has a lot of nothingess with letters equaling it.
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
josX
Ofcourse not, at the very least it was a destilation of Newtons
past experiences in the physical world.
<quote http://www.aloha.com/~isaac/3laws/3mid.htm>
NEWTON'S THIRD LAW
------------------------------------------------
Newton's Third law is probably the most famous of his laws. In laymen
terms, it is:
These actions are forces, so you can remember this law as being every
force has an equal and opposite force. Remember that these are two
seperate forces, wich act upon two seperate objects, and so they do not
cancel each other out.
------------------------------------------------
The Third Law at first seems simple, but is a very important law.
Everytime we interact with our surroundings we feel the Third Law. When
you punch someone in the face, your hand not only applies a force to the
person's face; the person's face applies a force to your hand. Since the
person's face is softer than your hand it suffers more from the
interaction. The Third Law is very important for space travel. In the cold
void of space their is no air for jets to suck or for propellers to churn,
and yet space ships can manouver in a vacuum. How do they do it? The
engines propel gas particles out the back of the space ship. Since every
force has an equal and opposite reaction force, the space ship will be
propelled forwards. Because of the First Law space ships do not need very
much fuel -- once they are moving they will stay in motion
.
Here we see BOB punching Mike in the face.
------------------------------------------------
</quote>
--
jos
Spaceman
>The computer you are nattering with is sqarely based on quantum theory
>and relativity.
>
>Every time a high powered particle accelerator is revved up and works
>according to specs is another experimantal verification of SR.
>
>Every time GPS correct locates a postion is another proof of GTR.
>
>A theory is tested and judged by the conformance of its predictions
>with experiment and nothing else matters.
>
Parroting wrong crap again huh?
Computers work becasue we know how to push around and
maniputate electrons.
Particle accelerators work for the same reason.
GPS could not find the North pole if it used relativity in
ABSOLUTE POSITIONING.
Stop lying so much!
It's sad.
Nothing relies on relativity to work.
That is a friggen joke!
words and math do not make things happen.
and they don't allow or stop them either.
What kind of mathematical fantasy world are you living in?
Computers based upon Quantum theory?
<LOL>
Computers are built upon lightswitches and abucus thingies.
You are lost if you think anything else.
Spaceman
>Thanks for lying, makes things easy for me.
It is sad though.
Parroting off such crap about computers.
when all smart people know
computers are just a bunch of little on and off switches.
and right now we are trying to make them have
tiny dimmer switches instead since a dimmer switch
has more positions to tell us about data.
:)
They really have no clue.
It is sad they do lie so much too.
Next thing ya know
they will be saying planes fly because of QM.
<LOL>
Spaceman
>For 90 years SR has been around with experimental basis, do you
>honestly believe that it took NINTY YEARS for someone to "break" the
>theory depite the *fact* that it has worked in every concievable
>application for that time?
It took longer to remove the Sun God and such.
We should be smarter by now so it won't be too much
longer til the "false clock God known as the atomic clock"
falls as all other false Gods have.
the clock goofed.
they worship the goofup instead of finding the
"basic mechanical problem"
These guys could not time a single piston lawnmower engine.
Robert J. Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>>From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@attbi.com
>>
>>A theory is tested and judged by the conformance of its predictions
>>with experiment and nothing else matters.
>>
>>
>
> Parroting wrong crap again huh?
Not crap. I am saying what physics is about.
> What kind of mathematical fantasy world are you living in?
> Computers based upon Quantum theory?
LOL. Have you ever heard of a tunnel diode or a Josephson junction? Our
understanding of how they work only comes from quantum theory.
Classically speaking there can be non tunneling.
> <LOL>
>
> Computers are built upon lightswitches and abucus thingies.
> You are lost if you think anything else.
There was a time when computers were electro-mechanical. Not any more.
They are all based on transistors whose workings can only be understood
quantum mechanically.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>LOL. Have you ever heard of a tunnel diode or a Josephson junction? Our
>understanding of how they work only comes from quantum theory.
>Classically speaking there can be non tunneling.
Bullshit!
classically
a drill dropping while it's ON will tunnel.
and while off won't.
You are wanting magic reactions instead of classical mass-mass reactions.
>There was a time when computers were electro-mechanical. Not any more.
WRONG!!!
SOLID WRONG!
without the mechanics Computers would not work at all.
the electro-mechanical is still there 100%
>They are all based on transistors whose workings can only be understood
>quantum mechanically.
Do you even know what the hell a transistor is?
It's not a Quantum magical device!
sheesh!
It's a complex switch (or bunch of switches)
and nothing more.
What do you think it is?
josX
>Spaceman wrote:
>>>From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@attbi.com
>>>
>>>A theory is tested and judged by the conformance of its predictions
>>>with experiment and nothing else matters.
>>
>> Parroting wrong crap again huh?
>
>Not crap. I am saying what physics is about.
>
>> What kind of mathematical fantasy world are you living in?
>> Computers based upon Quantum theory?
>
>LOL. Have you ever heard of a tunnel diode or a Josephson junction? Our
>understanding of how they work only comes from quantum theory.
>Classically speaking there can be non tunneling.
Bullshit. If someone has found tunneling, and has moddeled it with math,
then you have classical 'tunneling'.
>> <LOL>
>>
>> Computers are built upon lightswitches and abucus thingies.
>> You are lost if you think anything else.
>
>
>There was a time when computers were electro-mechanical. Not any more.
>They are all based on transistors whose workings can only be understood
>quantum mechanically.
Lesson about lying: don't lie to people who happen to know what you talk
about.
I have gotten transistors at university even. I got very high grade
for that particular course (9.7 out of 10), and that's the sole reason i
got into programming.
Anyway: there are multiple types of transistors, for instance the
field effect transistor:
_________
/ switch \
------------------------------------electrical conductor
------------------------------------
If you put voltage on 'switch', you create a field over the conductor,
and it will repel electrons away towards both sides, closing the switch.
Then you have the more advanced transistors which use non conductivity
of a material (semi conducters), but where the material is made to conduct
under the influence of current or no current (it's been a while):
_______
/switch \
-------------------------------------
________|_____|_____|_____|__________
Then when you put the current on the middle material, the excess
electrons start to conduct electricity from one side to another
(depending on voltage between left and right). There's pnp and npn
transistors. Like i said, it's been a while. But it certainly involves
no QM. These things are all fabricated with experimental efforts and
chemistry. Only in the fuzzy minds of theoretical physicist does it
involve QM. The first transistor was a glass tube, later ones (solid
state) were still very big compared to the size of a molecule. QM
can't take the credit for computers.
I once designed a simple adder for two numbers, giving a result in
digits (not like a 'full adder' or anything). Just on paper, just
using transistors and diodes and normal switches, it can be done.
Nothing to do with QM.
--
jos
josX
Can happen any minute naw. Give them another 100 years and they will
claim even more. They simply claim every invention since the beginning
of QM and SR/GR.
Do you have any idea why they lie?
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajoj7q$cqr$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Do you have any idea from which kind of life form
you are getting support???
Dirk Vdm
> --
> jos
josX
Maybe i've found something:
<quote Measuring the Curvature of the Universe
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html >
Measuring the Curvature of the Universe by Measuring the Curvature of
the Hubble
Diagram
Two groups are measuring distant supernovae with the goal of determining
whether the Universe is open or closed by measuring the curvature in the
Hubble diagram. The figure below shows both data sets: Perlmutter et al.
(1997) and (1998) in black and Garnavich et al. (1997) in orange.
Radial velocity vs Distance for SNe 1a
The curves show a closed Universe (Omega = 2) in red, the critical density
Universe (Omega = 1) in black, the empty Universe (Omega = 0) in green,
and the steady state model in blue. The supernova luminosity calibration
used to compute the luminosity distance DL is from Riess, Press and
Kirshner (1996) which gives Ho = 65 km/sec/Mpc. The data show a larger
scatter than that expected based on the accuracy of the low redshift
sample, but Omega appears to be in the range 0 to 1, with a cosmological
constant giving an accelerating Universe.
</quote>
This is ofcourse redicilous. There is no curvature of space by the very
nature of the thing 'space' (it's not a thing, it's a void). But people
buy into it (aparently).
This might create great oportunities for easy money, as you need to do
nothing but produce a few charts and some bullshit. But there you have
two whole science teams chasing nonsense, and getting it published in
science magazines, so they get a piece of the pie too (the magazines).
And people, stupid as they are, believe all the crap that they are fed,
and because it's so wild they keep buying the stories, politicians keep
funding the nonsense research, teachers keep teaching voodoo nonsense
at university, and the loop is closed. I don't know how much funding
you get for some team investigating something like this, i don't think
it's big money on the scale of Enron/Worldcom etc fraud, or narcotics
shipping etc, but it has to be worth someting otherwise why not get into
more lucrative frauds.
Sounds reasonable?
--
jos
Eric Gisse
>>There was a time when computers were electro-mechanical. Not any more.
>
>WRONG!!!
>SOLID WRONG!
>without the mechanics Computers would not work at all.
>the electro-mechanical is still there 100%
>
>
chance.
<snip>
Eric Gisse
>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>>>From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@attbi.com
>>>>
>>>>A theory is tested and judged by the conformance of its predictions
>>>>with experiment and nothing else matters.
>>>
>>> Parroting wrong crap again huh?
>>
>>Not crap. I am saying what physics is about.
>>
>>> What kind of mathematical fantasy world are you living in?
>>> Computers based upon Quantum theory?
>>
>>LOL. Have you ever heard of a tunnel diode or a Josephson junction? Our
>>understanding of how they work only comes from quantum theory.
>>Classically speaking there can be non tunneling.
>
>Bullshit. If someone has found tunneling, and has moddeled it with math,
>then you have classical 'tunneling'.
Not quite as sad as spacemand but sad nonetheless. You have absolutely
no fucking idea what you are talking about, and it shows.
<snip>
Eric Gisse
>Why do you think "the speed of light is constant in all inertial
>coordinate systems" has anything to do with mercury. BTW, i don't believe
>for a second this was predicted, it was probably observed first, then
>it was predicted and then it was observed again to take the credit for it.
>But don't bother, we are debating the merrits of SR now.
Oh you didnt like SR from the beginning because you were uncomfortable
with it and you made no effort to understand its implications. I see
now. I gotcha.
<snip>
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> Bullshit. If someone has found tunneling, and has moddeled it with math,
> then you have classical 'tunneling'.
Explain a MOSFET classically. I await with baited breath.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Bullshit. If someone has found tunneling, and has moddeled it with math,
> then you have classical 'tunneling'.
Read this blurb please.
A QUANTUM TUNNELING TRANSISTOR, an on-off switch that exploits an
electron's ability to pass through normally impenetrable barriers, has
been built by Sandia researchers (Jerry Simmons, 505-844-8402), opening
possibilities for record-speed transistors that can be mass-produced
with current nanotechnology. In their device, the researchers control
the flow of electrons between two GaAs layers (each only 15 nm thick)
separated by an AlGaAs barrier (12 nm). Although the electrons in GaAs
ordinarily do not have enough energy to enter the AlGaAs barrier, the
layers are so thin (comparable in size to the electron wavelength) that
the electrons, considered as waves rather than particles, can spread
into the barrier and, with an appropriate voltage applied, out the other
side. In the process, the electron waves do not collide with impurity
atoms, in contrast to a traditional transistor's particlelike electrons,
which are slowed down by these collisions. Transistors that switch on
and off a trillion times per second--5 times faster than the current
record--are possible with this approach. Although quantum tunneling
transistors were first built in the late 1980s, it was originally
infeasible to mass-produce them. Previous researchers engraved the
ultrathin GaAs and AlGaAs features side-by-side on a surface, something
hard to do reliably with present-day lithography. Therefore the Sandia
researchers stacked the features vertically, by using readily available
techniques such as molecular beam epitaxy which can deposit layers of
material with single-atom thicknesses. Having made quantum-tunneling
memory devices and digital logic gates operating at 77 K, the
researchers expect room-temperature devices in the next year. (J.A.
Simmons et al., upcoming article in Applied Physics Letters; figure at
www.aip.org/physnews/graphics)
You might find the site useful for other things.
See: http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/catagories/quantum_mechanics.html
Bob Kolker
josX
MOSFET: metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor, it's a type
i even explained earlier.
Do you realize Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is classical mechanics
dealing with simple error margins you always have with equipment ?
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3D5FEB3F...@attbi.com...
He will declare it all crap and lies.
Once one is beyond a certain limit, anything goes.
Watch him.
Dirk Vdm
josX
I have nothing against QM where Q means quanta/quantums, and things
are rational. I only object to such bullshitery as cats which are in
two conditions at the same time just because we don't know, and the
general fuzzbable the QMists produce wherever you see them, very much
like the SRists and GRists fuzzbabbles.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajot77$r8u$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
hehe ;-)
Somehow this answer is not quite compatible with his previous
statement:
| Bullshit. If someone has found tunneling, and has moddeled it with math,
| then you have classical 'tunneling'.
[obvious spelling errors - 3 of them - not corrected]
That is josX exposed as a liar.
As I just said: once one is beyond a certain limit, anything goes.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>Do you have any idea why they lie?
Yes,
they can't even explain "charge",
nevermind electron flow and counting of such flow.
apparently time causes all for them and real forces
are no longer needed to be found.
:)
time even just made me post according to QM.
<LOL>
Spaceman
>This might create great oportunities for easy money, as you need to do
>nothing but produce a few charts and some bullshit. But there you have
>two whole science teams chasing nonsense, and getting it published in
>science magazines, so they get a piece of the pie too (the magazines).
>And people, stupid as they are, believe all the crap that they are fed,
>and because it's so wild they keep buying the stories, politicians keep
>funding the nonsense research, teachers keep teaching voodoo nonsense
>at university, and the loop is closed. I don't know how much funding
>you get for some team investigating something like this, i don't think
>it's big money on the scale of Enron/Worldcom etc fraud, or narcotics
>shipping etc, but it has to be worth someting otherwise why not get into
>more lucrative frauds.
>
>Sounds reasonable?
Yup,
scary too since it is so true.
Spaceman
>So very sad, with ignorance and denial running so deep, i dont have a
>chance.
and yet another that thinks time causes things to happen.
and QM invented computers.
<LOL>
don't know what a swithc is huh?
<LOL>
poor parrots..
they are all over the place and still can't learn more words.
Computers work because electrons exist..
They don;t work because of anything QM states.
for very simple stating shiut don;t make it actually work.
QM does shit.
and can't do shit to make somehting happen.
and neoither can time.
You are the foolish time travel dupe.
and very simply.
I know relativity is wrong and why it is wrong.
and this simple REAL reason is.
The clock goofed.
MORON!
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>>From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>
>>You realize you go wrong here?
>>"gamma" is not a real entity, it cannot be because of it's mutual
>>exclusion proporty.
>
>
>I want to know what "magic hat"
>(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
>was pulled out of too!
Rho is the greek symbol for density
Pb is lead
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message news:tm00muotm96bfsn4v...@4ax.com...
He is going to tell you he knew that.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> I have nothing against QM where Q means quanta/quantums, and things
> are rational.
In classical physics there are no quanta. Energy is continuous.
Classical physics cannot account for the Blackbody Radiation Curve, period.
The equipartition of energy among the frequencies fails completely.
Nor can classical electrodynmics explain tunneling through a potential
barrier or even how an atom can be stable. Classical statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics cannot account for specific heat properly.
Even Maxwell, who died before quantum theory was invented, was aware all
was not well. See -Bolzman's Atom- and -The Refrigerator and the Universe-.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>A QUANTUM TUNNELING TRANSISTOR, an on-off switch
funny,
that is what I say too!
<ROFLOL>
LOOK OUT FOLKS!
Spaceman is correct.
It's just a fancy switch.
:)
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>
>> I have nothing against QM where Q means quanta/quantums, and things
>> are rational.
>
>In classical physics there are no quanta. Energy is continuous.
Nonsense, but ofcourse you use a strawman for 'classical', and it's
likely universities also teach a strawman af normal/classical physics
in order to push for QM and it's brand of nonsense.
If there are quanta in nature, then normal mathmoddeling can mathmodel
them, no problem. The fact is, there can be no difference between normal
mathmoddeling for normal sized objects and very small objects, it's
all still mathmodeling.
>Classical physics cannot account for the Blackbody Radiation Curve, period.
Now you are talking about "explaining". Do you realize that if you
explain anything using a quark for instance, that you have just shifted
the problem to "why is the quark like that" (to give an example).
If there is a rational explanation for this radiation, then there is a
classical/normal answer. If there isn't, then it's unknown.
>The equipartition of energy among the frequencies fails completely.
>
>Nor can classical electrodynmics explain tunneling through a potential
>barrier or even how an atom can be stable. Classical statistical
>mechanics and thermodynamics cannot account for specific heat properly.
>Even Maxwell, who died before quantum theory was invented, was aware all
>was not well. See -Bolzman's Atom- and -The Refrigerator and the Universe-.
Things seem to be extremely fuzzy here, i don't think it is by any
means certain what this discussion is about except head bashing.
You people need to cut the crap, whether that is crap of QM or crap of
SR, or crap of GR. I only know specifically why SR is wrong of these
3 theories, and why Heisenberg uncertainty is classical. That last fact
gives me the impression that QM is much ado about nothing. Hype. Then
again if there are parts about 'quanta', then that's fine, no problem.
It's not clear where the bullshit and the sensible things in QM begin
and end, and i don't care until SR is removed and publically denounced
as the unfounded horseshit that it is.
--
jos
Mike Varney
Do realize you are an idiot?
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> and end, and i don't care until SR is removed and publically denounced
> as the unfounded horseshit that it is.
>
The unfounded horseshit is totally supported by experiment.
Bob Kolker
Jim
>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>josX wrote:
>>>
>>> Bullshit. If someone has found tunneling, and has moddeled it with math,
>>> then you have classical 'tunneling'.
>>
>>Read this blurb please.
>>
<snip>
>>the electrons, considered as waves rather than particles, can spread
>>into the barrier and, with an appropriate voltage applied, out the other
>>side. In the process, the electron waves do not collide with impurity
<snip>
>I have nothing against QM where Q means quanta/quantums, and things
>are rational. I only object to such bullshitery as cats which are in
>two conditions at the same time just because we don't know, and the
>general fuzzbable the QMists produce wherever you see them, very much
>like the SRists and GRists fuzzbabbles.
Waves or particles? Or both.
Jim
Mike
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:39:27 -0500, "Onoang Blood" <OBL...@mn.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >(snip)
> >>
> >> In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
> >>
> >
> >Actually this is wrong. E = mc^2. m = m_0 gamma. Hence: E = m_0 * gamma
> >* c^2. If you Fourier transform gamma, you will find for slow speeds gamma
> >~ 1/2 v^2/c^2. Hence E ~ 1/2 m_0 v^2.
>
> Fourier transform? Im not familiar with that. Remember, High School
> education? :)
I think he meant Taylor expand, not Fourier transform. Did you have
calculus in high school?
> Ive seen this mentioned before, but not with an explanation. What does
> it matter if you just use m_0 instead of m(gamma)? It seems the same
> to me, unless there is something in the derivations of it that make it
> different.
Most people don't like m(gamma) because E = m(gamma) c^2, so there's
really no point in having separate symbols and terms for
energy/"relativistic mass" Particularly if you work in units where c
= 1.
but regardless, gamma m c^2 <> (1/2) gamma m v^2 which is not the
relativistically correct expression for the energy. It is not
possible to get correct relativistic expressions in general by just
replacing m --> gamma m.
Mike
Spaceman
>Waves or particles? Or both.
>
Waves can not exist without particles to create them
SO,
simply.
it is BOTH ALWAYS!
no particles would create NO waves.
so,
It must be both or you have no wave at all.
Spaceman
>Rho is the greek symbol for density
>Pb is lead
>
So your line
(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
translates as,
(Density of Lead) times lead = the lead objects mass devided by 1 cubed meter?
<LOL>
too funny!
thanks!
:)
Randy Poe
> When are you going to respond to my simple and correct diagrams ?
Simple anyway. Did you find in school that you could get
a teacher to mark a paper correct by scrawling "this is
correct" across the top?
The first error in your simple diagrams occurs when you write
"t=1" and then try to say there's an inconsistency between
what is observed in the two frames at t=1.
You haven't fully defined the experiment, the nature of
the observation. And you're assuming "t=1" refers to the
same thing in both frames.
Then you go on to say, "look the beam is in two places at
once at t=1". And claim this is a prediction of SR.
Instead, what SR predicts is that the beam is in one place
when observer K says it is t=1, and in another place when
observer K' says it is t'=1. You have correctly shown that
the invariance of c requires that K and K' have different
rates of time flow.
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> are rational. I only object to such bullshitery as cats which are in
> two conditions at the same time just because we don't know, and the
> general fuzzbable the QMists produce wherever you see them, very much
> like the SRists and GRists fuzzbabbles.
Unfortunately, tunneling, as explained in the quoted blurb,
requires a cat to be in two places at once in that sense.
More precisely, it has a large probability of being inside the box
you put it in, and a smaller probability of being upstairs lapping
from its bowl even after you put it in the box, lock it up, and
throw away the key.
When the cat is an electron, this small probability multiplied
by a very large number of electrons becomes a measurable current.
- Randy
Randy Poe
> >understanding of how they work only comes from quantum theory.
> >Classically speaking there can be non tunneling.
>
> classically
> a drill dropping while it's ON will tunnel.
The effect called "tunneling" doesn't involve a drill. It
is more like putting a stack of billiard balls in a sealed
steel box on the second floor and having a small percentage
of them appear on the first floor.
> Do you even know what the hell a transistor is?
> It's not a Quantum magical device!
> sheesh!
> It's a complex switch (or bunch of switches)
> and nothing more.
Do you think something mechanical is moving from one side
to the other in a transistor?
> What do you think it is?
A bunch of molecules changing from a state in which
electrons flow freely from one to another, to another
in which they don't.
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> then you have classical 'tunneling'.
Do you know what tunneling is? Do you know what "classical" means?
It doesn't mean "modeled with math".
The term "tunneling" refers to a phenomenon where something
has a finite probability to appear on the other side of a
barrier. In a classical world, things do not spontaneously
appear on the other sides of walls. In quantum mechanics,
there is a nonzero probability that exactly that will happen.
> Anyway: there are multiple types of transistors, for instance the
> field effect transistor:
> _________
> / switch \
> ------------------------------------electrical conductor
> ------------------------------------
>
> If you put voltage on 'switch', you create a field over the conductor,
This is not a mechanical switch.
There are no moving parts in a chip which is encased in
plastic. The plastic is to prevent things from moving. Motion
is bad in a transistor. It breaks your little wires.
- Randy
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
>>From: Eric Gisse jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org
>
>>Rho is the greek symbol for density
>>Pb is lead
>>
>
>So your line
>(rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
>translates as,
>(Density of Lead) times lead = the lead objects mass devided by 1 cubed meter?
>
><LOL>
>too funny!
>thanks!
>:)
No, for ppl capable of reading formulas, it translates to: The Density
of Lead is 11340 kilogramm per cubic meter.
The density of an material is defined as the mass of an object devided
by the volume of the object.
Note: Differenct objects of same material will give same density.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Tris
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20020819105849...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> >From: Eric Gisse jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org
>
> >Rho is the greek symbol for density
> >Pb is lead
> >
>
> So your line
> (rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
> translates as,
> (Density of Lead) times lead = the lead objects mass devided by 1 cubed
meter?
>
> <LOL>
> too funny!
> thanks!
It means the density of lead is 11340 kg/m^3. Not particularly funny.
josX
Randy, it's ok that you try to pull this off, but you have to
do it again because you were sloppy: i don't say the beam at t=1
and t'=1 are at different places "hey this=wrong", i first use the
Lorentz formula according to Einstein which defines at t=1 t'=gamma*1,
you will notice this in the below to-scale diagram:
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v--------------v===========================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
See? I don't compare t=1 and t'=1.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> >Classically speaking there can be non tunneling.
>>
>> Bullshit. If someone has found tunneling, and has moddeled it with math,
>> then you have classical 'tunneling'.
>
>Do you know what tunneling is? Do you know what "classical" means?
>It doesn't mean "modeled with math".
>
>The term "tunneling" refers to a phenomenon where something
>has a finite probability to appear on the other side of a
>barrier. In a classical world, things do not spontaneously
>appear on the other sides of walls. In quantum mechanics,
>there is a nonzero probability that exactly that will happen.
In classical mechanics, a wall that can be transversed by a
particle is not a solid wall to it anymore.
>> Anyway: there are multiple types of transistors, for instance the
>> field effect transistor:
>> _________
>> / switch \
>> ------------------------------------electrical conductor
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> If you put voltage on 'switch', you create a field over the conductor,
>
>This is not a mechanical switch.
>
>There are no moving parts in a chip which is encased in
>plastic. The plastic is to prevent things from moving. Motion
>is bad in a transistor. It breaks your little wires.
That /switch\ is a bit of metal which can contain electrons.
--
jos
Spaceman
>That /switch\ is a bit of metal which can contain electrons.
These guys think the switch is not even there ,
It's really sad for them.
They think computers work off "math alone"(QM) without electrons or
the actual computers themselves..
<LOL>
QM is a cause to them, just like time is too.
<LOL>
They still don't even get the simplicity of the words.
The clock goofed up.
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >Instead, what SR predicts is that the beam is in one place
> >when observer K says it is t=1, and in another place when
> >observer K' says it is t'=1. You have correctly shown that
> >the invariance of c requires that K and K' have different
> >rates of time flow.
>
> Randy, it's ok that you try to pull this off, but you have to
> do it again because you were sloppy: i don't say the beam at t=1
> and t'=1 are at different places "hey this=wrong",
That is the very beginning of your long repeated copy-and-paste,
the part where I can still follow what you're trying to say.
You draw a couple of lines with propagating light beams at t=0,
t=1 and t=2 and say something about "this mathematical absurdity..."
It is at that point where you have left SR and any claims to be
showing inconsistencies with SR. You haven't defined the absurdity,
but it seems to be that the light beam is predicted to be in
two places at once at t=1. It is not. However, the location
when K says t=1 and K' says t'=1 are different.
> i first use the
> Lorentz formula according to Einstein which defines at t=1 t'=gamma*1,
Not in the diagram I refer to, which you claim is an "SR
absurdity".
> you will notice this in the below to-scale diagram:
No I won't. I can't make heads or tails of this diagram or what
it is trying to show. It has the words "Lorentz time
dilation" written on it. Beyond that, I can't tell what it
is supposed to be a diagram of or what it is supposed to
be showing.
Instead of drawing your incomprehensible pictures, you might
try writing down some equations and defining some terms.
In particular, as I have said repeatedly, define the events
that make up the experiment.
For instance: "The light beam hits point B and emits a signal
which is detected by K and by K'..." Then we have several
well defined events, like the hitting of point B and the
detection by the observers. And we can use Newton or Einstein
to calculate things about those events.
- Randy
Bryan Reed
Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>Before I deal with the two Lorentz transformations, I would like to
>talk about momentum.
>
>In Newtonian mechanics, Ek = (1/2)(mv^2.)
This is kinetic energy, not momentum.
>So, (.5)(11340 kg)(7.29x10^16 m/s) = 4.13x10^20 kgm/s of momentum.
>That is a lot, dont get in its way.
>
The (m/s) gets squared, too. And you're still confusing energy with
momentum.
>Unfortunately, Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>
This at least is true.
>In SR, Ek = (gamma)(1/2)(mv^2), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2])
>
Very, very wrong. Ek = (gamma-1)mc^2.
I'm not going to bother reading the rest.
Bryan
Marco Nelissen
> It means something, you just don't understand it well.
We've been telling you that about relativity for a while now...
Marco Nelissen
>>From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>
>>You realize you go wrong here?
>>"gamma" is not a real entity, it cannot be because of it's mutual
>>exclusion proporty.
>
>
> I want to know what "magic hat"
> (rho)Pb = 11340 kg/m^3
> was pulled out of too!
>
> P =?
> b=?
> r=?
> h=?
> o=?
>
> so far.
> he has a lot of nothingess with letters equaling it.
Just the kind of answer we would expect from a middleschool-dropout
tiresalesman...
Just in case you're really curious and actually want to learn
something: 'rho' is the spelled-out name for the symbol used to
denote mass density, and 'Pb' is the chemical name for lead.
Mel Lep
> If it comes at your nose it relativistically flattens. If it whizzees
> by it Terrell rotates. We thus have the delicious quandry of a
> relativistic choo-choo passing by. In the bad old analytical days it
> went chugga-chugga on apparently elliptical wheels without going
> wunga-wunga up and down. In the good new numerical simulation days it
> flashes by sideways with its wheels still locked in the tracks.
>
> The cranks and crackpots will need update their spews.
Your vivid description brought me back to old days Wonderland sights:
http://medlem.spray.se/gamow/tompkins_1a.gif
http://medlem.spray.se/gamow/tompkins_1b.gif
To visualise a Terrell-rotated Chattanooga choo choo requires, almost
certainly, a bottle of Ylem.
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Randy Poe wrote:
>> >Instead, what SR predicts is that the beam is in one place
>> >when observer K says it is t=1, and in another place when
>> >observer K' says it is t'=1. You have correctly shown that
>> >the invariance of c requires that K and K' have different
>> >rates of time flow.
>>
>> Randy, it's ok that you try to pull this off, but you have to
>> do it again because you were sloppy: i don't say the beam at t=1
>> and t'=1 are at different places "hey this=wrong",
>
>That is the very beginning of your long repeated copy-and-paste,
>the part where I can still follow what you're trying to say.
>
>You draw a couple of lines with propagating light beams at t=0,
>t=1 and t=2 and say something about "this mathematical absurdity..."
In classical mechanics (normal good math if you will) it's a mathematical
absurdity. Then i go on to see if SR resolves this absurdity. It does not.
Conclusion: SR=fataly-flawed.
>It is at that point where you have left SR and any claims to be
>showing inconsistencies with SR. You haven't defined the absurdity,
>but it seems to be that the light beam is predicted to be in
>two places at once at t=1. It is not. However, the location
>when K says t=1 and K' says t'=1 are different.
Where did i say i was involving SR in this. For your convenience i'll
update my anti-SR-brainwashing file with a notice this is not yet about
SR (see below).
>> i first use the
>> Lorentz formula according to Einstein which defines at t=1 t'=gamma*1,
>
>Not in the diagram I refer to, which you claim is an "SR
>absurdity".
>
>> you will notice this in the below to-scale diagram:
>
>No I won't. I can't make heads or tails of this diagram or what
>it is trying to show.
Why have you snipped it, i don't know about which diagram you talk about.
> It has the words "Lorentz time
>dilation" written on it. Beyond that, I can't tell what it
>is supposed to be a diagram of or what it is supposed to
>be showing.
Do you mean somethig like this:?
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
It's two coordinate systems superimposed, just as Einstein does in his
chapter 11 of 'relativity' called "the lorentz transformations" (1916).
>Instead of drawing your incomprehensible pictures, you might
>try writing down some equations and defining some terms.
>
>In particular, as I have said repeatedly, define the events
>that make up the experiment.
>
>For instance: "The light beam hits point B and emits a signal
>which is detected by K and by K'..." Then we have several
>well defined events, like the hitting of point B and the
>detection by the observers. And we can use Newton or Einstein
>to calculate things about those events.
You are looking for fuzzpoints aren't you :).
Sorry, there might not be much you can work with, it's all using liquid
tube devices with a single clock on them.
Here:
Investigation into length contraction and time dilation, K is a coordinate
system, K' is a coordinate system in movement with respect to K in the
direction of Ks positive x axis with a speed of 1 unit distance per 1
unit time. First we investigate the problem without using SR, then
we involve SR and see if it resolves the issues.
One note in advance: the 'object' we are dealing with is a lightbeam,
and it's measured using the following type of device:
+light detector light detector+
|\____________________________________________________________/|
|______________________________O_______________________________|
clock ^liquid filled tube
You can imagine this device accross all diagrams, spanning the
distance the light has traveled, so it travels in effect from
detector to detector. The device works on soundwaves, if a detector
detects light, it sends a soundpulse through the liquid to the
clock. The distance between the clock and both detectors is the
same and of the same shape.
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
To make this incoherency mathematically (seemingly) right, you might do
this, contract the length-measure in K', the famous length contraction
i presume:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----------^
Speeds are the same numerically in both coordinate systems: 3 ticks
per time.
That's one solution, but it doesn't work:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^--------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------*
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^-----------------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------------------*
Which is 3 ticks in K per time, but (15-3=12)/2=6 ticks per time in K'.
Therefore length-contraction doesn't work and will never work to make
c a constant in all frames of reference, because it produces the oposite
results depending on whether the direction of the light was along or
head-on with the translation of the moving coordinate system. Like
time dilation, it is also in contradiction with the principle of relativity,
because you can't take one of the coordinate systems to be the preferred
frame, which produces the impossible *mutual* length-contraction, producing
paradoxes like the car which does or doesn't fall through a hole in the
road depending on your frame of reference.
Then there is time-dilation (well there isn't, but there is the hypotheses):
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|--======v
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2|-----============v
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
For K 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
For K' 4 distance for 1 3/9 time tick = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
So this works out, so it SEEMS.
But it doesn't because:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1| v=========---
||
||
||
|| distance>
00--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2| v==================------
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
K -> (10-4=6) distance / 2 time = 3 distance per 1 time
K' -> (10-2=8) distance / 1 3/9 time = 6 distance per 1 time
3 <> 6
So time dilation produces oposite results for beams in the oposite
direction of the translation of the moving coordinate system, and
can therefore not make the speed of light a constant generally accross
reference frames which are moving with respect to one another.
A combination of the above two solutions to constancy of c (timedilation
lengthcontraction) will not work for the same reason that they don't work
in isolation either:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
0*----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|----==========v
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16-
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2|---------====================v
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K' -> 5 distance for 1 4/6 time = 3 distance for 1 time
So far so good, but:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1| v===============-----
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10--11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2| v==============================----------
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> (10-4=6) / 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K'-> (12 1/2 - 2 1/2 = 10) / 1 4/6 = 6 distance for 1 time
For a speed of the moving coordinate-system of '1' per '1'
time and a lightspeed of '3' per '1' time: 1 distance=100,000km, 1
time=1 sec. The Lorentz transformations give then a lengthcontraction of:
<quote Einstein>
x(beginning of the rod) = 0 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
x(end of the rod) = 1 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
</quote>
x' = x * (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
Which comes out as:
x' = x * 0.942809041
Then the Lorentz timedilation effect:
<quote Einstein>
As judged from K, the clock is moving with teh velocity v; as
judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a con-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly thean when at
rest.
</quote>
Which comes out as
t' = t * 1/(1 - 100,000^2/300,000^2)^.5 = t * 1.060660172
Because of the constraints of usenet linelength we can only do t0 and t1
(the below is on scale):
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 300,000,000 meter per 1 second = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2 2/14th * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second =
2.2556 * 100,000,000 = 225563.9098 km/sec, 75% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 2 / .942809041 = 2.121320344, * 100,000,000 meter per 1 / 1.060660172 =
.942809041 second = 2.25 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 2.25 *
100,000,000 meter = 225,000 km/sec, 75% of lighspeed.)
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v==========================================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 400,000,000 - 100,000,000 = 300,000,000 meter per 1 second
= 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 4 4/14 *100,000,000 - 0=4 2/7 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second,
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter = 451,127.8 km/sec = 150% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 4 * 100,000,000) / .942809041 = 4.242640687, * 100,000,000 per
1 / 1.060660172 = 0.942809041 seconds =
4.5 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 4.5 * 100,000,000 meter
= 450,000 km/sec, 150% of lightspeed
If we force lightspeed in both frames, we get light which is at multiple
points in space:
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v--------v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2.85 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second, 2.85/19/20 =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
(Exactly: 2.828427 * 100,000,000 meter per .94280 second =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec)
The difference in position of both hypothetical light wavefronts is,
written as a position in K:
light-1(x) = 3 * 100,000,000 meter = 300,000,000 meter
light-2(x) = 3 * .942809041 + 1 = 3.82842712, * 100,000,000
= 382,842,712.5 meter
300,000,000<>382,842,712.5 -> the light has splitted into multiple discrete
beams.
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v--------------v===========================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
Same story, you can compute yourself what the difference in position of
both hypothetical lightbeams is under the Lorentz-transformations.
If you do, you have disproved the validity of the Lorentz-transformations
yourself! (unless you subscribe to a world-splitting solution to SR, which
is not endorsed officially).
More diagrams:
Suppose 1/3rd of lightspeed movement for the moving coordinate system,
light starts at t,x=0,0
KK' . .
|1^time (sec) . .*t'=1
1| *t=1 .
|| . . Lorentz time
|| . . dilation and
|| . . length contraction
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| ..
00*t=0,t'=0 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0............1............2............3............4....K'(t'=0)
0............1............2............3...K'(t'=1)
KK' . .
|1^time (sec) . *t'=1
1| t=1* .
|| . . Lorentz time
|| . . dilation and
|| . . length contraction
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
00 *t=0,t'=0
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0............1............2............3............4...|K'(t'=0)
0............1............2............3...K'(t'=1)
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> t=0
> K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
>
> t=1
> K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
>
> t=2
> K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
>
> Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
Since you have two frames of reference moving with respect to each other,
an object cannot move with the same speed in both frames (unless it is
travelling at c, which would be the edge case). Your premise is flawed,
and the rest of your thought experiment invalid. Please try again.
Randy Poe
>
> In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> > t=0
> > K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> > K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> >
> > t=1
> > K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> > K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> >
> > t=2
> > K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> > K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> >
> > Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
>
> Since you have two frames of reference moving with respect to each other,
> an object cannot move with the same speed in both frames (unless it is
> travelling at c, which would be the edge case).
His "object" is presumably a beam of light. He is purporting to
show how it is "mathematically absurd for [light] to have the
same speed in all frames."
> Your premise is flawed,
> and the rest of your thought experiment invalid.
The thought experiment is flawed, but as it is in fact light he
is purporting to analyze this is not the flaw.
- Randy