Re: Why Einstein Proposed That Speed Of Light Is Invariable....
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.rlativity:
> xxein wrote:
> > Source independency does not confer any other
> > attribute to light except the ability to function apart from the
> > source.
>
> Hmm. That plus the PoR implies that the vacuum speed of light is
> invariant (i.e. has the value c in any inertial frame). It is rather
> silly to separate one statement from a theory and attempt to interpret
> it apart from the rest of the theory....
>
> As for any physical theory (which is a collection of mathematical
> theorems and the interpretations of their symbols), one has many choices
> for the set of equations one takes as postulates. Einstein selected his
> postulates to accord with then-current theoretical expectations and
> prejudices.
>
> Today we can select a rather different set of postulates that completely
> avoids criticisms about "assuming the speed of light is constant":
> 1) the PoR
> 2) pion beams exist
> These are sufficient to derive all of SR, when combined with:
> * the definition of inertial frames
> * Einstein's "hidden postulates"
> - clocks and rulers have no memory
> - space is isotropic and homogeneous
> - time is homogeneous and monotonic
> * knowledge of what a pion is.
> Einstein, of course, had no access to the last of these, nor sufficient
> knowledge of group theory to apply them properly.
>
> Indeed, SR became the first major application of group
> theory in theoretical physics, first as a transformation
> group (Lorentz invariance), and then as angular momentum
> in non-relativistic quantum mechanics (!), and ultimately
> in QED and other QFTs.
>
> Today, with knowledge gained from GR, we can see the limitations of
> inertial frames and the PoR. This relegates SR to being merely a LOCAL
> theory.
>
> Tom Roberts
Always devising new camouflage Roberts Roberts? Why do Einsteinians
need "a rather different set of postulates that completely avoids
criticisms about "assuming the speed of light is constant"? Are they
afraid of something? Old camouflage:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1cb971595bf0fe4?
If I were you Roberts Roberts, I would immediately adopt the
"different set of postulates" that Brother Jean Eisenstaedt offers:
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la
vitesse de la lumière ne dépende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les
résultats sont étonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
IN ENGLISH: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why the speed of
light should not depend on the speed of the source and the speed of
the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly, there is no
reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's Principia, why light
should behave, as far as its trajectory is concerned, differently from
a material particle. Neither is there any reason why light should not
be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why don't we apply the whole
Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is what many astronomers,
opticians, philosophers of nature did by the end of 18th century. The
results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Mike wrote:
> > Tell the OP also that the principle of relativity combined with the
> > constancy of the speed of light result in paradoxical conclusions like
> > the bug-rivet paradox, the barn-pole paradox, the twin paradox etc.
>
> Hmmm. Be sure also to mention that the use of the word "paradox" here
> means "seeming contradiction that turns out to NOT be a contradiction
> upon analysis".
Of course Roberts Roberts. These are "paradoxes" only in Einstein
zombie world. In any other world they would not be contradictions;
they would be just "idiocies". Only in Einstein zombie world
"scientists" can trap a long train inside a short tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search
and also a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
> These are cases where SR is fully consistent, but does
> not conform to common sense -- that's OK, because common sense was not
> developed with any phenomena involving speeds approaching c. The moral
> is to NOT expect common sense to apply in regimes far removed from where
> it was developed...
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Mike
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
>
> ea8d444e-1278-4f1c-b602-678031585...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com
>
> [snip]
>
> > A deranged, insane man, will prefer a paradoxical theory.
>
> Actually, a deranged, insane man would be "hidding behind his
> own ratten fingure", right?
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure....
or maybe a racist, an elementary algebra physicist wannabe, a square-
rooter, a chess player or a poster to alt.music.kylie.minogue:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/22f97e426496efb3=
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/415dc591b91cad72?dm=
ode=3Dsource
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/146912dbeef0d08b?dm=
ode=3Dsource
http://groups.google.gr/group/alt.jokes/msg/abd6fadea0a31456?dmode=3Dsource
http://groups.google.gr/group/rec.puzzles/msg/19bebf2b4b47a83e?dmode=3Dsourc=
e
You have been exposed loonie.
Mike
>
> Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> On May 13, 4:41 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > jpk wrote:
> > > There are two versions of Relativity. 1)Special 2)General.
>
> > Yes. Moreover, SR is the local limit of GR, and is wholly contained in it.
>
> > > Special Theory of relativity deals with systems with constant
> > > velocities(ie no accelerating systems considered).
>
> > This is not true. One can easily use calculus to handle non-inertial
> > motion and non-inertial coordinate systems in SR.
>
> I have been trying to get a textbook that deals with SR in rotating
> frames (I have plenty of experience with linearly uniformly
> accelerated frames). I couldn't find anything, can you recommend a
> book? Thanks
Try first Divine Albert's Divine Analysis:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Divine Albert: "Moreover, at this stage the definition of the space co-
ordinates also presents unsurmountable difficulties. If the observer
applies his standard measuring-rod (a rod which is short as compared
with the radius of the disc) tangentially to the edge of the disc,
then, as judged from the Galileian system, the length of this rod will
be less than 1, since, according to Section XII, moving bodies suffer
a shortening in the direction of the motion. On the other hand, the
measuring-rod will not experience a shortening in length, as judged
from K, if it is applied to the disc in the direction of the radius.
If, then, the observer first measures the circumference of the disc
with his measuring-rod and then the diameter of the disc, on dividing
the one by the other, he will not obtain as quotient the familiar
number pi = 3.14 …, but a larger number, whereas of course, for a disc
which is at rest with respect to K, this operation would yield pi
exactly."
Do you find Divine Albert's text silly? Extremely silly? Incredibly
silly? Do you know of Poincaré's text where exactly the same result
("...not obtain as quotient the familiar number pi = 3.14 …, but a
larger number....") is deduced from an esentially different thought
experiment (a disc which is heated, does not rotate etc.)? Was Divine
Albert in fact Divine Plagiarist who was not able to intoduce non-
Euclidean geometry in a way different fom Poincaré's:
Divine Plagiarist: "This proves that the propositions of Euclidean
geometry cannot hold exactly on the rotating disc, nor in general in a
gravitational field, at least if we attribute the length 1 to the rod
in all positions and in every orientation."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> On May 13, 10:10 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Mike wrote:
> > > Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
> > > dead.
>
> > I don't understand this. Perhaps it's related to your "bug-rivet
> > paradox", which I have never heard of.
>
> Funny, le tres savant Roberts have never heard of the bug-rivet
> paradox:
>
> Woooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaouaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
>
> You got some reading to do before we can continue talking. It seems
> you have no clue:
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
>
> Let me also record your post in my immortal fumbles list.
Note that Roberts is the only Einsteinian that would discuss barn-
pole, bug-rivet etc. idiotic corollaries of Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate. All other Einsteinans have been silent for a long
time and some of them have officially abandoned Einstein cult. So let
us appreciate Roberts' courage.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Mike wrote:
> >> Mike wrote:
> >>> Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
> >>> dead.
>
> OK. That is a rather bad gedanken, because a) it assumes seriously
> impossible properties of the rivet, and b) there is no inertial frame in
> which the rivet REMAINS at rest. I have no desire to discuss it because
> it is so bad. That's probably why I had forgotten it.
>
> If you want to discuss the pole-barn paradox, be sure to use the version
> that has equal-length barn and pole (in their respective rest frames),
> with barn door 1 initially closed and door 2 initially open. The pole
> enters through door 2, and immediately after the back of the pole passes
> door 2 it is closed and then door 1 is opened (VERY short delay, VERY
> fast doors). So the pole sails through without ever touching either
> door, yet there was an instant in the barn frame when both doors were
> closed and the (shortened) pole was between them. In the pole frame, of
> course, this is described as door 1 opening before the front of the pole
> reaches it, and there is a period of time during which both barn doors
> are open and the (unshortened) pole slides through the (shortened) barn
> with both doors open; after the back of the pole passes door 1 it closes
> and the pole continues out of the barn.
>
> My point is: some things are reasonable to assume in a gedanken, and
> some are not. It is reasonable to assume that doors can open and close
> arbitrarily quickly, because they need not really be physical doors. But
> it is not reasonable to assume a rivet is prefectly rigid, because that
> is inconsistent with SR (the speed of sound cannot exceed the speed of
> light, which makes a perfectly rigid object impossible). And it is not
> reasonable in a gedanken to expect the student to wrestle with
> accelerating frames (such as that of the rigid rivet after its head
> stops by hitting the wall).
>
> Of course in the bug-and-rivet gedanken, if one does not
> assume infinitely-rigid rivet and wall, the bug is
> always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate upon
> impact. A 10-gram rivet traveling at 0.9 c would have a
> kinetic energy comparable to that of a small atomic bomb.
>
> Tom Roberts
Roberts Roberts the irrelevancy and idiocy of your last argument (Tom
Roberts: "the bug is always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate
upon impact") can be seen even by the silliest zombies in Einstein
criminal cult, and you are not among them. So the question is: Why are
you so dishonest Roberts Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Mike
I will be very dissapointed but since his last statement I think there
may be an issue of dishonesty here, something I did not want to accept
before.
However, I am thinking: how come so many people ware controlled by so
few and cannot voice their concerns.
The argument about all SR predictions being validated or so has
nothing to do. These are also the predictions of a general class of
theories that do not use contancy of c.
What's going on?
Mike
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmmm.... those others cannot claim expert stautus in here. Give it a
few days and the hyperphysics web page with the paradox will be down.
Just save a copy for reference. Same happened to NASA page that
insisted there is nothing ficticious about the centrifugal force since
the effects are very real. Page is down since the discussion here.
Something is going on.
Mike
Pentcho Valev
I have referred to Big Brother's story too many times but, in my view,
Orwell's explanation remains closest to the truth:
Mike
> "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
> you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
> that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
> Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
> external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
> of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
> they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
> right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
> that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
> both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
> the mind itself is controllable what then?"
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that maybe why there is a parallel effort to convince people that
reality is mind created?
In such reality, the bug can be dead and not dead, depending on
reference frame, as it is that cat in QM, dead and alive, both when
nobody is looking.
I think we need more psychiatric clinics than universities.
Mike
Pentcho Valev
Roberts Roberts you feel so good in Einstein zombie world don't you.
Zombies would never consider a very thin "bug" and, accordingly, a
lower, non-disintegrating speed. Yet some time ago an exception
occurred: a zombie calling himself "Dono" sudenly discovered that,
although Divine Albert's Divine theory predicts that a 80m long pole
can gloriously be trapped inside a 40m long barn, there is still
something awkward about this prediction:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
Who cares about zombie Dono's discovery now? Nobody. Even zombie Dono
himself has forgotten it and is fighting even more fiercely against
those who claim that Divine Albert's Divine Theory is an
inconsistency. Nice place Einstein zombie world isn't it Roberts
Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> On 16 mayo, 17:44, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 3:39 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 16 mayo, 15:23, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > papar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > There is no paradox. "The correct solution works like this:
>
> > > > No, it doesn't. You made a very basic mistake. One that's EASY to make
> > > > because of the VERY bad gedanken and the impossible assumptions it
> > > > makes, including the fact that the rivet does not stop instantaneously
> > > > in ANY inertial frame.
>
> > > > > In the rivet frame, the end of the rivet reaches the bottom of the
> > > > > well and crushes the bug because of the shortened depth of the well.
>
> > > > While the rivet is stopping, THERE IS NO "RIVET FRAME" in which the
> > > > rivet is at rest.
>
> > > > > ( The end hits the bottom of the well before the head reaches the top
> > > > > of the well.)
>
> > > > This simply is not true, as long as one assumes the rivet is perfectly
> > > > rigid.
>
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > This works out to about 1.6 cm.
>
> > > > That's the inconsistency in your analysis -- the rivet is now at rest in
> > > > the bug frame, but you have it being 1.6 cm long, which is wrong.
>
> > > > > Thus the end of the rivet reaches the bottom of the well before it
> > > > > ever finds out that the head of the rivet has stopped and crushes the
> > > > > bug."
>
> > > > This is not true.
>
> > > > Considered in the bug frame, the (short) rivet's head hits the wall and
> > > > stops. The part of the rivet body immediately ahead of the head stops,
> > > > and in the process of doing so, expands (in this frame). then the part
> > > > of the rivet immediately ahead of that stops and expands (in this
> > > > frame), etc. all the way to the end of the rivet. It should be clear
> > > > that in the bug frame the expansion of the rivet while it is stopping is
> > > > MONOTONIC, and so the rivet never crushes the bug. Note this has nothing
> > > > to do with elastic deformation of the rivet, it's just that different
> > > > regions of the rivet stop in the bug frame at different times in the bug
> > > > frame.
>
> > > > In the INITIAL rivet frame [#], one finds that the end of the rivet
> > > > stops before the head. This seeming violation of causality is due to the
> > > > impossible assumption of perfect rigidity. This is a simple consequence
> > > > of the previous discussion in the bug frame, transformed to the rivet frame.
>
> > > > [#] I of course mean the inertial frame of the rivet
> > > > before it begins stopping, and REMAINING in this frame
> > > > until after the rivet is stopped. This is NOT the "rest
> > > > frame of the rivet" while it is stopping.
>
> > > > As I said earlier, assuming perfect rigidity is incompatible with SR. So
> > > > the whole gedanken is ridiculous, because it inherently violates SR, and
> > > > also because this rivet has a kinetic energy comparable to a small
> > > > atomic bomb (!), and cannot possibly stop. In addition, the fact that
> > > > there _IS_ no "rivet frame" makes the analysis not elementary.
>
> > > > This does not illustrate any problem with SR. It merely illustrates the
> > > > fact that this is a VERY BAD gedanken.
>
> > > > Tom Roberts
>
> > > I totally agree with you in that this gedanken is bad. It is true that
> > > you can't stop a rivet when it hits a wall, without destroying it and
> > > generating a big big crater on the wall. However, what I see in the
> > > explanation of the Hyperphysics page is that they are considering both
> > > the rivet and the wall just before they make physical contact and so,
> > > in this manner, they do not need to take into account the rigidity
> > > problem and can apply Lorentz relations. Of course, just a little tiny
> > > bit of time later the rivet hits the wall and the atomic bomb
> > > explodes, so the bug history is really irrelevant in practical terms.
>
> > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > follows:
>
> > P: The bug is dead
>
> > ~P: The bug is not dead
>
> > This rigidity think is a =n outrageous effort from the part of Roberts
> > to dismiss what is obvious a simple description of the mathematical
> > inconcistencies in SR.
>
> > SR people claim it is as consistent as Euclidean geometry. This is
> > false, because SR is NOT only geometry. Yes, the geometrical part is
> > consistent.
>
> > BUT when you add the physical part, which is constancy of speed of
> > light, you get an inconsistent theory.
>
> > But you seem not to understand SR. Otherwise you would have not made
> > such an elementary mistake and use Galilean Relativity.
>
> > Mike
>
> Well...this thing has been discussed several times before, for
> instance see:
>
> http://www.physicsbanter.com/theory-relativity/32864-seeming-sr-paradox-unresolved.html
>
> where S. Carlip takes a similar approach to the one I put in my
> previous post....
No the approach is entirely different: Steve Carlip introduces a red
herring by asking an irrelevant question:
Steve Carlip: "It's really the same as the barn-and-pole paradox, in
the variant
in which the person at rest wit respect to the barn waits until the
pole is inside and closes the door. Here's a hint: in the bug's frame
of reference, what happens to the tip of the rivet when the head hits
the wall? Remember, the information that the head has hit the wall
can't travel down the rivet faster than light."
Steve Carlip is a silly Einsteinian but still he is much cleverer than
you.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
A very bad gedanken Roberts Roberts, an awful gedanken indeed:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
Roberts Roberts your atomic bomb argument is so desperate.... You are
not so silly Roberts Roberts you surely have noticed that the bug is
unimportant: "squashing the bug" can be replaced by "contact betwen
the end of the rivet and the bottom of the hole" and then, not so
silly Roberts Roberts, if the proper length of the rivet is very close
to the proper length of the hole, the speed could be much lower than
0.9c.
By the way Roberts Roberts your cleverer brothers in Einstein criminal
cult do not care much about your atomic bomb argument - see:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 11, p. 42, Problem 11.7: "Seeing behind the stick"
The stick hits the wall Roberts Roberts, stops and....nothing. No
atomic explosion.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
BradGuth
limited to something less than 300,000 km/s.
Get past the local ISM of dark matter and the photon race is on.
Possibly 1,000,000 km/s.
. - Brad Guth
> Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison th�orique � ce que la
> vitesse de la lumi�re ne d�pende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
> que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
> n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
> Newton, pour que la lumi�re se comporte autrement - quant � sa
> trajectoire - qu'une particule mat�rielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
> raison pour que la lumi�re ne soit pas sensible � la gravitation.
> Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer � la lumi�re toute la th�orie
> newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
> opticiens, philosophes de la nature � la fin du XVIII�me si�cle. Les
> r�sultats sont �tonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
BradGuth
> "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
> you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
> that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
> Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
> external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
> of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
> they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
> right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
> that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
> both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
> the mind itself is controllable what then?"
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Orwell wasn't off by all that much. Mike however seems in love with
you.
. - BG