The paradox that they can't solve.
josX
For realism it is better to use a piston which is pressed down on a rails,
and a piston-socket welded in the tracks. Suppose a great force pushing
on the piston (which is heavily and continuously greased to keep it
sliding). Now suppose this travels at a great speed, and suppose the
piston is very large so there is more room for falling in.
--
jos
josX
BTW, they can't solve any SR paradox, but this one is particularly obvious.
--
jos
josX
Made it better to prevent SRist-style pseudosolving involving the
movement at the head a normal piston can do.
For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
of it is over the gap.
--
jos
Uncle Al
I've always liked the cheap whore on payday - including the piston and
the grease. Of course, we must allow for relativity here...
The madam opened the brothel door to see a rather slick-looking,
well-dressed, middle-aged gentleman.
"May I help you?" the madam asked.
"I want to see Natalie," the man replied.
"Sir, Natalie is one of our most expensive ladies, perhaps someone
else..."
"No, I must see Natalie."
Just then Natalie appeared and announced to the man that she charges
$1000/visit. Without blinking, the man reached into his pocket and
handed her ten $100 bills. The two went up to a room for an hour,
then calmly the man left.
The next night he appeared again demanding to see Natalie. Natalie
explained that is was very rare for anyone to come back two nights in
a row and that there were no discounts. It was still $1000/visit.
Again the man took out the money, the two went up to the room, and an
hour later, he left.
When he showed up the third consecutive night, no one could believe
it. Again he handed Natalie the money and up to the room they went.
At the end of the hour Natalie questioned the man: "No one has ever
used my services three nights in a row. Where are you from?"
The man replied, "I'm from Philadelphia."
"Really?" replied Natalie. "I have family living there."
"Yes, I know", said the man. "Your father died and I'm your sister's
attorney. She asked me to give you your $3000 inheritance."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
YBM
As usual you only apply a part of SR (here the length-contraction)
by not using the events-driven representation of Lorentz
transformations.
Let's try to express your figure in term of events in space-time :
event A : the front of the rail is exactly at the end of the gap
event B : the back of the rail is exactly at the begining of the gap
both are described by their space-time coordinates :
(xa,ya,za,ta) (xb,yb,zb,tb) in the "gap frame".
(xa',ya',za',ta') (xb',yb',zb',tb') in the rail frame
The fact that the rail fills the gap in the "gap frame"
means that ta>tb, compute ta' and tb' (same events in
the rail frame) by Lorentz' transformations and you'll
see that ta'>tb' too.
YBM
josX
You got guts :).
>As usual you only apply a part of SR (here the length-contraction)
>by not using the events-driven representation of Lorentz
>transformations.
<gasp>
>Let's try to express your figure in term of events in space-time :
>
>event A : the front of the rail is exactly at the end of the gap
>event B : the back of the rail is exactly at the begining of the gap
>
>both are described by their space-time coordinates :
>(xa,ya,za,ta) (xb,yb,zb,tb) in the "gap frame".
>(xa',ya',za',ta') (xb',yb',zb',tb') in the rail frame
<GASP>
btw, you realize there is a steel rail connecting these two points
in space ?
>The fact that the rail fills the gap in the "gap frame"
"fills the gap", you mean "it falls inside the gap" ?
>means that ta>tb, compute ta' and tb' (same events in
>the rail frame) by Lorentz' transformations and you'll
>see that ta'>tb' too.
Come on and say it: "the gap is shorter in the rail-frame, but nevertheless
the rail falls in".
If the rails fits in the gap in the rail-frame, then the gap is length-expanded,
not what SR says: SR says movement means length*contraction* and timedilation
of the moving thing (see the lorentz transformations).
--
jos
YBM
[snip]
> Come on and say it: "the gap is shorter in the rail-frame, but nevertheless
> the rail falls in".
The fact to fall or not is an issue here since it implies the speed of
the rail to be zero then ! So no paradox ! A paradox seems to apear only
if you consider the kind of similar experiment that is described in the
FAQ : http://www.weburbia.com/physics/barn_pole.html
If you had a look at these kind of case-studies you could "debunk" your
own so-called paradox as well.
YBM
tj Frazir
te other end .
Wat te ell are ya talking about ?
RL Gerl
piece of rail easily falls through the gap, as you mention. In this case
both ends of the moving piece of rail will fall through the gap
simultaneously. In the rest frame of the piece of rail, the gap is smaller,
via length contraction, but both ends of the rail piece do not fall through
the gap simultaneously. In the rest frame of the piece of rail, it would
slither through like this:
_________ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ___ZZZZ
_________ZZZZZZZZZZZ___________________
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_Z_ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
___________________ZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
ZZZZ___ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
_________ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
If the thick iron plate is pushing all parts of the rail piece
simultaneously in the rest frame of the gap, it cannot be pushing down all
parts of the rail piece simultaneously in the rest frame of the rail piece.
In relativity there can't be such a thing as a rigid object and you can
confirm my solution to your paradox by doing the calculation YBM gave you.
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:ak2tdl$901$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
> rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
> the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
> firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
> in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
> the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
> of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
> moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
> dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is
lengthcontracted,
> and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
> the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
> of it is over the gap.
>
> Come on and say it: "the gap is shorter in the piece of rail-frame, but
> nevertheless the rail falls in".
> --
> jos
josX
What do you mean.
For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
of it is over the gap.
This problem is exactly symmetrical: span a wooden rod accross the gap
and bind a wooden rod of the same rest-length over the moving rail. Now
your problem is reduced to two moving wooden rods. The wooden rod spanning
the gap is mounted a bit below the rails so it doesn't affect the outcome
of the experiment. Now you have two wooden rods of the same rest-length
moving past eachother in free space, there is no destinction between the
two rods.
I'll add this to the paradox, for clarity.
Solve the wooden-rod problem, solve the gap/rail problem. Don't solve
the wooden-rod problem and you also don't solve the gap/rail problem,
because they are the same problem.
--
jos
josX
>josX a écrit:
>[snip]
>> Come on and say it: "the gap is shorter in the rail-frame, but nevertheless
>> the rail falls in".
>
>The fact to fall or not is an issue here since it implies the speed of
>the rail to be zero then !
Not at all. You have no intuition about reality either?
There is a great force pressing the rail down, if the rail is shorter
then the gap, there is a finite time in which the rail can and would
need to fall into the gap. This time can in fact be quite large if
you use a long rail, produsing a larger lorentz-contraction length-difference
with the gap (and vica-versa, which is the problem).
> ! So no paradox ! A paradox seems to apear only
>if you consider the kind of similar experiment that is described in the
>FAQ : http://www.weburbia.com/physics/barn_pole.html
>
>If you had a look at these kind of case-studies you could "debunk" your
>own so-called paradox as well.
You have not solved the problem, you have pretended not to notice it.
I take that as an admission that you know this can't be solved under SR.
I will use this paradox against you, in favor of new SR students to save
their minds :).
--
jos
josX
>JosX, there is no contradiction here. In the rest frame of the gap, the
>piece of rail easily falls through the gap, as you mention. In this case
>both ends of the moving piece of rail will fall through the gap
>simultaneously.
Very good.
> In the rest frame of the piece of rail, the gap is smaller,
>via length contraction, but both ends of the rail piece do not fall through
>the gap simultaneously. In the rest frame of the piece of rail, it would
>slither through like this:
We just saw the conspiracy in action didn't we. Nobody knew what to say,
then someone posted a pseudosolution involving that it *would* fall in,
and now this has become the way to solve it. As long as all SRists draw
a consistant line, there is the appearance of being right.
>
>_________ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ___ZZZZ
>
>
>
>_________ZZZZZZZZZZZ___________________
>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_Z_ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>___________________ZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
>
>
>
>ZZZZ___ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>_________ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
>
>If the thick iron plate is pushing all parts of the rail piece
>simultaneously in the rest frame of the gap, it cannot be pushing down all
>parts of the rail piece simultaneously in the rest frame of the rail piece.
But it does, that is how i defined it. There can be no angle on the
rail with the tracks.
>In relativity there can't be such a thing as a rigid object and you can
>confirm my solution to your paradox by doing the calculation YBM gave you.
You guys are total crackpots.
In the frame of the rail, the gap comes towards it, and since it's shorter,
the rail will slide over.
I have a new problem for you:
Two wooden rods of the same restlength fly besides eachother at a great
speed, which one is the shorter ?
Give me an answer, any answer, and i show you a selfconflicting rail/gap
paradox.
You can run, but you can't hide.
This is how you liars solve the twin-paradox too: you choose one of the
two answers, and then lie your way through it, and draw a consistant
line along believers and teachers.
You have changed the paradox btw: the rail can't angle with respect to
the tracks, it's welded to an iron plate which is in a socket for this
exact purpose.
BTW, the gap is not a small gap, it's a deep gap like this:
_________ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I'll update my paradox to prevent you taking this loophole.
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ak51e9$9td$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Very nice ;-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DeepGap
Dirk Vdm
Jan C. Bernauer
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DeepGap
At least in IE, the ascii-art is broken. I think <code> tags will
help.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
josX
try non-breaking space
YBM
> In article <3D655D43...@nooos.fr>, YBM wrote:
>
>>josX a écrit:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Come on and say it: "the gap is shorter in the rail-frame, but nevertheless
>>>the rail falls in".
>>
>>The fact to fall or not is an issue here since it implies the speed of
>>the rail to be zero then !
>
>
> Not at all. You have no intuition about reality either?
> There is a great force pressing the rail down, if the rail is shorter
> then the gap, there is a finite time in which the rail can and would
> need to fall into the gap. This time can in fact be quite large if
> you use a long rail, produsing a larger lorentz-contraction length-difference
> with the gap (and vica-versa, which is the problem).
It is obvious that the fact that reality could choke common sense
intuition is beyond your mind, isn't it ? You rail could as well fall in
the gap if you prefer, but since then the relative speed is not constant
one cannot apply Lorentz' transformation then. (it's a GR case).
The equations are only correct before this time. The "barn-pole paradox"
is EXACTLY the same kind of gedankenexperiment that don't have such
decelaration problem. (the point is not the speed to be exactly
zero, but the speed to change - both in direction and value - when
the rail begin to fall !)
There is a very strong intuition of reality you can learn from
SR (and GR), il you take time to play with. A part of it is that
you cannot consider only half of the theory (length-contraction)
by not applying the other half (time-dilatation) ; both being
consequences of LTs.
> You have not solved the problem, you have pretended not to notice it.
I didn't, right. I show you how to solve it. And I show you a complete
solution of a closely related "paradox". Don't you have any comment
on the "barn-pole" solution ?
YBM
P.S You really should take time to read some books or articles about
MQ issues : Heisenberg's relations are NOT AT ALL a question of
measurement errors propagation !
josX
>josX a écrit:
>> In article <3D655D43...@nooos.fr>, YBM wrote:
>>>josX a écrit:
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>Come on and say it: "the gap is shorter in the rail-frame, but nevertheless
>>>>the rail falls in".
>>>
>>>The fact to fall or not is an issue here since it implies the speed of
>>>the rail to be zero then !
>>
>> Not at all. You have no intuition about reality either?
>> There is a great force pressing the rail down, if the rail is shorter
>> then the gap, there is a finite time in which the rail can and would
>> need to fall into the gap. This time can in fact be quite large if
>> you use a long rail, produsing a larger lorentz-contraction length-difference
>> with the gap (and vica-versa, which is the problem).
>
>It is obvious that the fact that reality could choke common sense
>intuition is beyond your mind, isn't it ? You rail could as well fall in
>the gap if you prefer, but since then the relative speed is not constant
>one cannot apply Lorentz' transformation then. (it's a GR case).
ah, the liars start to get uneasy and pretend they "can't solve this
under SR".
>The equations are only correct before this time. The "barn-pole paradox"
>is EXACTLY the same kind of gedankenexperiment that don't have such
>decelaration problem. (the point is not the speed to be exactly
>zero, but the speed to change - both in direction and value - when
>the rail begin to fall !)
Your version of SR doesn't handle acceleration ?
Many SRists disagree with you.
>There is a very strong intuition of reality you can learn from
>SR (and GR), il you take time to play with. A part of it is that
>you cannot consider only half of the theory (length-contraction)
>by not applying the other half (time-dilatation) ; both being
>consequences of LTs.
I investigated both:
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)
>> You have not solved the problem, you have pretended not to notice it.
>
>I didn't, right. I show you how to solve it. And I show you a complete
>solution of a closely related "paradox". Don't you have any comment
>on the "barn-pole" solution ?
I don't know this paradox.
>YBM
>
>P.S You really should take time to read some books or articles about
>MQ issues : Heisenberg's relations are NOT AT ALL a question of
>measurement errors propagation !
Heisenbergs principle is plain and simple error-margins, end of story.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> I take that as an admission that you know this can't be solved under SR.
> I will use this paradox against you, in favor of new SR students to save
> their minds :).
In all fairness, you should also tell these students that you failed
to finish university, and that you think your TV is a mindcontrol device.
Marco Nelissen
>>simultaneously in the rest frame of the gap, it cannot be pushing down all
>>parts of the rail piece simultaneously in the rest frame of the rail piece.
>
> But it does, that is how i defined it. There can be no angle on the
> rail with the tracks.
If you want to show that SR cannot solve this problem, then you have
to stay within SR to show where it fails. Within SR, you cannot define
the above to be the case in all frames of reference.
> BTW, the gap is not a small gap, it's a deep gap like this:
> _________ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
> I'll update my paradox to prevent you taking this loophole.
Same thing, except that the rail gets stuck in the gap.
In one frame of reference, the entire rail falls in at
the same time. In the other frame, the front of the rail
dives in first, the rest follows. In both frames, there
will be massive damage to the rail and the track :)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marco Nelissen" <mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:ak62ma$37$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Yes, that would be fair.
But do you expect fairness from a hot steaming pile
of dog doo?
Dirk Vdm
Jan Bielawski
> In article <ak2scj$7hc$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>, josX wrote:
> >In article <ak2s95$7at$4...@news1.xs4all.nl>, josX wrote:
> >>Piston version of car-on-the-road paradox:
> >>
> >>For realism it is better to use a piston which is pressed down on a rails,
> >>and a piston-socket welded in the tracks. Suppose a great force pushing
> >>on the piston (which is heavily and continuously greased to keep it
> >>sliding). Now suppose this travels at a great speed, and suppose the
> >>piston is very large so there is more room for falling in.
> >
> >BTW, they can't solve any SR paradox, but this one is particularly obvious.
>
> Made it better to prevent SRist-style pseudosolving involving the
> movement at the head a normal piston can do.
>
> For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
> rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
> the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
> firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
> in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
> the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
> of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
> moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
> dependant upon frame in SR:
Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
> in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
> and can slide in,
OK.
> in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
> the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
> of it is over the gap.
No. In the rail frame the pressure exerted by the plate does not occur
at the same time along the rail's length. The plate pushes the front
of the rail into the gap first, then the "pressure point" travels
along the rail's length gradually pushing it in.
You may not like this picture and I'm not even discussing here the
correctness of SR. All I'm saying is that SR is free of internal
contradictions. In this particular case it unambiguously predicts the
same result in every frame you can ever think of.
(BTW, these questions and very old.)
Jan Bielawski
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>If the thick iron plate is pushing all parts of the rail piece
>>>simultaneously in the rest frame of the gap, it cannot be pushing down all
>>>parts of the rail piece simultaneously in the rest frame of the rail piece.
>>
>> But it does, that is how i defined it. There can be no angle on the
>> rail with the tracks.
>
>If you want to show that SR cannot solve this problem, then you have
>to stay within SR to show where it fails. Within SR, you cannot define
>the above to be the case in all frames of reference.
?
>> BTW, the gap is not a small gap, it's a deep gap like this:
>
>> _________ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_________
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>>
>> I'll update my paradox to prevent you taking this loophole.
>
>Same thing, except that the rail gets stuck in the gap.
The rail doesn't even fit in the gap dude, in the rail-frame that is.
Remember the iron-plate welded to the rail? It's the same length
of the rail, it doesn't fit in the gap either.
>In one frame of reference, the entire rail falls in at
>the same time. In the other frame, the front of the rail
>dives in first, the rest follows. In both frames, there
>will be massive damage to the rail and the track :)
So, the SRists draw their collective line. It fall in, let's examin.
No, no need to, it is obviously rediculous, thanks for showing what you're
really made of: paradoxes glued together with nonsense.
The problem is exactly symetrical. The front cannot dive in first in
the rail-frame, because the iron plate in the socket keeps the rail
above the gap if there is still some rail touching the gap. Because
the gap is smaller then the rail in this frame, the front will get
on the tracks again before the entire rail is over the gap and could
fall in.
Why do people listen to this nonsense and believe it as scientific fact??
People are crazy? Don't think? Don't want to see evidence? Don't care?
--
jos
josX
You ask *me* for common sense? HA, try to find some yourself first
before you demand it of others.
>> in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
>> and can slide in,
>
>OK.
>
>> in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
>> the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
>> of it is over the gap.
>
>No. In the rail frame the pressure exerted by the plate does not occur
>at the same time along the rail's length. The plate pushes the front
>of the rail into the gap first, then the "pressure point" travels
>along the rail's length gradually pushing it in.
You changed the setting: the rail is welded to an iron plate that slides
into a socket. You cannot have the front part of the rail dive in first,
because that would rip the iron plate to pieces, or it would rip the
socket for the plate to pieces. Those things don't happen, the iron
plate and the socket are obviously designed to bear the strain of having
the rail suspended over the gap with only a fraction still touching the
tracks. It's the whole point of having an iron plate and plate-socket
in the first place.
>You may not like this picture and I'm not even discussing here the
>correctness of SR. All I'm saying is that SR is free of internal
>contradictions. In this particular case it unambiguously predicts the
>same result in every frame you can ever think of.
>
>(BTW, these questions and very old.)
But never answered to.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> Marco wrote:
>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>>If the thick iron plate is pushing all parts of the rail piece
>>>>simultaneously in the rest frame of the gap, it cannot be pushing down all
>>>>parts of the rail piece simultaneously in the rest frame of the rail piece.
>>>
>>> But it does, that is how i defined it. There can be no angle on the
>>> rail with the tracks.
>>
>>If you want to show that SR cannot solve this problem, then you have
>>to stay within SR to show where it fails. Within SR, you cannot define
>>the above to be the case in all frames of reference.
>
> ?
I will once again explain for the feeble-minded: In the frame of
the gap, the entire rail moves at once. In the frame of the rail,
the front starts moving first (this is analogous to the moving
barn doors or blinking lights in similar paradoxes), and the rest
follows later. This means that in the frame of the rail, there
WILL be a non-zero angle between the rail and the track/gap.
> The problem is exactly symetrical. The front cannot dive in first in
> the rail-frame, because the iron plate in the socket keeps the rail
> above the gap if there is still some rail touching the gap. Because
> the gap is smaller then the rail in this frame, the front will get
> on the tracks again before the entire rail is over the gap and could
> fall in.
Because of relativistic length contraction, the straight angle between
the socket and the rail is not necessarily a straight angle in the other
frame of reference (consider a cross moving diagonally at relativistic
speeds).
> Why do people listen to this nonsense and believe it as scientific fact??
Because the theory works, even if some of its implications are
unintuitive and hard to understand.
> People are crazy?
The only crazy person here is you. Downright psychotic, I'd say.
Marco Nelissen
> Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
> really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
> earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
> contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
> world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
Jos believes that there is a world-wide conspiracy to cover up
the fact that SR doesn't work. Many billions of dollars are
involved, so the stakes are high, and "SRists" will go to great
lengths to protect their income, investments, careers and reputations.
Jan Bielawski
> Jan Bielawski wrote:
> >Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
> >really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
> >earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
> >contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
> >world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
>
> You ask *me* for common sense?
Yes, I most definitely ask YOU for common sense as the claims you make
here about SR are outrageous, ignorant, infantile, without foundation,
and lacking the slightest dose of self-criticism. You also vastly
underestimate the intelligence of the scientists.
> HA, try to find some yourself first
> before you demand it of others.
You have not yet earned the right to make such demands. Until you are
able at least to correctly state what SR says, you cannot expect
anybody to listen to you.
> >No. In the rail frame the pressure exerted by the plate does not occur
> >at the same time along the rail's length. The plate pushes the front
> >of the rail into the gap first, then the "pressure point" travels
> >along the rail's length gradually pushing it in.
>
> You changed the setting: the rail is welded to an iron plate that slides
> into a socket.
I haven't changed anything.
> You cannot have the front part of the rail dive in first,
> because that would rip the iron plate to pieces, or it would rip the
> socket for the plate to pieces.
No, it wouldn't. There are no rigid bodies in SR and on the spacetime
diagram you can see how these objects distort (think of them as made
of honey or water). BTW, I repeat again that this is a very old
question and you are being childishly naive if you think you've found
anything contradictory here.
> >(BTW, these questions and very old.)
>
> But never answered to.
Not in the pop science books you read, that's correct. Besides, any
competent physicist can figure out the answer to this problem without
looking it up in a book.
Jan Bielawski
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<ak68rv$btr$8...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>> Jan Bielawski wrote:
>> >Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
>> >really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
>> >earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
>> >contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
>> >world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
>>
>> You ask *me* for common sense?
>
>Yes, I most definitely ask YOU for common sense as the claims you make
>here about SR are outrageous, ignorant, infantile, without foundation,
>and lacking the slightest dose of self-criticism. You also vastly
>underestimate the intelligence of the scientists.
Don't try the naked-emperor argument again, it's wearing out.
>> HA, try to find some yourself first
>> before you demand it of others.
>
>You have not yet earned the right to make such demands. Until you are
>able at least to correctly state what SR says, you cannot expect
>anybody to listen to you.
Don't try the naked-emperor argument again, it's wearing out.
>> >No. In the rail frame the pressure exerted by the plate does not occur
>> >at the same time along the rail's length. The plate pushes the front
>> >of the rail into the gap first, then the "pressure point" travels
>> >along the rail's length gradually pushing it in.
>>
>> You changed the setting: the rail is welded to an iron plate that slides
>> into a socket.
>
>I haven't changed anything.
Yes you have.
>> You cannot have the front part of the rail dive in first,
>> because that would rip the iron plate to pieces, or it would rip the
>> socket for the plate to pieces.
>
>No, it wouldn't. There are no rigid bodies in SR and on the spacetime
>diagram you can see how these objects distort (think of them as made
>of honey or water). BTW, I repeat again that this is a very old
>question and you are being childishly naive if you think you've found
>anything contradictory here.
"there are no rigid bodies in SR, only things made of honey or water"
LOL!
Things are getting better and better with you guys. You change the
substance of the IRON plate (perhaps i should add the iron plate is
in solid-state??), to honey-water, that's the change you need in the
paradox.
>> >(BTW, these questions and very old.)
>>
>> But never answered to.
>
>Not in the pop science books you read, that's correct. Besides, any
>competent physicist can figure out the answer to this problem without
>looking it up in a book.
Those books happen to be authored by an Einstein, the one called Albert.
Ever heard of the man ?
You'd think he could make sense of his own theory wouldn't you.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ak7gmm$qfk$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Jan Bielawski wrote:
> >jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<ak68rv$btr$8...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
> >> Jan Bielawski wrote:
[snip]
> >> You cannot have the front part of the rail dive in first,
> >> because that would rip the iron plate to pieces, or it would rip the
> >> socket for the plate to pieces.
> >
> >No, it wouldn't. There are no rigid bodies in SR and on the spacetime
> >diagram you can see how these objects distort (think of them as made
> >of honey or water). BTW, I repeat again that this is a very old
> >question and you are being childishly naive if you think you've found
> >anything contradictory here.
>
> "there are no rigid bodies in SR, only things made of honey or water"
>
> LOL!
Obviously a case of
Bitten By The Spaceman Flea
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Bruere
Well, done!
Let's keep this thread on the boil.
Dirk
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:ak8caf$1h2m76$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
Don't be afraid Dirk, this kind of stuff kills threads.
This kind of thing does not happen on s.p.r. but it
happens here.
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing".
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Bruere
Really?
Shall I pick a contentious (but moronic) topic and xpost it across a few NGs
to see how long it runs?
We've had 'Einstein was Black', maybe something with Nazis in it, a bit of
racism and some totally erroneous physics for you all to latch onto.
Dirk
iemand
wrote:
This is a rather weak argument to prove the validity of a theory. I
suppose you know Kuhn and you know about the troubles Einstein had to
get is ideas accepted by the physical community at the time. I suppose
you also know about how Boltzmann was treated. So it is rather dangerous
to rely upon democratic arguments when you are talking about physical
problems.
Though I don't have doubts about the "paradox" JosX thinks to have
discovered at all, and I don't have problems accepting SR at this level,
I have some doubts on the range of validity of SR when if comes to the
influence of (weak/modest) gravitational fields which are moving at high
speeds and I have very strong doubts about GR in general.
There are some different arguments that may make you doubt the validity
of SR when gravitation comes into play. The Michelson & Morley
experiment is done on the surface of our planet and the frame of the
laboratory is at rest relatively to the mass of the nearby part of
Earth's surface. The rest of the mass of the earth is rather far away,
so the gravitaional field, which decreases by r^-2, of the relatively
distant moving and rotating parts are rather weak. The distant parts of
the Earth are moving with a rather low speed compared to the speed of
light, so relativistic effects caused by movement may not be expected to
play a significant role anyway. The same situation arises when your
laboratory is located on other locations which are at rest relatively to
gravitational fields on Earth or on the surface of an other planet. So
you can state at least that SR is valid when systems don't interfere by
strong and fastly moving gravitational fields.
The next question is: does the Michelson & Morley experiment give the
same result when the interferometer has very low mass and passes closely
by the Earth's surface (atmosphere) with a (very) high speed. You might
imagine that the moving gravitational field and (the still
experimentally undetected) "gravitomagnetism" comes into play.
At least this situation, in which the interferometer moves, is different
from a interferometer at rest relatively to the Earth's surface. So it
will be rather insecure whether the rays of light, reflecting between
the mirrors of the interferometer, will travel along exactly the same
lines, and with the same polarizations and speed, compared to the
situation in which it is at rest relatively to the Earth's surface and
gravitational field.
There is even more reason to doubt the validity of GR, because the
evidence for GR is very weak I think. When the anti-hydrogen atoms,
produced at CERN, will be stable enough to see if they will fall up or
down, I expect/hope them to fall up. If that happens to be the case, the
whole GR can be thrown into the dustbin, and current theories of
cosmology and the Big Bang as well, whether there are lots of people
working on cosmological and GR problems or not.
If GR will be proved to be wrong, new routes to investigating the
fenomena of mass, inertia and gravitation and the properties of light
and their relations will be opened up. It will be a great relief to be
freed from the tensor calculus of GR and the problems it causes when it
comes to the mathematical treatment of quantum gravitation. The spin-2
properties that tensor type bosons must posess already indicate, to my
opinion, that something is wrong. It is ugly. Maybe it's not a good
argumemt to suspect a theory because it's ugly only. To my opinion such
a theory, in particle physics, neither is likely to lead to results that
can be verified by experiment or lead to calculations of values of known
physical constants.
Patrick Reany
iemand wrote:
> [snip]
> There is even more reason to doubt the validity of GR, because the
> evidence for GR is very weak I think. When the anti-hydrogen atoms,
> produced at CERN, will be stable enough to see if they will fall up or
> down,
What is an anti-hydrogen atom?
Patrick
Dirk Van de moortel
"iemand" <iem...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3d67b571...@news.xs4all.nl...
> On 23 Aug 2002 22:30:22 GMT, Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >In sci.physics Jan Bielawski <j...@nostalghia.com> wrote:
> >> Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
> >> really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
> >> earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
> >> contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
> >> world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
> >
> >Jos believes that there is a world-wide conspiracy to cover up
> >the fact that SR doesn't work. Many billions of dollars are
> >involved, so the stakes are high, and "SRists" will go to great
> >lengths to protect their income, investments, careers and reputations.
>
> This is a rather weak argument to prove the validity of a theory.
Did anyone else spot an "argument to prove the validity of a theory"
in Jan's post?
Dirk Vdm
josX
If SR is actually wrong and baseless, also selfcontradictory and perpetuated
through dubious means, don't you think "SRists" would go to great
length to protect their income, investments, careers, research funding,
reputations, including trolling and controlling usenet forums where
it is known the theory is often succesfully debunked ?
Why has nobody responded yet to my sound-wave rationale btw, it was
posted many times, nobody responds. Curious. Even Arfur who responded
to most everything didn't say anything about it.
Here it is again:
In relativity, the extra speed of a molecule
to bumb into the next molecule if that next
molecule is in the direction of motion might
be harder to attain because of (bogus) addition
of velocity laws. However, a complete soundwave
consists of molecules moving back and forth:
| . . . .
| . . . .
|. . . . .
| . . . .
| . . . .
| . . . .
|
That means that sound moving in the direction
of motion might have, if it starts with a pressure
zone, a slower moving pressure zone, then sound
which goes against the direction of motion.
However, the pressure zone is followed by a depressure
zone, where the molecules move in the oposite direction
then with the pressure zone. A depressure zone, where
the molecules travel in the direction oposite then
before will have the oposite relativistic problem:
the soundpressure wave which went slow because it went
in the direction of travel and had to come closer to
c (as computed from a moving frame), will be followed
by a sounddepressure wave which goes fast (the molecules
find it easy to get sucked back to position with the
depressure wave if that direction is oposite the direction
of travel). So, you will end up on sound traveling in
the direction of motion with a pressure wave that goes
slow, which is followed by a depressure wave which brings
the molecules back to their original position rather
quickly:
^higher pressure of liquid
| . .
| . .t=1
| .t=0
| . .
| .
| . .
|
The Sound going against the direction of motion may have
another shape, the pressure wave going easy, and the
lowpressure wave going difficult, because the moleculs
start getting more speed direction motion:
^higher pressure of liquid
| ..t=1
| .
| . .t=0
|. .
| .
| .. .
|
For one molecule to go back and forth one time would take
the same time though, so the /entire/ soundwave would travel
at equal speeds with or against the relative motion of the
entire frame, the shape of the wave would just be different.
If the listening observer would therefore press his timer
at a moment the pressure has equalized again (between wave
crests), he will make a good timing. If he used wavecrests,
he would not make a good timing: the wavecrest from one
side in this measuring device:
+lightdetector lightdetector+
|\____________________________/|
|______________O_______________|
^clock ^liquid tube
might reach him earlier as computed from a moving frame (sic),
then the wavecrest from the other side. For a device as above
moving to the right, this would produce for light being measured
going with the direction of motion to go faster, because the first
pressure pulse would take a long time to reach the clock, while
the pressure pulse from the other side would be fast. Using not
the pressure-wave crest, but the balancing zero pressure point
in a wave (when a molecule has traveled back and forth one time)
resolves this potential problem. Waiting one complete back and forth
and back movement of a molecule is best as this is symetrical on
both sides.
lightdetector lightdetector
+ -------<----light---->-------- +
|-| |-|
`X`\ | |Soundsignal> <Soundsignal| | /'X'
\XX`-------| |------------. ___ .------------| |-------'XX/
\XXXXXXXXX| |XXXXXXxXxXXX| / \ |XXXXXXXXXxXx| |XXXXXXXXX/
\XXXXXXXX| |XXXXXXxXxXXX|{( O O )}|XXXXXXXXXxXx| |XXXXXXXX/
\XXXXXXX| |XXXXXXxXxXXX| \_=_/ |XXXXXXXXXxXx| |XXXXXXX/
\XXXXXX| |XXXXXXxXxXXX| __| |__ |XXXXXXXXXxXx| |XXXXXX/
`-----| |------------'/ V .`------------| |-----'
| | / __ . | | |
| | (____>(t) | | |
| | \ | | | |
| | ) | | | |
<-> one clock <->
That's my original sound-wave light measuring device. Cool or what.
Get used to it SRists and SRians, seasoning is opening on you.
jos
--
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On 23 Aug 2002 22:30:22 GMT, Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Jan Bielawski <j...@nostalghia.com> wrote:
>>> Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
>>> really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
>>> earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
>>> contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
>>> world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
>>
>>Jos believes that there is a world-wide conspiracy to cover up
>>the fact that SR doesn't work. Many billions of dollars are
>>involved, so the stakes are high, and "SRists" will go to great
>>lengths to protect their income, investments, careers and reputations.
>
>This is a rather weak argument to prove the validity of a theory. I
>suppose you know Kuhn and you know about the troubles Einstein had to
>get is ideas accepted by the physical community at the time.
I keep hearing this but it is patently not true. Einstein had no
porblem getting his ideas accepted. In fact, rarely (if ever) got so
radical ideas accepted so fast.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Patrick Reany
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <3D67E422...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> writes:
> >
> >
> >iemand wrote:
> >
> >> [snip]
> >> There is even more reason to doubt the validity of GR, because the
> >> evidence for GR is very weak I think. When the anti-hydrogen atoms,
> >> produced at CERN, will be stable enough to see if they will fall up or
> >> down,
> >
> >What is an anti-hydrogen atom?
> >
> One with antiproton and positron.
What's that got to do with anti-gravity then?
Patrick
Marco Nelissen
> through dubious means, don't you think "SRists" would go to great
> length to protect their income, investments, careers, research funding,
> reputations, including trolling and controlling usenet forums where
> it is known the theory is often succesfully debunked ?
Strawman.
"If Jos is actually wrong about SR, don't you think Jos would go to
great length to cover this up, including trolling and posting massive
amounts of obfuscating articles to newsgroups?"
After stating this rhetorical question, we point out that you do indeed
troll and post a lot, and from that conclude that you must therefore be
wrong about SR.
> Why has nobody responded yet to my sound-wave rationale btw, it was
> posted many times, nobody responds. Curious. Even Arfur who responded
> to most everything didn't say anything about it.
OK, I'll say something about it then: The speed at which sound propagates
is very low, and so the effects of relativity are small enough to be
ignored. If you do want to take them into account, be sure to do it
according to relativity, and not mix in Newtonian mechanics whenever
you see fit.
The main problem with your proposed device is that once again you are
mixing frames of reference. In the frame of reference of the device
(which is where the sound propagates), there is no such things as "going
against" or "going with" the motion, since in the frame of reference of
the device, there IS NO motion.
If you insist on looking at the problem from a different frame of
reference, one in which the device is moving, then please use the
required transformations, otherwise all you have shown is that some
bogus theory of your own invention does not work, which we already knew.
Robert J. Kolker
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> I keep hearing this but it is patently not true. Einstein had no
> porblem getting his ideas accepted. In fact, rarely (if ever) got so
> radical ideas accepted so fast.
Quite remarkable. Every physicist prior to 1906 was an aetherist.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Bruere
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D680C8B...@attbi.com...
Which goes to show that most physicists will accept good mathematical models
over vague handwaving explanations any time.
Dirk
Herman Trivilino
> >This is a rather weak argument to prove the validity of a theory. I
> >suppose you know Kuhn and you know about the troubles Einstein had to
> >get is ideas accepted by the physical community at the time.
>
> I keep hearing this but it is patently not true. Einstein had no
> porblem getting his ideas accepted. In fact, rarely (if ever) got so
> radical ideas accepted so fast.
I probably have some of the details wrong, but when Einstein applied for an
academic position in Germany didn't Planck write a letter of recommendation
stating that Einstein was worthy *despite* having published his 1905
relativity paper?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
antiparticles, since shielding any stray EM fields to the extent
required is virtually impossible.
Patrick Reany
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <3D6801A3...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> writes:
> >
> >
> >me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3D67E422...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >iemand wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> There is even more reason to doubt the validity of GR, because the
> >> >> evidence for GR is very weak I think. When the anti-hydrogen atoms,
> >> >> produced at CERN, will be stable enough to see if they will fall up or
> >> >> down,
> >> >
> >> >What is an anti-hydrogen atom?
> >> >
> >> One with antiproton and positron.
> >
> >What's that got to do with anti-gravity then?
> >
> Just that you can't reliably test gravitational interaction of charged
> antiparticles, since shielding any stray EM fields to the extent
> required is virtually impossible.
OK.
I would have thought that making antiprotons
and positrons would have been doable a
long time ago, so that this experiment could
have been performed long ago. Why should
anti-hydrogen be any less stable than regular
hydrogen? Or it the problem annihilation?
If so, all ya need is a magnetic containment
bottle in a vacuum, right?
Patrick
Jon Bell
>
>I would have thought that making antiprotons
>and positrons would have been doable a
>long time ago, so that this experiment could
>have been performed long ago.
It's easy enough to make antiprotons and positrons. The problem is
getting them together with a low enough relative velocity that they can
actually combine into an atomic configuration instead of simply shooting
past each other. I remember reading an article in _Science_ magazine
about this a year or two ago, at which time nobody had actually managed to
do it, although a group at CERN was working on it. A quick Google search
on "antihydrogen" turned up a report from February of this year indicating
that CERN *may* have now accomplished it. I don't know what the precise
current status is.
>Why should
>anti-hydrogen be any less stable than regular
>hydrogen? Or it the problem annihilation?
>If so, all ya need is a magnetic containment
>bottle in a vacuum, right?
In order to confine neutral atoms (or antiatoms) in a magnetic bottle, you
need get them really cold. A Google search on "magnetically confined
hydrogen" turns up mostly references to fusion-type plasma experiments in
which the atoms are ionized, and a few references to ultra-cold gases in
which people are studying Bose-Einstein condensates and such.
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
"close mindedness" of scientists.
iemand
>> Just that you can't reliably test gravitational interaction of charged
>> antiparticles, since shielding any stray EM fields to the extent
>> required is virtually impossible.
>
>OK.
>
>I would have thought that making antiprotons
>and positrons would have been doable a
>long time ago, so that this experiment could
>have been performed long ago.
To make an anti-hydrogen atom you have to slow down the anti-protons and
positrons to relative kinetic energies in the order of a few electron
volts (eV). The kinetic energies of anti-particles leaving
accelarators, where they are created, are initially in the regimes of
many keV or even MeV.
>Why should
>anti-hydrogen be any less stable than regular
>hydrogen?
No, anti-hydrogen is as stable as hydrogen. The problem is the presence
of a lot of matter that makes up the equipement of the laboratory where
the anti-hydrogen is created. As you probably know matter and
anti-matter tend to annihilate, so the anti-hydrogen disappears faster,
due to annihilation with matter, than it is created. If you were on a
planet consisting of anti-matter, anti-hydrogen would be stable. I that
case you would have the same problem when you wanted to make hydrogen.
>Or it the problem annihilation?
>If so, all ya need is a magnetic containment
>bottle in a vacuum, right?
Anti-hydrogen is uncharged (it only has a magnetic moment), so capturing
it is a rather tricky business. Even in a UHV (Ultra High Vacuum,
pressure less than10^-10 Torr) chamber there are lots of hydrogen atoms
present and the speed of the anti-hydrogen atoms is so high that they
reach the walls of the chamber within a very short period of time. The
aim of the experiment is not to make macroscopic quantities of
anti-hydrogen and keep it stable for a "long" period of time, to fill a
Zeppelin for instance.
The aim of the experiment is to detect the influence of gravitation by
detecting the tracks of the atoms statistically after they have traveled
some distance through the gravitation field of Our Planet. If the
analyzers and counters indicate that a significantly larger number of
anti-hydrogen atoms fall up, anti-matter has negative gravitational
mass.
Mike Varney
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:12:40 -0700, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> >> Just that you can't reliably test gravitational interaction of charged
> >> antiparticles, since shielding any stray EM fields to the extent
> >> required is virtually impossible.
> >
> >OK.
> >
> >I would have thought that making antiprotons
> >and positrons would have been doable a
> >long time ago, so that this experiment could
> >have been performed long ago.
>
> To make an anti-hydrogen atom you have to slow down the anti-protons and
> positrons to relative kinetic energies in the order of a few electron
> volts (eV). The kinetic energies of anti-particles leaving
> accelarators, where they are created, are initially in the regimes of
> many keV or even MeV.
>
> >Why should
> >anti-hydrogen be any less stable than regular
> >hydrogen?
>
> No, anti-hydrogen is as stable as hydrogen.
We do not have empirical evidence that this is in fact the case. This is
one of the many reasons producing an anti-hydrogen atom would be good.
<SNIP>
> Anti-hydrogen is uncharged (it only has a magnetic moment)
And electric dipole......
<SNIP>
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote ...
>
>> >This is a rather weak argument to prove the validity of a theory. I
>> >suppose you know Kuhn and you know about the troubles Einstein had to
>> >get is ideas accepted by the physical community at the time.
>>
>> I keep hearing this but it is patently not true. Einstein had no
>> porblem getting his ideas accepted. In fact, rarely (if ever) got so
>> radical ideas accepted so fast.
>
>I probably have some of the details wrong, but when Einstein applied for an
>academic position in Germany didn't Planck write a letter of recommendation
>stating that Einstein was worthy *despite* having published his 1905
>relativity paper?
>
accepted said paper, how much truth do you think might be in this
story?
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> If SR is actually wrong and baseless, also selfcontradictory and perpetuated
>> through dubious means, don't you think "SRists" would go to great
>> length to protect their income, investments, careers, research funding,
>> reputations, including trolling and controlling usenet forums where
>> it is known the theory is often succesfully debunked ?
>
>Strawman.
>"If Jos is actually wrong about SR, don't you think Jos would go to
> great length to cover this up, including trolling and posting massive
> amounts of obfuscating articles to newsgroups?"
>After stating this rhetorical question, we point out that you do indeed
>troll and post a lot, and from that conclude that you must therefore be
>wrong about SR.
>
>> Why has nobody responded yet to my sound-wave rationale btw, it was
>> posted many times, nobody responds. Curious. Even Arfur who responded
>> to most everything didn't say anything about it.
>
>OK, I'll say something about it then: The speed at which sound propagates
>is very low, and so the effects of relativity are small enough to be
>ignored. If you do want to take them into account, be sure to do it
>according to relativity, and not mix in Newtonian mechanics whenever
>you see fit.
>The main problem with your proposed device is that once again you are
>mixing frames of reference.
Frames of reference are mere coordinate systems in the same world,
i don't mix them, they are already "mixed".
> In the frame of reference of the device
>(which is where the sound propagates), there is no such things as "going
>against" or "going with" the motion, since in the frame of reference of
>the device, there IS NO motion.
Ofcourse. And the medium of the sound is dragged with the device, so
the sound will have a speed relative to that medium, not according to
SR bogus velocity-addition because of the rationale which you ignore
again.
>If you insist on looking at the problem from a different frame of
>reference, one in which the device is moving, then please use the
>required transformations, otherwise all you have shown is that some
>bogus theory of your own invention does not work, which we already knew.
You ignored it again!
--
jos
josX
Even more remarkable: between 1905 and 2002 they were relativitians.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <3D6801A3...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3D67E422...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >iemand wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >> There is even more reason to doubt the validity of GR, because the
>> >> >> evidence for GR is very weak I think. When the anti-hydrogen atoms,
>> >> >> produced at CERN, will be stable enough to see if they will fall up or
>> >> >> down,
>> >> >
>> >> >What is an anti-hydrogen atom?
>> >> >
>> >> One with antiproton and positron.
>> >
>> >What's that got to do with anti-gravity then?
>> >
>> Just that you can't reliably test gravitational interaction of charged
>> antiparticles, since shielding any stray EM fields to the extent
>> required is virtually impossible.
>
>
>I would have thought that making antiprotons
>and positrons would have been doable a
>long time ago, so that this experiment could
>anti-hydrogen be any less stable than regular
>If so, all ya need is a magnetic containment
>bottle in a vacuum, right?
Antiprotons and positrons are indeed routinely produced at copious
quantities. However, they're also produced at rather high energies.
You won't get protons combining with electrons which are zipping by
them at a better part of c. So, you need to reduce their energy to
pretty much thermal energies before significant chemical combination
may take place, and you've to this without losing all of them in the
process. Not easy at all. This is really stretching experimental
ingenuity to the limit.
Once you got anti hydrogen then it is just as stable as regular
hydrogen. Not easy to keep, though, as it is neutral so the usual
electromagnetic handles don't work. Laser trapping should be
possible, though.
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<ak8qbv$2pm$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>...
>> If SR is actually wrong and baseless, also selfcontradictory and perpetuated
>> through dubious means, don't you think "SRists" would go to great
>> length to protect their income, investments, careers, research funding,
>> reputations, including trolling and controlling usenet forums where
>> it is known the theory is often succesfully debunked ?
>
>Jos,
>
>If the conspiracy exists, then by your logic you should have been long ago
>killed by one of this SR-ists, e.g. by sending an email containg antrax
>attachment directly to your email-box.
>
>You are alive, so I understand that they are paying you a bribe to keep
>posting 'paradoxes' which are easily proven false, so that it makes their
>theory stronger!
>
>Good investment on their part, I must say. Nothing can convince better that
>SR works than looking at discussions started by you.
David,
(lol)
They haven't tried to bribe me yet. If they are going to kill me, then
they also provide proof of a cover-up, and they would need to kill a lot
of people if they're going to kill everybody who disagrees with SR (maybe
one day it'll come to that, 'cause i can imagine that what is say would
be against the security of the state in American as going against the
'authorities' and being destabelizing potentially, but that's just one
nationalistic^H^H"patriotic" country fortunately, nothing i need to worry
about here.)
How do you solve the barn-pole paradox where the doors are pulled shut
against eachother. Doors are made of honey-water? The initial shockwave
when the rods start to pull in suddenly slam and open the doors (like
if you opened a door, it would shut and open rapidly at the moment you
grab it and start pulling/pushing it (shockwave traveling through the
arm rapidly opening and closing the door).
LOL
This is too funny. Suprise us with more like this!
What is 'the' solution to the spaceship-chainsaw paradox ?
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
>
> Even more remarkable: between 1905 and 2002 they were relativitians.
Not really. Many of the older generation simply did not believe
Einstein's theory. For example A.A.Michealson. To his dying day he was
an aetherist and he believed there must have been a flaw in his
interferometer experiment.
What usually happens is the older generation of scientists retire or die
and a new crew without built in biases examines the facts and accepts
the newer theory because its predictions are better. The same thing
happened with quantum theory. Even Einstein, who put Quantum Theory on
the map (Planck invented the basic concept, but A.E. extended its
application to radiation as well as matter) had misgivings about it and
never really believed Quantum Theory told the whole story.
Ernst Mach died in 1916 and to his last breath he did not believe in the
existence of atoms, regardless of the evidence. That is an example of
how persistent old habits of thought can be with some people.
Bob Kolker
>
Bilge
Re: The paradox that they can't solve. to usenet:
>On 23 Aug 2002 22:30:22 GMT, Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Jan Bielawski <j...@nostalghia.com> wrote:
>>> Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
>>> really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
>>> earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
>>> contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
>>> world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
>>
>>Jos believes that there is a world-wide conspiracy to cover up
>>the fact that SR doesn't work. Many billions of dollars are
>>involved, so the stakes are high, and "SRists" will go to great
>>lengths to protect their income, investments, careers and reputations.
>
>This is a rather weak argument to prove the validity of a theory. I
>suppose you know Kuhn and you know about the troubles Einstein had to
>get is ideas accepted by the physical community at the time. I suppose
>you also know about how Boltzmann was treated. So it is rather dangerous
>to rely upon democratic arguments when you are talking about physical
>problems.
produced, doesn't seem to have been lost. In fact, the parrot posting
all of the spew seems to think that einstein should have encountered
a great deal more opposition so that his view of special relativity
would be given equal consideration with einstein's view.
>Though I don't have doubts about the "paradox" JosX thinks to have
>discovered at all, and I don't have problems accepting SR at this level,
The only paradox he's discovered is that when he wets his pants,
his brain shorts out and the tv turns on to help further his scientific
insight as demonstrated by the stellar examples posted on this very
newsgroup.
>There are some different arguments that may make you doubt the validity
>of SR when gravitation comes into play. The Michelson & Morley
>experiment is done on the surface of our planet and the frame of the
The michelson-morely experiment is of interest primarily for
historical reasons and some pedagogical perspective. It has zero
importance as a "lynch pin" holding special relativity intact.
Second, the issue of the gravitational field at the earth's
surface is non-sense and you make that very clear when you take the
exact opposite position below regarding anti-hydrogen. If it's so far
been impossible to see the effect of gravity on something as massive
as a hydrogen atom (actually twice that, if you expect anti-hydrogen
to fall up), then it surely is insignificant for light. Can't have
it both ways.
>gravitational fields on Earth or on the surface of an other planet. So
>you can state at least that SR is valid when systems don't interfere by
>strong and fastly moving gravitational fields.
Special relativity never was and is not expected to be valid where
gravity is important to kinematics.
>The next question is: does the Michelson & Morley experiment give the
>same result when the interferometer has very low mass and passes closely
>by the Earth's surface (atmosphere) with a (very) high speed. You might
Calculate the rotational speed of the earth and its speed orbiting
the sun.
>imagine that the moving gravitational field and (the still
>experimentally undetected) "gravitomagnetism" comes into play.
The fact that it is "undetected" would seem to rule out "detecting"
it with a michelson-morely experiment.
[...]
>There is even more reason to doubt the validity of GR, because the
>evidence for GR is very weak I think.
Whatever you may think about such evidence being "weak", the evidence is
orders of magnitude stronger than theories which make different
predictions at the limit of current experiments. Your argument is weak.
>When the anti-hydrogen atoms, produced at CERN, will be stable enough
>to see if they will fall up or down, I expect/hope them to fall up.
I would guess that a lot of physicists would be quite content to see the
same thing, since it would be very interesting to discover such behaviour.
I also imagine the discovery would mean a nobel prize. Nevertheless, I
also suspect (very) few physicists believe such an outcome is likely.
There's a big difference in what would be really interesting and what
expectation one has regarding the chances of it happening. Physics isn't
like tv, where exciting things happen every couple of minutes, all to
the same group of misunderstood-yet-hip-geeks.
> If that happens to be the case, the whole GR can be thrown into the
>dustbin, and current theories of cosmology and the Big Bang as well,
>whether there are lots of people working on cosmological and GR problems
>or not.
Or... it could be the indication that general relativity is necessary
in some unforseen way. While that's unlikely, it's no more unlikely
than anti-hydrogen falling up.
>
>If GR will be proved to be wrong, new routes to investigating the
>fenomena of mass, inertia and gravitation and the properties of light
>and their relations will be opened up. It will be a great relief to be
You should read phys rev if you really believe nothing speculative
ever gets published.
>freed from the tensor calculus of GR and the problems it causes when it
>comes to the mathematical treatment of quantum gravitation.
You have no hope of this happening. General relativity is already
known to give correct results for the existing data. Anything that
replaces it will have to make the same predictions for the existing
data. Special relativity, for example, did nothing to invalidate
newtonian mechanics in the regime in which it had ever been used and
the importance of newtonian mechanics hasn't been diminished by
relativity.
>The spin-2 properties that tensor type bosons must posess already
>indicate, to my opinion, that something is wrong. It is ugly.
You obviously haven't seen how ugly classical mechanics can be.
> Maybe it's not a good argumemt to suspect a theory because it's
>ugly only.
I'd say that more often than not, that's the case. Dirac, for example,
was firmly convinced his relativistic wave equation _had_ to be correct
because it was very elegant (which proved to be true). Apart from the fact
that it works, the reason most physicists find no great incentive to
replace general relativity is because it is not widely held to be ugly.
> To my opinion such a theory, in particle physics, neither is likely
>to lead to results that can be verified by experiment or lead to
>calculations of values of known physical constants.
On the other hand, some physical constants may not have a theoretical
reason for having particular values. It would be nice if it happened, but
the only reason to reject a theory based upon not predicting the values of
those constants is because you have a theory that does (without needing
additional constants yoy can't predict). If you have an alternative
you should write it up in a mathematically rigorous fashion.
Patrick Reany
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
For more on this see Thomas Kuhn's Structure
of Scientific Revolutions.
A good book to read on this and on many other
philosophies of science is David Oldroyd's book The
Arch of Knowledge.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
iemand wrote:
> [snip]
>
> If GR will be proved to be wrong, new routes to investigating the
> fenomena of mass, inertia and gravitation and the properties of light
> and their relations will be opened up. It will be a great relief to be
> freed from the tensor calculus of GR and the problems it causes when it
> comes to the mathematical treatment of quantum gravitation. The spin-2
> properties that tensor type bosons must posess already indicate, to my
> opinion, that something is wrong. It is ugly. Maybe it's not a good
> argumemt to suspect a theory because it's ugly only. To my opinion such
> a theory, in particle physics, neither is likely to lead to results that
> can be verified by experiment or lead to calculations of values of known
> physical constants.
Just what about tensors do you see as a
problem in GR?
Patrick
David McAnally
>iemand wrote:
Maybe working with all those indices, and Christoffel symbols, and
covariant differentiation is too much for his little brain.
David McAnally
------
iemand
It's not the tensor calculus as such what causes the problem, though it
demands a spin 2 rotational symmetry property for the graviton, which
doesn't make the mathematics easier, I guess. It's the problem of
space-curvature bosons that makes the construction of quantum theory of
gravitation or a" QGD theory" (Quantum Geometro Dynamics) very
cumbersome to my opinion. Additionally I have very strong doubts about
the correctness and validity of GR in general, and (I hope I don't make
you angry) I have quite strong doubts about some fundamental assumptions
which are made about the methods used to calculate properties
(masses/internal structure) of elementary particles. (To my opinion
there are some inconsistecies at the basis of those theories, which may
account for the fact that mass calculations tend to diverge, but I don't
want to go into that matter here.)
I only want to make some remarks on GR.
As far as I know, GR is build on a single assumption made by Einstein,
in his 1911 article "On the influence of gravitation on the propagation
of light", where he introduces a gravitational potential which
influences the energy/wavelength/direction of a ray of light (let's say
a photon). He couldn't know about the existence of anti-matter and the
possibility of the existence of negative gravitational mass. So he
assumes inertial mass = gravitational mass, (often called the
equivalence principle) as most physisists do.
He also assumes, more or less, the propagation of light is influenced by
_homogenous_ gravitation fields. (Though he is not absolutely clear
about this assumption in the article I mentioned.) I doubt if this
assumption is true, though it will be impossible to test this in
practice.
Let me give an example of what may be an alternative mechanism for the
influence of gravitation on light. If you compare a ray of light passing
through a homogenous gravitation field with a stream of watter passing
between the plates of a charged capacitor, you might expect the ray to
travel straight ahaid, like the water does passing between the plates of
the capacitor. On the other hand a stream of water is deflected towards
a charged rod, because the gradient in the field makes the dipoles of
the water molecules move in the direction of an increasing electrical
field, no matter what the sign of the charge on the rod is. Though this
comparison is a bit simple, I hope you've got the message. You can't
tell from the bending of light from distant sources whether galaxies are
made of matter or anti-matter, if two types of "gravitational charge"
exist.
If you consider the possibility of two (or more) types of gravitation
interaction bosons (maybe different for leptons and hadrons, maybe with
comparable magnitudes of force but "selective" for different "types" of
matter), the basic argument of GR theory and the "space curvature"
concept based on gravitation fails. Gravitation will be more like EM,
but different.
If this is the case, the tensor "space curvature" nature and the spin 2
tensor symmetry of gravitons disappear as well. It makes the
construction of a quantum theory of gravitation a lot easier and
probably a lot more elegant as well.
Patrick Reany
iemand wrote:
You should take a look at alternative approaches
to using tensors, such as the use of geometric
calculus by Hestenes in
http://ModelingNTS.la.asu.edu/html/GCgravity.html
and the Cambridge Group's stuff at
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~clifford/publications/
Patrick
iemand
McAnally) wrote:
Are you able to give an argument on physical grounds to prove I have
little brains?
iemand
>You should take a look at alternative approaches
>to using tensors, such as the use of geometric
>calculus by Hestenes in
>
>http://ModelingNTS.la.asu.edu/html/GCgravity.html
>
>and the Cambridge Group's stuff at
>
>http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~clifford/publications/
Thanks for posting the links.
Let me make clear that I don't have problems understanding differential
geometry as such, first. The main problem is: I have strong doubts
concerning the validity of the theory as it stands. So working (more) on
differential geometry doesn't make sense for me, because I don't even
know why I should, Even more important is the fact that gravitation
doesn't play a role in the work I'm doing. Maybe I might discover
something that might be linked to gravitation when I make approach, if
any.
Secondly, I have a different opinion on the origins of mass, spin and
the "internal structure" of elementary particles, than the ideas behind
the techniques on which most approaches to these matters are based, as
far as I know. (To be clear, part of the problem is solving rather
"plain" Maxwell equations. I hope you you're not hurt now, because you
bumped your head against the screen of your monitor.) Furthermore, I
made some assumptions which, I hope, will remove the problems of
divergence occuring in standard QED calculations (though what I try to
do hasn't much to do with QED). As far as relativity is a part of the
problem, it is limited to SR and the Lorenz/Poincare group.
Marco Nelissen
> Frames of reference are mere coordinate systems in the same world,
> i don't mix them, they are already "mixed".
You mix them (up) when you jump from one coordinate system to the other
without applying the proper transformations.
David Hiskiyahu
...
> >jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message ...
...
> They haven't tried to bribe me yet. If they are going to kill me, then
> they also provide proof of a cover-up, and they would need to kill a lot
> of people if they're going to kill everybody who disagrees with SR (maybe
> one day it'll come to that, 'cause i can imagine that what is say would
> be against the security of the state in American as going against the
> 'authorities' and being destabelizing potentially, but that's just one
> nationalistic^H^H"patriotic" country fortunately, nothing i need to worry
> about here.)
Jos, I have to disagree with you. You seem to be in Netherlands.
I am in Belgium. Both are countries fully dominated and exposed to USA
politics, and very cooperative with USA.
They have even made English a mandatory language in the schools, and 90%
of movies in the cinema are american. I heard that from next year on it
will be mandatory to have some stars on the national flag. I saw the stars
already on the flag of European Union. This will make people think about
the stars and about speef of light, and the united Europe is a reference
frame for some secret experiments - the Euro being first.
Look how many foreigners there are around (I am one of them) - this is all
part of the same plot, inspired by USA.
So, in your place I wouldn't be so sure that you are not being watched or
followed, you have posted too much truth here.
I think that they have messed up your keyboard drive in such a way that
it makes some typing errors and plants a very tiny bit of nonsense in
your otherwise very logical emails, and this is what exposes them so easily
and makes the real paradoxes that you perceive in your not bribed head to
look as 'paradoxes', time after time easily broken by specialists.
So, here is the real conspiracy. And you are playing a key role in it!
Wake up - how didn't you notice this till now?!
> How do you solve the barn-pole paradox where the doors are pulled shut
> against eachother. Doors are made of honey-water? The initial shockwave
> when the rods start to pull in suddenly slam and open the doors (like
> if you opened a door, it would shut and open rapidly at the moment you
> grab it and start pulling/pushing it (shockwave traveling through the
> arm rapidly opening and closing the door).
Sorry, you quoted above only part of your paradox explanation, I do not
understand it, need more info.
Maybe you could make a web page with your paradoxes, not so easy to find them
in between so much googleware. I must have missed some postings of yours,
just unable to read them all, but it looks to me like there will be again
some mixup with absolute simultaneity assumption, followed by a conclusion
that SR doesn't work.
> This is too funny. Suprise us with more like this!
The only reason this forum attracts so many people is that it has
contributors like you, Jos!
Imagine - a forum all scientists and students asking boring serious questions,
all agree with the postulates, digging into the complicated details on the
periphery and in the developing front of the theory - so boooring!
And not only boring - also dangerous. Because every day that passes without
you exposing the conspirators means more people brainwashed and believing
in this silly SR/GR theory.
Did you know that the governments in Europe are adding some substance to
the water that makes you do what they tell you?
This substance has some coca-cola made of anti-matter in it, mixed with yiest
and sugar, and it has a deadly effect on free thinking.
In USA they make people take special tablets with same effect, but here they
have to work harder - people are not stupid enough here to take these tablets,
so they have to do it via the water.
You seem to posses some immunity against that stuff, or maybe you drink only
bottled water coming from out of Europe. Or beer.
It is so special - your fresh thinking, combined with your lack of fear
against the mighty establishment, mixed with pure nonsense and lengthy
diagrams - irresistable blend! It's a pity that you do not make some other
unobvious errors as well, e.g. like taking an assumption of light speed
equal 300,000 miles per second. Would be nice to analyse a real paradox
like that. Maybe combined with an assumption that speed of sound is equal
the speed of light.
So they call you a crackpot - so what? So you are a crackpot - so what?
Crackpot is not such a bad word, you know, Jos.
I would more worry about you being part of their conspiracy plot, not about
being a crackpot. Many people were called crackpots once, price of free
thinking and posting.
Have you ever seen the writings on the doors and walls of public toilets?
I once counted the dirty words in such toilet and was disappointed, because
most of threads here have more such words.
Maybe you could add some in the response of yours?
The funniest of all is to see some of the real scientists lose their nerve
in response to your 'paradoxes' and start posting insults.
> What is 'the' solution to the spaceship-chainsaw paradox ?
I don't know. Chainsaws scare me. Does Spaceman carry a chainsaw on his ship?
He should, for self defence.
Having a spaceship would be nice, but I think that conspirators would get
there as well. Well, maybe a russian spaceship would be safe enough against
american conspiracies, though I would fear to board that one for other reasons.
No escape, Jos!
(Escape? No - push 'tab' and 'Enter' now. One 'tab', not two. Preview first,
avoid spelling errors as much as possible - respect the audience.)
Uncle Al
GR is internally self-consistent in all its various formulations
(e.g., Ashtekar's separated chiral forms). GR contains no mistakes.
Whether GR is a valid model of reality requires empirical testing,
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
that is by observation 100% in accord with theory within experimental
error in every known instance. Can GR be incomplete?
Of course GR can be incomplete, as Newton was demonstated incomplete
in turn, as Euclid was demonstrated incomplete by elliptic and
hyperbolic geometries. As with the preceding, the *only* fruitful
targets are the founding postulates. There are no mistakes in the
derivations.
Newton tacitly assumed c=infinity, G=G, h=zero. SR has c=c, G=0,
h=0. GR has c=c, G=G, and h=0. Elliptic and hyperbolic geometries
successfully attacked Euclid's Fifth (Parallel) Postulate, that can be
stated in various equivalent ways,
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/wrightj/MA28/Euclid/fifth.htm
GR postulates the Equivalence Principle - that all local test masses
fall identically (parallel trajectories) in vacuum regardless of
composition and internal structure. Spacetime curvature and GR
immediately inevitably follow. If you find two local test masses that
don't fall identically, spacetime curvature is faery dust and GR is
falsified.
Objecting to the use of tensors is baseless and flat out silly.
Epicycles or solar orbits, wave emchanics or matrix mechanics, the
answers calculated must be the same as the events observed. Can the
Equivalence Principle be empirically violated? 410 years of looking,
now accurate to one in ten trillion relative, have never found a
violation.
There remains only one test mass variable that has *never* been
examined for Equivalence Principle violation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
It can be calculated. A set of maximally opposite test masses is
commercially available. The test would run in existing academic
apparatus run by the usual academic staff. Somebody should look.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
> Can GR be incomplete?
>
>Of course GR can be incomplete, as Newton was demonstated incomplete
>in turn, as Euclid was demonstrated incomplete by elliptic and
>hyperbolic geometries. As with the preceding, the *only* fruitful
>targets are the founding postulates. There are no mistakes in the
>derivations.
>
>Newton tacitly assumed c=infinity, G=G, h=zero. SR has c=c, G=0,
>h=0. GR has c=c, G=G, and h=0. Elliptic and hyperbolic geometries
>successfully attacked Euclid's Fifth (Parallel) Postulate, that can be
>stated in various equivalent ways,
Since GR assumes h=0, GR can愒 give the results QM does, right? Since
QM predictions are right, or close to right, sometimes, GR isn愒
complete.
I惴 not sure, but I think you can do QM with SR, but not with GR, so
QM isn愒 complete either.
Does elliptic and hyperbolic geometries include euclid geometry as a
special case, like SR includes Newton?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Uncle Al
[snip]
> As far as I know, GR is build on a single assumption made by Einstein,
> in his 1911 article "On the influence of gravitation on the propagation
> of light", where he introduces a gravitational potential which
> influences the energy/wavelength/direction of a ray of light (let's say
> a photon). He couldn't know about the existence of anti-matter
gravitates precisely and exactly as does ordinary matter
> and the
> possibility of the existence of negative gravitational mass.
Meaningless. The Alcubierre warp drive is theoretical exploration
that reduces to real world drivel. The cosmological constant is
something different, and the Weyl tensor doesn't require any mass at
all to impress gravitation.
> So he
> assumes inertial mass = gravitational mass, (often called the
> equivalence principle) as most physisists do.
410 years of EP testing have not disclosed even a single exception,
now accurate to one part in ten trillion relative within experimental
error. One computable and empirically maximizable test mass variable
has *never been tested for EP violation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Somebody should look.
> He also assumes, more or less, the propagation of light is influenced by
> _homogenous_ gravitation fields. (Though he is not absolutely clear
> about this assumption in the article I mentioned.) I doubt if this
> assumption is true, though it will be impossible to test this in
> practice.
How homogeneous is homogeneous? The Pound-Snyder experiment works to
spec over 22.6 meters vertical, and in both directions,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html
How much gravitational field inhomogeneity is there at the Earth's
surface in 22.6 vertical meters over a few cm arc divergence? Not
much.
> Let me give an example of what may be an alternative mechanism for the
> influence of gravitation on light. If you compare a ray of light passing
> through a homogenous gravitation field with a stream of watter passing
> between the plates of a charged capacitor, you might expect the ray to
> travel straight ahaid, like the water does passing between the plates of
> the capacitor.
Oh? Uncle Al would expect a small curvature in a plane parallel to
the plates of the capacitor given a stream of polar liquid. A stream
of carbon tetrachloride would still show very minor nuclear dipolar
and quadrupolar effects. You would need a stream of dielectric fluid
with no unpaired spins of any kind and no permanent dipole moment in
its forumla units. No induceable polarizabilty would help. A stream
of liquid helium above its lambda point temp would be a good first
approximation.
> On the other hand a stream of water is deflected towards
> a charged rod, because the gradient in the field makes the dipoles of
> the water molecules move in the direction of an increasing electrical
> field, no matter what the sign of the charge on the rod is. Though this
> comparison is a bit simple, I hope you've got the message. You can't
> tell from the bending of light from distant sources whether galaxies are
> made of matter or anti-matter, if two types of "gravitational charge"
> exist.
Matter gravitational measurements also included the anti-matter case,
Phys. Rev. D 52(10) 5417 (1995)
A celestial region between matter and anti-matter would emit vast
quantities of 511 keV photons (e-/e+ annihalation radiation) and other
stuff. The visible universe is all matter.
The deviation of the stream depends on gradient and divergence of the
field. If your reasoning is correct, it would be trivial to take
Hipparcos' data for star position deviation vs angular separation from
the solar limb and find a correlation, or at least a deviation from GR
predictions. A test of GR using Hipparcos' data was done. The
observed star positions agree with standard GR predictions within
experimental error out to 90 degrees from the solar limb,
http://astro.esa.int/SA-general/Projects/GAIA_files/LATEX2HTML/node141.html
http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/news-scires.html
(A By-Product is an Elegant Confirmation of General Relativity, 2/3
down the page)
Your hypothesis is not supported by observation.
> If you consider the possibility of two (or more) types of gravitation
> interaction bosons (maybe different for leptons and hadrons, maybe with
> comparable magnitudes of force but "selective" for different "types" of
> matter),
Conserved physical properties lepton generation number (U(1) gauge
transformation)and baryon number (SU(3) "winding number") arise from
internal symmetries through Noether's theorem,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
Internal symmetries transform fields amongst themselves leaving
physical states (rotation, translation) invariant. A local gauge
transformation always exists to make the local gauge-field vanish.
Physical properties arising from internal symmetries cannot affect
spacetime. Eotvos experiments contrasting baryon number with lepton
number are nulls within experimental error. You are wrong.
> the basic argument of GR theory and the "space curvature"
> concept based on gravitation fails. Gravitation will be more like EM,
> but different.
There is no experimental support of your proposal, and a wealth of
theoretical and empirical evidence against. The only unexamined test
mass variable that might violate the Equivalence Pricniple is test
mass parity (arising from a discrete external variable, and computable
for any known crystal structure),
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> If this is the case, the tensor "space curvature" nature and the spin 2
> tensor symmetry of gravitons disappear as well. It makes the
> construction of a quantum theory of gravitation a lot easier and
> probably a lot more elegant as well.
Try it, and have your theory mesh with observation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b25
and following paragraph.
Before you start sharpening pencils, consider the following:
The source of monopole radiation is a changing monopole moment for a
charge q or for a mass m. Since charge and mass are conserved, there
can be neither monopole electromagnetic radiation nor monopole
gravitational radiation.
The source of dipole radiation is a changing dipole moment.
(Punctiliously, you need a second time derivative of the dipole
moment.) For a pair of charges
d = qr + q'r'
and there's nothing special about the derivatives. For a pair of
masses, the gravitational dipole moment is
d = mr + m'r'
and its time derivative is
mv + m'v' = p + p'
By conservation of momentum the second time derivative of the
gravitational dipole moment is zero, and you can go to a center of
momentum frame and set the first derivative to zero as well. There
is no gravitational "electric dipole" radiation.
Consider the analog of "magnetic dipole" radiation. The gravitational
equivalent of the magnetic dipole moment for a pair of charges is
M = mv x r + m'v' x r'
("x" is the cross product, "mv" is the "mass current")
But M is the total angular momentum, which is also conserved. There
is no gravitational "magnetic dipole" radiation.
The next moment up is quadrupole, with no relevant conservation laws,
so gravitational quadrupole radiation is permitted. You can use this
argument to advocate that gravity must be a tensorial (spin-2)
interaction. Electromagnetism is mediated by spin-1 photons.
Looks to Uncle Al like you are stuck with tensors.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:41:55 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>wrote:
>> Can GR be incomplete?
>>
>>Of course GR can be incomplete, as Newton was demonstated incomplete
>>in turn, as Euclid was demonstrated incomplete by elliptic and
>>hyperbolic geometries. As with the preceding, the *only* fruitful
>>targets are the founding postulates. There are no mistakes in the
>>derivations.
>>
>>Newton tacitly assumed c=infinity, G=G, h=zero. SR has c=c, G=0,
>>h=0. GR has c=c, G=G, and h=0. Elliptic and hyperbolic geometries
>>successfully attacked Euclid's Fifth (Parallel) Postulate, that can be
>>stated in various equivalent ways,
>
>
>Since GR assumes h=0, GR can愒 give the results QM does, right?
So far, so good.
>Since QM predictions are right, or close to right, sometimes, GR isn愒
>complete.
Since we do not yet have a single situation for which both GR and QM
predictions exist, and experiment favorts one set over the other, it
is premature to judge whih is incomplete. A safe assumption is that
both are incomplete, to be eventually imbedded in a single more
general theory.
>I惴 not sure, but I think you can do QM with SR, but not with GR, so
>QM isn愒 complete either.
Reasonable, see above.
>
>Does elliptic and hyperbolic geometries include euclid geometry as a
>special case, like SR includes Newton?
Yep.
Uncle Al
GR must be a subset of a more general quantum field theory or
something better. QM is deficient in the complimentary manner. A TOE
or GUT must have c=c, G=G, h=h, and probably Boltzmann's constant one
way or another.
Both elliptic (positive curvature) and hyperbolic (negative curvature)
geometries have plane (zero curvature) geometry as limiting cases.
There's a whole lot in Euclid that is invisible, as SR is invisible
within Newtonian physics.
The Shroud of Turin is thereby trivially shown to be a fraud. A
positive curvature surface (head) cannot be projected upon a plane
surface without distortion (no parallel lines in the former case, only
one line through a point parallel to a given line in the latter). It
is a problem cartographers have suffered from Day One and cannot get
around.
(Heat a flat bas relief sculpture above 233 C. Lay a heavy cotton
cloth flat over it. After a slight char you get a perfect Shroud,
including the negative photographic effect in which bright raised
parts are dark and incised dark parts are light.)
tj Frazir
energy be broken !
Conservation is SR . If anything is wrong you are , your method is ,
but energy is never wrong.
E=mc2 and is identical to the law of conservation . But then you dont
understand ligt and stuff yet . Conduction and boyancy week will break
ya ! Im going to urt your knetic minds : ) a shock in what you think
motion is .
Old Man
news:17375-3D6...@storefull-2151.public.lawson.webtv.net...
First, get it right:
E^2 = (T + mc^2)^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
[Old Man]
David Evens
>In article <3d683...@corp.newsgroups.com>, "Herman Trivilino" <phys...@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> writes:
>><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote ...
>>
>>> >This is a rather weak argument to prove the validity of a theory. I
>>> >suppose you know Kuhn and you know about the troubles Einstein had to
>>> >get is ideas accepted by the physical community at the time.
>>>
>>> I keep hearing this but it is patently not true. Einstein had no
>>> porblem getting his ideas accepted. In fact, rarely (if ever) got so
>>> radical ideas accepted so fast.
>>
>>I probably have some of the details wrong, but when Einstein applied for an
>>academic position in Germany didn't Planck write a letter of recommendation
>>stating that Einstein was worthy *despite* having published his 1905
>>relativity paper?
>>
>Since this was Planck himself who, as the editor of the Z.f.Physik
>accepted said paper, how much truth do you think might be in this
>story?
People wouldn't have been making all that much of SR at that time,
though. What everyone was REALLY impressed with was his photoelectric
experiment explanation. They must have been, he got a Nobel Prize for
it (and gave QM rather a large push towards general acceptance).
Spaceman
>First, get it right:
>E^2 = (T + mc^2)^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
sorry,
WRONG,
missing the REAL.
please post REAL math not
fantasy like "nothingesses doing things" math.
you pc is missing a reality.
and your T is a joke.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
tj Frazir
TGOTB = thermal equilibream
Thats 13000 hours of math LOL ave fun
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
>>From: "Old Man" nom...@nomail.net
>
>>First, get it right:
>>E^2 = (T + mc^2)^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
>
>sorry,
>WRONG,
>missing the REAL.
>
>please post REAL math not
>fantasy like "nothingesses doing things" math.
>
>you pc is missing a reality.
>and your T is a joke.
Kinetic energy is a joke? Get hit by a car. THAT is T.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Yes, for sure. You've to remember, though, that Nobel prizes, in
general, are given for *confirmed* effects. At that time, though
relative was viewed by most as plausible, many of the experimental
confirmations were still vague or missing. The photoelectric effect
was confirmed. Note that Heisenberg and Shroedinger got their Nobel
prize not for QM but for "explaining atomic spectra".
Spaceman
>Kinetic energy is a joke? Get hit by a car. THAT is T.
Kinetic energy of "nothingess" (pc) IS A joke!
I see you just don't get it.
of course.
you still don't get.
the clock goofed up.
nevermind "nothingness in motion problems"
Marco Nelissen
> please post REAL math not
> fantasy like "nothingesses doing things" math.
Translation for those new to Driscoll-babble: "real math" is math
involving tires and self-contradiction rules. For example in "real
math" (also known as Driscoll-math), -4 * -4 = -16, but you really
have to say it like this: -4 tires times -4 tires equals -16 tires.
Marko Nieuwenhuizen
news:ak62ma$37$4...@news1.xs4all.nl:
> In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> I take that as an admission that you know this can't be solved under SR.
>> I will use this paradox against you, in favor of new SR students to save
>> their minds :).
>
> In all fairness, you should also tell these students that you failed
> to finish university, and that you think your TV is a mindcontrol device.
He must have had another message from those aliens again
Steve Carlip
> It's not the tensor calculus as such what causes the problem, though it
> demands a spin 2 rotational symmetry property for the graviton, which
> doesn't make the mathematics easier, I guess.
If you want to understand why GR requires spin 2, I suggest that you
look at section 3.1 of the Feynman Lectures on Gravitation. The basic
argument is quite simple:
1. You need integral spin to get long-range forces.
2. You need even spin to get attraction between like ``charges.'' Odd
spin would lead to a situation like that of electromagnetism---
positive masses would repel.
3. Spin zero and spin two both give attraction between rest masses, but
they have different dependences on energy. In a spin zero interaction,
increased kinetic energy leads to decreased attraction, while for spin
two, increased kinetic energy leads to increased attraction. It then
becomes a question for experiment. Spin two wins.
(You could try spins greater than two, but there are some fairly general
theorems that tell us that such theories have no self-consistent couplings
with matter.)
> As far as I know, GR is build on a single assumption made by Einstein,
> in his 1911 article "On the influence of gravitation on the propagation
> of light", where he introduces a gravitational potential which
> influences the energy/wavelength/direction of a ray of light (let's say
> a photon). He couldn't know about the existence of anti-matter and the
> possibility of the existence of negative gravitational mass. So he
> assumes inertial mass = gravitational mass, (often called the
> equivalence principle) as most physisists do.
Ths is not an assumption---it is one of the most accurately tested results
in physics. We know from experiment that inertial mass = gravitational
mass to an accuracy on the order of a part in 10^12. Electrostatic binding
energy contributes equally to inertial and gravitational mass to a few parts
in 10^10. So does strong interaction energy. Magnetostatic energy
contributes equally to a few parts in a million. Weak interaction energy
contributes equally to a part in 100. Internal kinetic energy contributes
equally to a few parts in 10^7. Gravitational binding energy contributes
equally to about a part in 10^4.
Steven Carlip
Jan Bielawski
> Jan Bielawski wrote:
> >jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<ak68rv$btr$8...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
> >> Jan Bielawski wrote:
> >> >Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
> >> >really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
> >> >earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
> >> >contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
> >> >world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
> >>
> >> You ask *me* for common sense?
> >
> >Yes, I most definitely ask YOU for common sense as the claims you make
> >here about SR are outrageous, ignorant, infantile, without foundation,
> >and lacking the slightest dose of self-criticism. You also vastly
> >underestimate the intelligence of the scientists.
>
> Don't try the naked-emperor argument again, it's wearing out.
Says who? Have you conducted a poll or something?
> >> >No. In the rail frame the pressure exerted by the plate does not occur
> >> >at the same time along the rail's length. The plate pushes the front
> >> >of the rail into the gap first, then the "pressure point" travels
> >> >along the rail's length gradually pushing it in.
> >>
> >> You changed the setting: the rail is welded to an iron plate that slides
> >> into a socket.
> >
> >I haven't changed anything.
>
> Yes you have.
Describe what I changed. If I misunderstood you, I want to know where.
> >> You cannot have the front part of the rail dive in first,
> >> because that would rip the iron plate to pieces, or it would rip the
> >> socket for the plate to pieces.
> >
> >No, it wouldn't. There are no rigid bodies in SR and on the spacetime
> >diagram you can see how these objects distort (think of them as made
> >of honey or water). BTW, I repeat again that this is a very old
> >question and you are being childishly naive if you think you've found
> >anything contradictory here.
>
> "there are no rigid bodies in SR, only things made of honey or water"
>
> LOL!
Note that this is not what I said. I take it you have no arguments
left and now must resort to distortions?
> Things are getting better and better with you guys. You change the
> substance of the IRON plate (perhaps i should add the iron plate is
> in solid-state??), to honey-water, that's the change you need in the
> paradox.
This is not any "change" - I have simply demonstrated to you how the
"paradox" is nonexistent in SR but like any true crank you'll never
admit that you were wrong. In SR there are (and never were) rigid
bodies - it's not any "change", it's the way the theory was from the
word "go" due to the finite speed of stress propagation in materials.
> >> >(BTW, these questions and very old.)
> >>
> >> But never answered to.
> >
> >Not in the pop science books you read, that's correct. Besides, any
> >competent physicist can figure out the answer to this problem without
> >looking it up in a book.
>
> Those books happen to be authored by an Einstein, the one called Albert.
No. As I said, *without* looking it up in a book.
> Ever heard of the man ?
Yes. You have a sick fascination for him. You should see a therapist
or maybe even a doctor. How many hours a day do you devote to posting
on this group? Do you have a job? Are you retired?
> You'd think he could make sense of his own theory wouldn't you.
Yes, he could.
Jan Bielawski
Daryl McCullough
>>>> Jan Bielawski wrote:
>>>>>Even if you were not ignorant you'd be simply SO naive... Do you
>>>>>really think this sort of "contradiction" would not have been noticed
>>>>>earlier? Do you really think a theory with this sort of elementary
>>>>>contradiction would be seriously taught at any university in the
>>>>>world? Are you nuts? Where is your common sense?
What you are trying to do, Jan, is impossible in principle. You want
to use rational argument to convince a crackpot such as Josh that he
is being a crackpot. If that kind of rational argument had any force
with him, he wouldn't be a crackpot.
The reasoning doesn't work with Josh, because he is already committed
to the belief that (1) Einstein was either a fool or a charlatan (or both),
and (2) Every mainstream scientist since Einstein is also either a fool
or a charlatan. The fact that you or I argue in favor of Special Relativity
is evidence that we are either fools or charlatans. He has erected
an impregnable mental wall through which it is impossible for an idea
to pass.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
iemand
<car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity iemand <iem...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> It's not the tensor calculus as such what causes the problem, though it
>> demands a spin 2 rotational symmetry property for the graviton, which
>> doesn't make the mathematics easier, I guess.
>
>If you want to understand why GR requires spin 2, I suggest that you
>look at section 3.1 of the Feynman Lectures on Gravitation.
That's no news for me. I've read quite some Feynman, Weinberg, Wheeler,
Schwinger etc. etc. I've done calculational and theoretical work and
experimental work as well, and I've seen quite some results and
comparisons between calculations and experimental data. I know from
experience how and why some results are published and other results are
thrown into the waste paper basket.
I also know a lot of the flaws and limtations of experimental results
and theoretical models.
I'm not an idiot.
Spaceman
>>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message
>> Don't try the naked-emperor argument again, it's wearing out.
>Says who? Have you conducted a poll or something?
"massless photons" are invisible clothing.
Still can't find a clue huh?
Still see the "clothing" huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
>What you are trying to do, Jan, is impossible in principle.
Yes,
but it's impossbile because the clock
DID GOOF UP.
and.
all theories based upon a clocks goofups are
open target practice.
Dear Daryl,
Please research the faults of clocks.
after you finish that.
GR,SR, and QM fall apart like a cardhouse in a tornado.
the reasoning is lacking on the "clock worshipping side"
not the SR is wrong side.
Pmb
> >Just what about tensors do you see as a
> >problem in GR?
>
> Maybe working with all those indices, and Christoffel symbols, and
> covariant differentiation is too much for his little brain.
>
But that's why there's tylenol! :-)
Pmb
TB
>
> [snip]
>
> Don't try the naked-emperor argument again, it's wearing out.
>
>
> Don't try the naked-emperor argument again, it's wearing out.
>
>
> LOL!
Hmmm... I think josX and Spacey have a mind-meld going!
-- TB
Herman Trivilino
> >>I probably have some of the details wrong, but when Einstein applied
for an
> >>academic position in Germany didn't Planck write a letter of
recommendation
> >>stating that Einstein was worthy *despite* having published his 1905
> >>relativity paper?
> >>
> >Since this was Planck himself who, as the editor of the Z.f.Physik
> >accepted said paper, how much truth do you think might be in this
> >story?
>
> People wouldn't have been making all that much of SR at that time,
> though. What everyone was REALLY impressed with was his photoelectric
> experiment explanation. They must have been, he got a Nobel Prize for
> it (and gave QM rather a large push towards general acceptance).
That prize wasn't awarded until 1921, and it was for both the photoelectric
effect and his "services to theoretical physics".
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David Evens
<phys...@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote:
>"David Evens" <dev...@technologist.com> wrote ...
>
>> >>I probably have some of the details wrong, but when Einstein applied
>for an
>> >>academic position in Germany didn't Planck write a letter of
>recommendation
>> >>stating that Einstein was worthy *despite* having published his 1905
>> >>relativity paper?
>> >>
>> >Since this was Planck himself who, as the editor of the Z.f.Physik
>> >accepted said paper, how much truth do you think might be in this
>> >story?
>>
>> People wouldn't have been making all that much of SR at that time,
>> though. What everyone was REALLY impressed with was his photoelectric
>> experiment explanation. They must have been, he got a Nobel Prize for
>> it (and gave QM rather a large push towards general acceptance).
>
>That prize wasn't awarded until 1921, and it was for both the photoelectric
>effect and his "services to theoretical physics".
That would likely be for the overal body of work, which consisted of a
fair bit of QM development work and both S and GR.