Is SR pointing to a preferred frame?
Tony M
as tA. We can probably agree that tA does not depend on the existence
or the relative velocity of any other observers. Other observers
moving at arbitrary relative velocities wrt observer A may measure
different times between the same two events. Again, the time measured
by each observer does not depend on the existence of the other
observers. Once all the observers have completed the measurement they
communicate their results to the other observers.
So, at this point, without having to do any transformations as per SR,
all observers have knowledge of the times measured by all the other
observers. They all have an identical copy of the full data set of
measurements and can directly compare the values. Is it fair to say
that, if the values differ, some values are higher/lower than others?
How can this be reconciled with the fact that, if we choose ANY random
observer, SR predicts that the times measured by all the other
observers should be less? If a theory makes such predictions does that
not invalidate the theory? What’s the point in making a prediction if
it doesn’t match the experimental result?
The way I see it, SR screams “preferred frame”. Why? Because its
predictions are only valid in one inertial frame. If the frame changes
so do the predictions. If it had no preferred frame the predictions
would be consistent and independent of the inertial frame. If the
above experiment would be performed it would point to a preferred
frame; it would be that from which SR would predict the whole measured
data set.
Paul Cardinale
> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> as tA. We can probably agree that tA does not depend on the existence
> or the relative velocity of any other observers. Other observers
> moving at arbitrary relative velocities wrt observer A may measure
> different times between the same two events. Again, the time measured
> by each observer does not depend on the existence of the other
> observers. Once all the observers have completed the measurement they
> communicate their results to the other observers.
> So, at this point, without having to do any transformations as per SR,
> all observers have knowledge of the times measured by all the other
> observers. They all have an identical copy of the full data set of
> measurements and can directly compare the values. Is it fair to say
> that, if the values differ, some values are higher/lower than others?
> How can this be reconciled with the fact that, if we choose ANY random
> observer, SR predicts that the times measured by all the other
> observers should be less?
SR doesn't say that. If it had said that, do you think that it would
have lasted over a century?
Paul Cardinale
Androcles
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:a0844d6f-557d-47d2...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
SR says that, you lying fuck, Cardinale, and Jesus H. Christ has lasted
2000 years because cretins like you believe in magic.
harald
> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> as tA. We can probably agree that tA does not depend on the existence
> or the relative velocity of any other observers. Other observers
> moving at arbitrary relative velocities wrt observer A may measure
> different times between the same two events.
Yes. Some *other* events E1' and E2' however may be measured by A'
exactly as A measured E1 and E2, and with the same "local" time
readings.
> Again, the time measured
> by each observer does not depend on the existence of the other
> observers. Once all the observers have completed the measurement they
> communicate their results to the other observers.
> So, at this point, without having to do any transformations as per SR,
> all observers have knowledge of the times measured by all the other
> observers. They all have an identical copy of the full data set of
> measurements and can directly compare the values. Is it fair to say
> that, if the values differ, some values are higher/lower than others?
Yes, they will measure each other sets differently from their own -
but nevertheless exactly symmetrical.
> How can this be reconciled with the fact that, if we choose ANY random
> observer, SR predicts that the times measured by all the other
> observers should be less?
No, SR predicts that "the time interval between two events that
coincide in space, which succeed in a single point for a certain
reference system, is less for that one than for any other one that is
in whatever uniform translation relative to the first".
- http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Langevin1911
> If a theory makes such predictions does that
> not invalidate the theory? What’s the point in making a prediction if
> it doesn’t match the experimental result?
None. It does not apply to SR.
Cheers,
Harald
BURT
>
> > If a theory makes such predictions does that
> > not invalidate the theory? What’s the point in making a prediction if
> > it doesn’t match the experimental result?
>
> None. It does not apply to SR.
>
> Cheers,
> Harald
>
>
>
> > The way I see it, SR screams “preferred frame”. Why? Because its
> > predictions are only valid in one inertial frame. If the frame changes
> > so do the predictions. If it had no preferred frame the predictions
> > would be consistent and independent of the inertial frame. If the
> > above experiment would be performed it would point to a preferred
> > frame; it would be that from which SR would predict the whole measured
>
> - Show quoted text -
The prefered frame is distance. Speed through space is inbetween
objects.
Mitch Raemsch
dlzc
On Aug 16, 2:24 pm, Tony M <marc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between
> two events E1 and E2 as tA. We can probably agree
> that tA does not depend on the existence or the
> relative velocity of any other observers. Other
> observers moving at arbitrary relative
> velocities wrt observer A may measure different
> times between the same two events. Again, the time
> measured by each observer does not depend on the
> existence of the other observers. Once all the
> observers have completed the measurement they
> communicate their results to the other observers.
> So, at this point, without having to do any
> transformations as per SR, all observers have
> knowledge of the times measured by all the other
> observers. They all have an identical copy of the
> full data set of measurements and can directly
> compare the values. Is it fair to say that, if
> the values differ, some values are higher/lower
> than others?
Yes. And you are assuming the various observers correctly account for
their classical Doppler shift...
> How can this be reconciled with the fact that,
> if we choose ANY random observer, SR predicts
> that the times measured by all the other
> observers should be less?
It doesn't actually. It says that any observer that is at rest with
the frame that evinces events E1 and E2 (assuming they are a single
point in space) has the maximum elapsed time, and all frames with
successively higher velocities, have shorter elapsed times.
> If a theory makes such predictions does that
> not invalidate the theory?
SR is already known to be false in a large number of observations,
primarily where gravitaiton applies, and where quantum effects are
dominant.
> What’s the point in making a prediction if
> it doesn’t match the experimental result?
Not a problem.
> The way I see it, SR screams “preferred frame”.
> Why? Because its predictions are only valid in
> one inertial frame.
In *any* inertial frame. It allows you to map from one inertial frame
to another.
> If the frame changes so do the predictions.
Not really.
> If it had no preferred frame the predictions
> would be consistent and independent of the
> inertial frame.
No, it'd have the same "problems".
> If the above experiment would be performed
> it would point to a preferred frame; it
> would be that from which SR would predict
> the whole measured data set.
Does that now, with the "domain exclusions" described above.
David A. Smith
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Moving through distance is an absolute.
Mitch Raemsch
rotchm
> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> as tA.
Ok.
> Other observers
> moving at arbitrary relative velocities wrt observer A may measure
> different times between the same two events.
Ok.
> Once all the observers have completed the measurement they
> communicate their results to the other observers.
> So, at this point, without having to do any transformations as per SR,
> all observers have knowledge of the times measured by all the other
> observers. They all have an identical copy of the full data set of
> measurements and can directly compare the values.
Ok.
>Is it fair to say
> that, if the values differ, some values are higher/lower than others?
Yes. See "Well ordering theorem" .
> How can this be reconciled with the fact that, if we choose ANY random
> observer, SR predicts that the times measured by all the other
> observers should be less?
SR does not predict that. SR predicts that some observers would have
measured the time interval to be greater than tA and some to be less
than tA. Learn how to do basic algebra.
>If a theory makes such predictions does that
> not invalidate the theory?
Snipped the rest for it is based on your above false claim.
Inertial
news:6c6ff2da-0665-4199...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
Answer: No
>Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
>as tA. We can probably agree that tA does not depend on the existence
>or the relative velocity of any other observers.
Yes
> Other observers
>moving at arbitrary relative velocities wrt observer A may measure
>different times between the same two events. Again, the time measured
>by each observer does not depend on the existence of the other
>observers.
Yes
> Once all the observers have completed the measurement they
>communicate their results to the other observers.
>So, at this point, without having to do any transformations as per SR,
>all observers have knowledge of the times measured by all the other
>observers.
OK
> They all have an identical copy of the full data set of
>measurements and can directly compare the values.
Of course
> Is it fair to say
>that, if the values differ, some values are higher/lower than others?
Yes
>How can this be reconciled with the fact that, if we choose ANY random
>observer, SR predicts that the times measured by all the other
>observers should be less?
SR doesn't say that
> If a theory makes such predictions does that
>not invalidate the theory?
No .. you simply don't understand what SR says
> What’s the point in making a prediction if
>it doesn’t match the experimental result?
It does
> The way I see it, SR screams “preferred frame”.
Wrong
>Why? Because its
>predictions are only valid in one inertial frame.
Wrong
>If the frame changes
>so do the predictions.
Of course.
> If it had no preferred frame the predictions
>would be consistent and independent of the inertial frame.
No .. just because one isn't preferred doesn't mean every frame will measure
the same things. For a start, even just measuring the velocity of some
object is going to be different for each frame (even in classical physics)
> If the
>above experiment would be performed it would point to a preferred
>frame;
No
>it would be that from which SR would predict the whole measured
>data set.
SR correctly predict what all observers will measure.
You REALLY need to learn what SR says and NOT just use the comic-book
catch-phrases (like mutual time dilation) and not understand what it
actually means.
BURT
Distance is an absolute that expands with the universe.
It will take along time to see orbits expand and galaxies evolve.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:f435f708-8c6a-423b...@v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> SR is antiquated.
Doesn't matter .. as long as it works. It does.
> Science will get much better in the future.
Yes
> Distance is an absolute that expands with the universe.
No .. SR and GR tell us this.
> It will take along time to see orbits expand and galaxies evolve.
Well .. Derrr.
Now .. fuck off little troll
BURT
How can your speed through dimension change distances in the outer
universe? The distance between the Earth and Sun cannot change by your
speed. It will always be 1 AU.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:d90372ba-ef5c-4523...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 16, 5:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" wrote in message
>>
>> news:f435f708-8c6a-423b...@v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > SR is antiquated.
>>
>> Doesn't matter .. as long as it works. It does.
>>
>> > Science will get much better in the future.
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> > Distance is an absolute that expands with the universe.
>>
>> No .. SR and GR tell us this.
>>
>> > It will take along time to see orbits expand and galaxies evolve.
>>
>> Well .. Derrr.
>>
>> Now .. fuck off little troll
>
>How can your speed through dimension change distances in the outer
>universe?
It doesn't CHANGE anything.. the distances are simply frame dependent ..
but the distance you would measure depends on your frame of reference. Just
as you changing your own speed (eg from standing 'still' to walking) means
the the speed of everything in the universe relative to you is now different
to what it was) .. and that is the same in good old Galilean/Newtonian
physics as well
> The distance between the Earth and Sun cannot change by your
> speed. It will always be 1 AU.
No .. the distance you measure can 'change' (in the sense that you would
measure a different distance between earth and sun depending on your
velocity relative to that system)
Now fuck off moron.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. Distances are as absolute as 1 AU. Our motion cannot change
dimensions in the outer universe.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:63a11e80-b739-46e8...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> No. Distances are as absolute
Wrong
>as 1 AU. Our motion cannot change
>dimensions in the outer universe.
Of course it can change what measure distances to be .. just as it can can
change what we measure speeds to be. Try READING what people tell you ..
you might actually LEARN something .. though seeing you're a moron, I doubt
that.
Now fuck off again little troll
BURT
> "BURT" wrote in message
>
> news:63a11e80-b739-46e8...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No. Distances are as absolute
>
> Wrong
>
> >as 1 AU. Our motion cannot change
> >dimensions in the outer universe.
>
> Of course it can change what measure distances to be ..
Not at all. One AU is always 1 AU.
Mitch Raemsch
rotchm
> dimensions in the outer universe.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Nope. Distances are not absolute.
If you use the physics (SR) defintion, its not absolute.
If you are talking about a different definition, state it.
Inertial
news:9af5f1de-6e07-4668...@h17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 16, 6:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" wrote in message
>>
>> news:63a11e80-b739-46e8...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > No. Distances are as absolute
>>
>> Wrong
>>
.> >as 1 AU. Our motion cannot change
>> >dimensions in the outer universe.
>>
>> Of course it can change what measure distances to be ..
>
>Not at all.
Wrong
> One AU is always 1 AU.
Of course 1 AU is 1 AU.
Though the AU is based on an 'averaged' observed distance of earth to sun as
measured by certain observer, (though it is technically defined much more
precisely) that does NOT mean the distance from earth to sun is always going
to be 1AU. It varies at different times of the year for a start. That
would be as silly as saying everyone's feet are 1 foot long. The distance
from earth to sun will also be measured as a different distance by different
observers.
BURT
> > No. Distances are as absolute as 1 AU. Our motion cannot change
> > dimensions in the outer universe.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Nope. Distances are not absolute.
> If you use the physics (SR) defintion, its not absolute.
If SR is right you could change distances by your motion but that is
absurd. One astronomical unit is always One astronimical unit.
If that changed (because something accelerated) it would create
problems of which are nonsense. For example if you predict length
contraction the universe would contract along one dimension.
Such a lopsided universe caused by motion of energy in it is absurd.
> If you are talking about a different definition, state it.
I am talking about standard distances by meters or even other units.
These are absolutes. And energy's motion can't change them.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
> "BURT" wrote in message
>
> news:9af5f1de-6e07-4668...@h17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Aug 16, 6:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "BURT" wrote in message
>
> >>news:63a11e80-b739-46e8...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > No. Distances are as absolute
>
> >> Wrong
>
> .> >as 1 AU. Our motion cannot change
>
> >> >dimensions in the outer universe.
>
> >> Of course it can change what measure distances to be ..
>
> >Not at all.
>
> Wrong
>
> > One AU is always 1 AU.
>
> Of course 1 AU is 1 AU.
>
> Though the AU is based on an 'averaged' observed distance of earth to sun as
> measured by certain observer, (though it is technically defined much more
> precisely) that does NOT mean the distance from earth to sun is always going
> to be 1AU. It varies at different times of the year for a start. That
> would be as silly as saying everyone's feet are 1 foot long. The distance
> from earth to sun will also be measured as a different distance by different
> observers.
Your frame's motion cannot contract one axis of the universe.
The universe never changes by your motion.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:05cf968b-61b9-4a40...@p11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 16, 6:45 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > No. Distances are as absolute as 1 AU. Our motion cannot change
>> > dimensions in the outer universe.
>>
>> > Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> Nope. Distances are not absolute.
>> If you use the physics (SR) defintion, its not absolute.
>
>If SR is right
it is
> you could change distances by your motion
You can change what you will measure as distance .. just as you change what
you measure as velocity and momentum and kinetic energy etc etc
> but that is
> absurd.
No .. you're just a moron
> One astronomical unit is always One astronimical unit.
Irrelevant
>If that changed (because something accelerated) it would create
>problems of which are nonsense. For example if you predict length
>contraction the universe would contract along one dimension.
>Such a lopsided universe caused by motion of energy in it is absurd.
No .. you;re just a moron
> If you are talking about a different definition, state it.
Definition of what?
>I am talking about standard distances by meters or even other units.
That's what physics talks about .. surprising that you're even aware of what
physics talks about
>These are absolutes.
I'm not saying that SI units are not well defined .. I *am* saying (as does
physics) that the distances that you MEASURE (and the value for those
distance that you get with those units) depend on the motion of the
observer. Just as the velocities and momentums etc you measure vary with
the motion of the observer.
> And energy's motion can't change them.
SR doesn't says that motion changes the standards.
Inertial
news:c1693eb5-41ac-42b5...@y12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>Your frame's motion cannot contract one axis of the universe.
You motion contracts your measurements of distances (compared to measurement
made in other frames that see you as moving). Just as it changes your
measurement of velocity and momentum and kinetic energy etc etc. SR does
NOT claim that motion of an observer has ANY EFFECT AT ALL on the observed
.. only an effect on the MEASUREMENTS that observer makes of the observed.
You really need to get that through your thick moron head, to avoid giving
the accurate impression that you're a mindless moron troll.
> The universe never changes by your motion.
As you are PART of the universe, then any change to you IS a change in the
universe.
BURT
> > And energy's motion can't change them.
>
- SR doesn't says that motion changes the standards.
What was that?
Mitch Raemsch
rotchm
> If SR is right you could change distances by your motion
To be more accurate, we can *measure* different distances depending on
our motion (speed).
>but that is absurd.
How can a definition be absurd? The defintion(s), with SR, correctly
predict our measurements, measurement procedures well defined/
operationnaly defined.
>One astronomical unit is always One astronimical unit.
> If that changed (because something accelerated) it would create
> problems of which are nonsense.
Correct, it could create problems. But it also removes many many other
problems.
That is why length/distances/time have been (re)defined as they are
now, because they remove many problems (but do add a few problems
such as miscomprehension by the Lay as in your case)
The results of experiments are not nonsense nor absurd as you say.
They are facts and we got to live with it.
> > If you are talking about a different definition, state it.
>
> I am talking about standard distances by meters or even other units.
> These are absolutes.
No, you think that you are talking standard distances. Here in this
NG, in SR, 'distances' has a specific meaning.
It is operationnaly defined and those definitions when used in
measurements do correctly predict experiments.
Inertial
news:9237664a-c46b-4cc5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>No, you think that you are talking standard distances. Here in this
>NG, in SR, 'distances' has a specific meaning.
>It is operationnaly defined and those definitions when used in
>measurements do correctly predict experiments.
Well said
Tony M
From what I understand, an event doesn't have relative velocity, it
has spatial coordinates (location) and a time coordinate, hence an
event cannot be said to be at rest in some frame or wrt an observer.
But yes, two distinct events can occur at the same location in a
certain frame.
Now, from what you're saying, if events E1 and E2 have the same
location in A's frame then the time interval t12_A would be longer
than the time t12_B measured by B who is moving relative to A. In the
same scenario we can also have a second set of events E3 and E4
occurring at the same location in B's frame, meaning that t34_B >
t34_A. So, if for the same two observers A and B we can have both
t12_A>t12_B and t34_A<t34_B, there must exist a third pair of events
E5 and E6 for which t56_A=t56_B, and of course anything in-between.
So, how does the Lorentz transformation work here? For an arbitrary
time tA, how does it produce the corresponding time tB?
BURT
You can't change 1 AU simply by accelerating energy.
Energy motion cannot contract a dimension of the entire universe.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
That is correct .. it doesn't make your claims correct, however.
> it
>has spatial coordinates (location) and a time coordinate, hence an
>event cannot be said to be at rest in some frame or wrt an observer.
That is correct .. it doesn't make your claims correct, however.
>But yes, two distinct events can occur at the same location in a
>certain frame.
At different times
>Now, from what you're saying, if events E1 and E2 have the same
>location in A's frame then the time interval t12_A would be longer
>than the time t12_B measured by B who is moving relative to A.
Yes
> In the
>same scenario we can also have a second set of events E3 and E4
>occurring at the same location in B's frame, meaning that t34_B >
>t34_A.
Yes
> So, if for the same two observers A and B we can have both
>t12_A>t12_B and t34_A<t34_B,
Yes
> there must exist a third pair of events
>E5 and E6 for which t56_A=t56_B,
Yes
> and of course anything in-between.
>So, how does the Lorentz transformation work here?
That is what Lorentz transforms tell us. You have quotes what Lorentz
transform say and then ask how they work?
>For an arbitrary
>time tA, how does it produce the corresponding time tB?
It doesn't. You need more information than just an elapsed time.as measured
in one frame to predict elapsed time in another frame. As you probably
don't know (being a moron) the Lorentz transforms for a time coordinate also
includes spatial coordinates.
Inertial
news:9158a527-c223-4ec6...@x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>You can't change 1 AU
Noone is talking about changing 1Au other than you, moron
> simply by accelerating energy.
Noone is talking about accelerating energy other than you, moron
> Energy motion cannot contract a dimension of the entire universe.
You're a moron .. and aren't interested in learning .. so just fuck off into
hole and stop pestering your betters.
rotchm
> You can't change 1 AU simply by accelerating energy.
Why not? Does not the definition imply that it can change?
And, 'accelerating energy' is a term introduce by you and has yet to
be defined. Untill you define it, we discuss it not.
Here is an example of a definition of length ( distance/height): The
height of a building is the seperation in centimeters of the gap
between my thumb and index fingers when looking at the building
through this gap as my arm is fully extended. (get the idea?). This
measurement procedure will yield different lengths depending on my
location and depending on who performs the procedure.
Do you now understand that depending on the definitions used 'length'
*can* have different values ?
This is what is happening when you use the standard defintions used in
physics, defintions which you seem not to accept nor to comprehend.
kenseto
> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> as tA.
What are E1 and E2 ??? Did they happened in A's frame?
Start of a clock second and the end of a clock second on A's clock
are two events....is this the tA you are talking about?
>We can probably agree that tA does not depend on the existence
> or the relative velocity of any other observers. Other observers
> moving at arbitrary relative velocities wrt observer A may measure
> different times between the same two events.
The same two events??? Do you mean that the start of a clock second
and the end of a clock second in other observers' clocks? If not where
are these events located? and what are these two events??
>Again, the time measured
> by each observer does not depend on the existence of the other
> observers.
Again where are these events located and what are these two events???
>Once all the observers have completed the measurement they
> communicate their results to the other observers.
You cannot compare TA with TB or TC directly.....why? Because the
passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the
passage of a clcok second in B's frame and does not correspond to the
passage of a clock second in C's frame.
> So, at this point, without having to do any transformations as per SR,
> all observers have knowledge of the times measured by all the other
> observers.
No....you cannot compare these time intervals in different frame
directly.
>They all have an identical copy of the full data set of
> measurements and can directly compare the values. Is it fair to say
> that, if the values differ, some values are higher/lower than others?
Yes SR predicts that the passage of a clcok second in A's frame
correspond to the passage of less than a clock second in B's frame.
IRT predicts:
1. that the passage of a clcok second in A's frame correspond to the
passage of less than a clock second in B's frame....this means that
the B clock is running slower than the A clock.
OR
2. The passage of a clock second in A's frame corresponds to the
passage of more than a clock second in B's frame. This means that the
B clock is running faster than the A clock.
> How can this be reconciled with the fact that, if we choose ANY random
> observer, SR predicts that the times measured by all the other
> observers should be less? If a theory makes such predictions does that
> not invalidate the theory?
No....the PoR allows every SR observer to use any frame to do physics
and every Sr observer chooses the preferred frame because it is the
simplest frame to do physics. BTW that's why every SR observer claims
that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow.
>What’s the point in making a prediction if
> it doesn’t match the experimental result?
It matches results in accelerator design applications.
> The way I see it, SR screams “preferred frame”.
Sr is indeed a preferred frame theory. BTW that's the reason why it is
an incomplete theory.
Ken Seto
> Why? Because its
> predictions are only valid in one inertial frame. If the frame changes
> so do the predictions. If it had no preferred frame the predictions
> would be consistent and independent of the inertial frame. If the
BURT
Your better than me?
Is that why I got to you?
Mitch Raemsch :-)
Inertial
news:e546c959-e9aa-4f8c...@v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Your better than me?
"You're" not "Your"
And yes .. I am. Far far better. You're nothing but a stupid fucking moron
troll.
Inertial
news:d020136c-989b-4d34...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 16, 5:24 pm, Tony M <marc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
>> as tA.
>
>What are E1 and E2 ??? Did they happened in A's frame?
Another stupid question from seto .. events happen in EVERY frame. He's a
moron. There is no point in engaging him in rational discussion .. he just
isn't up to it mentally.
BURT
But not to the whole universe. And that is my point.
BURT
> > You can't change 1 AU simply by accelerating energy.
>
> Why not? Does not the definition imply that it can change?
Not at all.
> And, 'accelerating energy' is a term introduce by you and has yet to
> be defined. Untill you define it, we discuss it not.
>
> Here is an example of a definition of length ( distance/height): The
> height of a building is the seperation in centimeters of the gap
> between my thumb and index fingers when looking at the building
> through this gap as my arm is fully extended. (get the idea?). This
> measurement procedure will yield different lengths depending on my
> location and depending on who performs the procedure.
>
> Do you now understand that depending on the definitions used 'length'
> *can* have different values ?
> This is what is happening when you use the standard defintions used in
> physics, defintions which you seem not to accept nor to comprehend.
>
>
>
> > Energy motion cannot contract a dimension of the entire universe.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
> "kenseto" wrote in message
>
> news:d020136c-989b-4d34...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Aug 16, 5:24 pm, Tony M <marc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> >> as tA.
>
> >What are E1 and E2 ??? Did they happened in A's frame?
>
> Another stupid question from seto .. events happen in EVERY frame.
Hey fucking idiot....Tony said every observer measure the elapsed time
for the between the same two events....if E1 and E2 happened in
different frames then they are not the same two events. You are so
fucking stupid.
Ken Seto
Inertial
news:e90bd098-0678-4563...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 17, 1:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "kenseto" wrote in message
>>
>> news:d020136c-989b-4d34...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 16, 5:24 pm, Tony M <marc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
>> >> as tA.
>>
>> >What are E1 and E2 ??? Did they happened in A's frame?
>>
>> Another stupid question from seto .. events happen in EVERY frame.
>
>Hey fucking idiot....Tony said every observer measure the elapsed time
>for the between the same two events....if E1 and E2 happened in
>different frames then they are not the same two events. You are so
>fucking stupid.
Fucking moron Ken confirms his idiocy by showing that doesn't understand
that ALL events happen in EVERY frame.
Inertial
news:eec71ce4-7844-416b...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> But not to the whole universe. And that is my point.
You have no point. You're a troll
PD
I think your mistake is oversimplifying the Lorentz transformation.
You may have seen the transform written like
del(t') = del(t)/gamma
or something like that. This is for a very particular pair of events
and not for pairs of events in general.
The Lorentz transforms for the more general case you want to consider
is a bit more complicated, but you'll find that nothing screwy goes on
with it if you sit down with a piece of paper and work it out.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Eddie_Trochim/Lorentztransform.htm
And in fact, I would strongly recommend you find in the library a book
called Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler, because they go
through exactly the stuff you're pondering in patiently elaborate
detail.
PD
kenseto
> "kenseto" wrote in message
>
> news:e90bd098-0678-4563...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 17, 1:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "kenseto" wrote in message
>
> >>news:d020136c-989b-4d34...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >On Aug 16, 5:24 pm, Tony M <marc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> >> >> as tA.
>
> >> >What are E1 and E2 ??? Did they happened in A's frame?
>
> >> Another stupid question from seto .. events happen in EVERY frame.
>
> >Hey fucking idiot....Tony said every observer measure the elapsed time
> >for the between the same two events....if E1 and E2 happened in
> >different frames then they are not the same two events. You are so
> >fucking stupid.
>
> Fucking moron Ken confirms his idiocy by showing that doesn't understand
> that ALL events happen in EVERY frame.
OK idiot....give us an example of two events....tell us what are these
two events....happened in A's frame and how these same two events
happened in B's frame.
Ken Seto
Inertial
news:f7af48b9-2594-420a...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Ken the Moron apparently doesn't understand the word 'ALL' .. nor apparently
the words 'event' and 'frame'.. They add to the many other words Ken the
Moron doesn't understand.
Jonathan Doolin
> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> or the relative velocity of any other observers. Other observers
> moving at arbitrary relative velocities wrt observer A may measure
> different times between the same two events. Again, the time measured
> by each observer does not depend on the existence of the other
> observers. Once all the observers have completed the measurement they
> communicate their results to the other observers.
> So, at this point, without having to do any transformations as per SR,
> all observers have knowledge of the times measured by all the other
> observers. They all have an identical copy of the full data set of
> measurements and can directly compare the values. Is it fair to say
> that, if the values differ, some values are higher/lower than others?
> observer, SR predicts that the times measured by all the other
> not invalidate the theory? What’s the point in making a prediction if
> it doesn’t match the experimental result?
> so do the predictions. If it had no preferred frame the predictions
> would be consistent and independent of the inertial frame. If the
> above experiment would be performed it would point to a preferred
> frame; it would be that from which SR would predict the whole measured
> data set.
SR does not scream preferred frame.
Maxwell's Laws are suggestive of a preferred frame. A luminiferous
ether, in which we are all embedded, wherein the speed of light is
constant. One should expect then, that if we traveled quickly within
this ether, we would detect changes in the speed of light. Michelson
(1881), and later, Michelson and Morely (1887) used an interferometer
to attempt to detect the small changes in the speed of light, based on
the earth's motion around the sun. They never detected any such
changes, though they made several attempts with more and more exacting
equipment. This is called the Michelson Morely experiment null
result, or sometimes, just the MMX null result.
In 1904, H. A. Lorentz came up with a mathematical resolution to the
question, known now as the Lorentz Transformation Equations. His
solution surely came from the study of coordinate transformations,
such as rotation, translation, scaling, and skew. With a
sophisticated understanding of eigenvectors and eigenvalues, Lorentz
recognized that he needed a transformation that would have
eigenvectors along x= +-ct. By simultaneously scaling down the x=ct
and scaling up x=-ct you achieve something that looks like a Galilean
transformation for velocities much less than the speed of light, but
the speed of light, itself remains constant.
Since these transformations do not preserve distance between events,
or time between events, and do not even preserve the simultaneity of
events, Lorentz may well have regarded this mathematical trick as
merely that--just a trick. (And here is where you err, Tony. Special
Relativity does not "scream" a preferred frame. Rather, it "screams"
desynchronization--a universe where events simultaneous to one
observer do not appear simultaneous to another.)
In 1905, Albert Einstein approached the problem through the methods we
are more familiar with. By taking as given the Principle of
Relativity, and the Constant Speed of Light, and doing various thought
experiments, Einstein developed the Special Theory of Relativity, and
found, in turn, length contraction, time dilation, etc. It was
eventually discovered that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was
perfectly compatible with the Lorentz Transformations equations.
One would think, then, that this question was resolved in 1905, after
Einstein and Lorentz came up with a workable solution. However, this
is not the case. At question is whether Einstein and Lorentz ever
were able to philosophically cope with the implications of their own
mathematics. Did Einstein incorporate the Special Theory of
Relativity into his cosmological model. The answer to this question
is, emphatically, “No.”
Quite the contrary. At the time, Einstein adopted something he called
“Mach's Principle.” It is difficult to precisely put into words what
Mach's Principle is, but it begins by considering the effect of a body
rotating in space, and ends by saying that rotation could not exist
except for the presence of other matter in the universe. Albert
Einstein seemed to view Mach's principle as something along the lines
of: ...inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies...
Now, once Einstein, (and indeed, most texts on relativity) adopted
Mach's Principle and began to explain the expansion of the universe by
"stretching space" rather than recession velocity, we do indeed have
the "preferred frame" that you are talking about. In the standard
model of cosmology
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/bad.html#CDM
"...particles are not moving at relativistic speeds. Most
cosmologists think of entire galaxies as constituting the "grains" of
this dust!"
In the grand scheme of possible velocities, "nonrelativistic speeds"
means essentially satationary. This implies a preferred frame.
Another way of showing the implied preferred frame of the standard
cosmological model is to note that the standard model assumes a finite
amount of matter within the observable universe. A finite amount of
matter must have a center of mass, and that center of mass must be
moving at a specific velocity--this velocity would determine the
preferred frame of the universe.
So in answer to your question Tony, No, SR does not scream preferred
frame. However, the standard cosmological model does. And despite
this fact, it has lasted for 75 years.
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
Sorry Ken. It really doesn't make sense to ask what frame two events
happened. When you clicked "Send" for your ill-thought reply, that is
an event. When Inertial sent "Send" for his insulting retort, that
was also an event. These events will appear in all inertial reference
frames. In some reference frames the two events would appear to be
fairly close together, while for others, they would appear to be
hundreds of light-years apart in space, and centuries apart in time.
Androcles
"Jonathan Doolin" <good4...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:019ccd6c-8ce9-48d3...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the
stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the
stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.''
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the
axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod
SR screams preferred frame, you lying bastard.
Androcles
On Aug 17, 9:29 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "kenseto" wrote in message
>
> news:f7af48b9-2594-420a...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Aug 17, 8:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> Fucking moron Ken confirms his idiocy by showing that doesn't
> >> understand
> >> that ALL events happen in EVERY frame.
> >OK idiot....give us an example of two events....tell us what are these
> >two events....happened in A's frame and how these same two events
> >happened in B's frame.
>
> Ken the Moron apparently doesn't understand the word 'ALL' .. nor
> apparently
> the words 'event' and 'frame'.. They add to the many other words Ken the
> Moron doesn't understand.
Sorry Ken. It really doesn't make sense to ask what frame two events
happened.
=================================================
Event 1: A leaves B and goes on a journey.
Event 2: B leaves A and goes on a journey.
Event 1 and Event 2 are simultaneous.
Event 3: A returns to B and meets B at dawn.
Event 4: B returns to A and meets A at noon.
Event 3 and Event 4 are NOT simultaneous because less time elapsed for A
than for B.
Not sorry, Droolin' Doolin, you don't have a fuckin' clue what sense is, you
are insane.
Jonathan Doolin
The only way you're going to come at length contraction is if you
accept that Maxwell's Laws are the same regardless of the speed of the
observer. If you try to come at the argument from any other
direction, you might as well be arguing with Aristotle or Pythagoras.
It's not like we have a huge number of valid logical arguments to
support the idea of Special Relativity. We really have only one valid
logical argument, and we really need only one.
Jonathan Doolin
Androcles
On Aug 17, 4:01 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 8:42 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can't change 1 AU simply by accelerating energy.
>
> > Why not? Does not the definition imply that it can change?
>
> Not at all.
>
>
>
> > And, 'accelerating energy' is a term introduce by you and has yet to
> > be defined. Untill you define it, we discuss it not.
>
> > Here is an example of a definition of length ( distance/height): The
> > height of a building is the seperation in centimeters of the gap
> > between my thumb and index fingers when looking at the building
> > through this gap as my arm is fully extended. (get the idea?). This
> > measurement procedure will yield different lengths depending on my
> > location and depending on who performs the procedure.
>
> > Do you now understand that depending on the definitions used 'length'
> > *can* have different values ?
> > This is what is happening when you use the standard defintions used in
> > physics, defintions which you seem not to accept nor to comprehend.
>
> > > Energy motion cannot contract a dimension of the entire universe.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mitch Raemsch
The only way you're going to come at length contraction is if you
accept that Maxwell's Laws are the same regardless of the speed of the
observer.
=====================================================
Only a completely insane moron calls xi = (x-vt)/(something less than 1) a
"contraction".
Droolin' Doolin can't manage arithmetic.
rotchm
> > Why not? Does not the definition imply that it can change?
>
> Not at all.
No? Show me the math that implies that it will always be the same.
> > Here is an example of a definition of length ( distance/height): The
> > height of a building is the seperation in centimeters of the gap
> > between my thumb and index fingers when looking at the building
> > through this gap as my arm is fully extended. (get the idea?). This
> > measurement procedure will yield different lengths depending on my
> > location and depending on who performs the procedure.
>
> > Do you now understand that depending on the definitions used 'length'
> > *can* have different values ?
Dont be afraid of a question... So, do you now understand that
rotchm
> for the between the same two events....if E1 and E2 happened in
> different frames then they are not the same two events. You are so
> fucking stupid.
>
> Ken Seto
This is bad...really bad...
Ken, you are loosing it. Please do not ever post in this NG again.
PD
> On Aug 17, 1:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "kenseto" wrote in message
>
> >news:d020136c-989b-4d34...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >On Aug 16, 5:24 pm, Tony M <marc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> > >> as tA.
>
> > >What are E1 and E2 ??? Did they happened in A's frame?
>
> > Another stupid question from seto .. events happen in EVERY frame.
>
> Hey fucking idiot....Tony said every observer measure the elapsed time
> for the between the same two events....if E1 and E2 happened in
> different frames then they are not the same two events. You are so
> fucking stupid.
Oh dear.
Ken, you have no idea what "reference frame" means or "event" means,
if you think that.
Every single event is in every single frame. Viewing the same event
from a different frame doesn't make it a different event.
You see, Ken, unless you start learning the meanings of words AS USED
IN PHYSICS and stop using common usage dictionaries for that purpose,
you will continue to make utterly stupid statements like the one you
just made. You choose. Choose wrong, and your fate is sealed.
papa...@gmail.com
E1=nuclear blast 1
E2=nuclear blast 2
On frame A, E1 has coordinates x=-100000km, t=0
E2 has coordinates x=+100000km, t=0, so E1 and E2 were simultaneous on
frame A.
On frame B, E1 has coordinates x'=-125000km, t'=+0.25sec
E2 has coordinates x'=+125000km, t'=-0.25sec, so E1 and E2 were not
simultaneous on frame B.
Miguel Rios
Jonathan Doolin
But the length contraction in Special Relativity does not depend on
different "definitions" of length. You have to use the same
definition of length--that being the distance between two events
(simultaneous in your inertial reference frame) at opposite ends of
the object being measured.
It's the same definition; only one must use different pairs of events
to meet the simultaneity requirement.
Jonathan Doolin
rotchm
> But the length contraction in Special Relativity does not depend on
> different "definitions" of length. You have to use the same
> definition of length
1- Exactly my point if you followed my discussion. bert is using a
different definition than the one you cite below.
2- in the example of my definition, only one definition is used but
yields different resutls depending on the observer, just as SR uses
one definition, lengths depends on the observers.
>--that being the distance between two events
> (simultaneous in your inertial reference frame) at opposite ends of
> the object being measured.
correct.
kenseto
You misundertood....the original poster Tony said that two events in
A's frame E1 and E2 measures an elapsed time of TA. He then said that
these same two events measure by different observers B and C....he
then said that B and C measure a different times for these same two
events as TB and TC. So my question was How do they do such
measurements since the events happened in A's frame?
SR said that if E1 and E2 happened in A's frame and the elapsed time
is TA then observer A transform this time interval into B's fame using
the LT. The resulting transformed time interval would be the time
interval required on the B clock for E1 and E2 to happen in the B
frame. Notice that there is no measurement by B as the events did not
happen in the B frame as Tony claimed.
Ken Seto
PD
All events happen in all frames. The same two events are observed in
frame A, frame B, and frame C.
You do not know what "reference frame" means, and you do not know what
"event" means.
A tree falling across a road is an event. That event can be observed
in the frame in which the road is at rest. It can also be observed in
the frame in which an eastbound truck is at rest. It can also be
observed in the frame in which a southbound Porsche is at rest. It can
also be observed in the frame in which a Delta Airlines passenger
climbing at 9000 feet is at rest.
rotchm
> interval required on the B clock for E1 and E2 to happen in the B
> frame. Notice that there is no measurement by B as the events did not
> happen in the B frame as Tony claimed.
>
> Ken Seto
This is the first time I use the expression ROTFL .....
Ignorance is bliss aint it ken?
You made my day!
kenseto
But Tony didn't ask about simultaneity. He said that A measures the
time interval between E1 and E2 as TA. He then said that B measure the
time interval between E1 and E2 as TB. He then compare TA directly
with TB to reach the conclusion that they are different. My question
to him was how does B measure the time interval between E1 and E2 when
B is light years away from A and E1 and E2 happened in A's frame?
I suugest that observer A uses the LT to transform his time interval
of TA into the B frame and the resulting transformed value of T'AB is
the time interval on the B clock if the event were to happen in B's
frame.
Ken Seto
>
> On frame B, E1 has coordinates x'=-125000km, t'=+0.25sec
> E2 has coordinates x'=+125000km, t'=-0.25sec, so E1 and E2 were not
> simultaneous on frame B.
>
> Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -
PD
First of all, B is not "light years away".
Secondly, if you do not know how to measure two events that are
further from you than you can reach with your arms, then you have ZERO
idea how to make experimental measurements.
Third, it wouldn't MATTER if B was light years away. B's frame extends
infinitely in all directions, and so E1 and E2 are still in B's frame,
as well as A's frame.
> I suugest that observer A uses the LT to transform his time interval
> of TA into the B frame and the resulting transformed value of T'AB is
> the time interval on the B clock if the event were to happen in B's
> frame.
Well, that's just like you, Ken. Since you don't understand how the
measurement would be done, you then assume that it can't be a
measurement at all, even though it is CALLED a measurement explicitly.
Instead, you choose to believe that the only thing possible is
prediction, and someone has redefined "measure" to mean "predict". All
this because you don't know how to do any measurements. It's just like
you to insist that something you do not understand cannot possibly
exist.
papa...@gmail.com
Sure, the time interval A measures between E1 and E2, in my example,
is TA=0sec, that is, the events are simultaneous on frame A!!
> He then said that B measure the
> time interval between E1 and E2 as TB.
Sure, and B measures TB to be not equal to 0 sec, that is, the events
are not simultaneous on frame B!!
> He then compare TA directly
> with TB to reach the conclusion that they are different. My question
> to him was how does B measure the time interval between E1 and E2 when
> B is light years away from A and E1 and E2 happened in A's frame?
Well quite easy!! Both observers detect the events at their own
locations, with a watch, and write their measurements on a paper.
Later they can compare results.
Miguel Rios
kenseto
If E1 and E2 happened in A's frame and A measures the time of the
events to be TA. B and C are light year away from A how do B and C
measure the time between the same two events? Doesn't A uses the LT to
transform TA into the B and C frames???
> You do not know what "reference frame" means, and you do not know what
> "event" means.
> A tree falling across a road is an event. That event can be observed
> in the frame in which the road is at rest. It can also be observed in
> the frame in which an eastbound truck is at rest. It can also be
> observed in the frame in which a southbound Porsche is at rest. It can
> also be observed in the frame in which a Delta Airlines passenger
> climbing at 9000 feet is at rest.
But it can't be observed if B is a light year away from the falling
tree so how can B make any measurement of time? the answer is: he
can't. He will rely on A to tansform his time interval for the events
using the LT.
Ken Seto
>
>
> > SR said that if E1 and E2 happened in A's frame and the elapsed time
> > is TA then observer A transform this time interval into B's fame using
> > the LT. The resulting transformed time interval would be the time
> > interval required on the B clock for E1 and E2 to happen in the B
> > frame. Notice that there is no measurement by B as the events did not
> > happen in the B frame as Tony claimed.
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
No. B and C *measure* them.
>
> > You do not know what "reference frame" means, and you do not know what
> > "event" means.
> > A tree falling across a road is an event. That event can be observed
> > in the frame in which the road is at rest. It can also be observed in
> > the frame in which an eastbound truck is at rest. It can also be
> > observed in the frame in which a southbound Porsche is at rest. It can
> > also be observed in the frame in which a Delta Airlines passenger
> > climbing at 9000 feet is at rest.
>
> But it can't be observed if B is a light year away from the falling
> tree so how can B make any measurement of time?
Don't be ridiculous. We *measure* supernovas, which are events that
occur tens of thousands of light years away.
We *measure* the location of earthquake epicenters that are on the
other side of the world, without having any information from
instruments that are near the earthquake. We *measure* small changes
in physical processes that are occurring tens of thousands of miles
above our atmosphere. It isn't all that difficult to *measure*
something remotely, if the measurement is warranted by sufficient
scientific interest.
> the answer is: he
> can't. He will rely on A to tansform his time interval for the events
> using the LT.
And that is simply WRONG. Just because YOU don't have the foggiest
idea how to measure something that is further away than your hands
doesn't mean that science is so limited.
You have this stupid notion that the LTs have never been TESTED by
measurement, just because you don't have any idea how the measurements
could be done.
Jonathan Doolin
By the time observer B receives a signal from observer A describing
how these events have transpired, the events will have happened in
observer B's frame, and the light from those events would have reached
observer B by that time.
BURT
Distance is absolute since you cannot change it.
If you could it would spell havoc in the universe.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:c2750deb-3862-45ba...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 17, 5:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" wrote in message
>>
>> news:eec71ce4-7844-416b...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > But not to the whole universe. And that is my point.
>>
>> You have no point. You're a troll
>
>Distance is absolute
Wrong. Its a frame-dependent measurement.
> since you cannot change it.
Different observers measure different distances between the same events.
Just as they measure different speeds and momentum and kinetic energy,
> If you could it would spell havoc in the universe.
It doesn't.
Jonathan Doolin
There's a rather trivial example that demonstrates your meaning.
Consider the path of a snowflake as it falls to the ground on a still
winter's night. Imagine that it falls about two feet per second. In
the same second, from the perspective of an oncoming car, there is a
considerable horizontal distance in addition to the one foot of
vertical distance.
Now, if you will stick to your guns, and maintain that distance is
absolute, then you would say that the one foot distance traveled by
the snow-flake in reference to the ground is the "absolute distance"
while the much longer distance seen by the traveling car is some
artificial distance.
The Principle of Relativity, however, says that the distance traveled
by the snowflake is determined by the reference frame of the
observer. i.e. both the driver of the car, and the observer on the
ground have equally valid perspectives.
Jonathan Doolin
BURT
> "BURT" wrote in message
>
> news:c2750deb-3862-45ba...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Aug 17, 5:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "BURT" wrote in message
>
> >>news:eec71ce4-7844-416b...@h40g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > But not to the whole universe. And that is my point.
>
> >> You have no point. You're a troll
>
> >Distance is absolute
>
> Wrong. Its a frame-dependent measurement.
>
> > since you cannot change it.
>
> Different observers measure different distances between the same events.
> Just as they measure different speeds and momentum and kinetic energy,
>
> > If you could it would spell havoc in the universe.
>
> It doesn't.
If things get closer together their forces would increase on each
other. That doesn't make sense.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:aa6f0d3a-816a-4cee...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>If things get closer together their forces would increase on each
>other. That doesn't make sense.
They don';t get closer together. A moving observer has NO EFFECT on the
observed. The effect is only on what is MEASURED. So there is NO change in
the 'forces'. You really are a moron.
BURT
> "BURT" wrote in message
>
> news:aa6f0d3a-816a-4cee...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >If things get closer together their forces would increase on each
> >other. That doesn't make sense.
>
> They don';t get closer together.
If the distances shrink they do.
> A moving observer has NO EFFECT on the
> observed. The effect is only on what is MEASURED. So there is NO change in
> the 'forces'. You really are a moron.
No. Measured length contraction means less distance.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
Jonathan Doolin
==============================================
The Principle of Relativity, however, says that the distance traveled
by the car is determined by the reference frame of the
driver. i.e. both the observer on the snowflake, and the driver of the
ground have equally valid perspectives.
DISTANCE IS ABSOLUTE, DROOLIN DOOLIN.
NoEinstein
Dear Burt: SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy, making
it invalid. Also, the M-M experiment simply lacked a CONTROL light
course. Drunken Lorentz, Einstein's mentor, shoehorned his electron
resistance equation (higher resistance when approaching velocity 'c')
to become the "rubber ruler" on which Einstein based his ridiculous
space-time continuum. Space and REAL time (not clock time) are non
varying regardless of the mass of the nearby objects or their
velocity, Anyone still talking FRAMES of reference is revealing their
backwardness. I've been telling you these things for years. Can't
you learn, Burt? — NoEinstein —
Inertial
news:3907eaa2-2df1-4e48...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>Dear Burt: SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy, making
>it invalid.
Outright lie and nonsense from fraud NoEinstein
[snip even more nonsense from the known liar and fraud NoEinstein]
Inertial
>news:fadb5775-2c9c-4dad...@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 17, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "BURT" wrote in message
>>
>> news:aa6f0d3a-816a-4cee...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >If things get closer together their forces would increase on each
>> >other. That doesn't make sense.
>>
>> They don';t get closer together.
>
>If the distances shrink they do.
Nothing shrinks. Everything is whatever distance apart from everything else
that it is. A moving observer doesn't change anything.
>> A moving observer has NO EFFECT on the
>> observed. The effect is only on what is MEASURED. So there is NO change
>> in
>> the 'forces'. You really are a moron.
>
>No. Measured length contraction means less distance.
You have no idea what you're trolling about
PD
> On Aug 18, 1:06 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "BURT" wrote in message
>
> > >news:aa6f0d3a-816a-4cee...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >If things get closer together their forces would increase on each
> > > >other. That doesn't make sense.
>
> > > They don';t get closer together.
>
> > If the distances shrink they do.
>
> > > A moving observer has NO EFFECT on the
> > > observed. The effect is only on what is MEASURED. So there is NO change in
> > > the 'forces'. You really are a moron.
>
> > No. Measured length contraction means less distance.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Dear Burt: SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy, making
> it invalid.
No, it doesn't. Idiot.
Jonathan Doolin
Actually, is there an FAQ on that? If I'm looking at a space-ship
going by at 99% of the speed of light, if the physics is going to be
the same, somehow the gravity between the particles needs to cancel
out with the length contraction.
F=dp/dt, and I know that the momentum of the particles goes up by a
factor of gamma=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). The distance between the particles
goes down by a factor of gamma, and the slow-motion effect has
everything operating at 1/gamma times the speed.
Force is inverse distance squared, so the force would go up by a
factor of gamma^2, momentum up by a factor of gamma, 1/t by a factor
of gamma. So I think Mitch is right; the force should go up, but F=dp/
dt would still work out.
Jonathan Doolin
Androcles
On Aug 18, 12:06 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "BURT" wrote in message
>
> >news:aa6f0d3a-816a-4cee...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >If things get closer together their forces would increase on each
> > >other. That doesn't make sense.
>
> > They don';t get closer together.
>
> If the distances shrink they do.
>
> > A moving observer has NO EFFECT on the
> > observed. The effect is only on what is MEASURED. So there is NO change
> > in
> > the 'forces'. You really are a moron.
>
> No. Measured length contraction means less distance.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Actually, is there an FAQ on that? If I'm looking at a space-ship
going by at 99% of the speed of light, if the physics is going to be
the same, somehow the gravity between the particles needs to cancel
out with the length contraction.
F=dp/dt, and I know that the momentum of the particles goes up by a
factor of gamma=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). The distance between the particles
goes down by a factor of gamma,
================================================
No. Measured length expansion means greater distance.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
The distance between the particles goes UP by a factor of gamma, YOU
STOOOOPID FUCK!
Jonathan Doolin
You have provided a link to an image of the Lorentz Transformation in
the x direction.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
As the equations show, simultaneous events are no longer simultaneous
after a Lorentz Transformation. Also, the formerly simultaneous
events will be further apart, spatially, but the objects to which
those events happened are not measured by these events. Instead, you
use two events that are simultaneous in your own reference frame to
measure the length of an object.
Congratulations on having something of content to say in your post,
though, John. As a mercy to other readers, I snipped everything else.
Jonathan Doolin
Androcles
| Mr. Parker,
|
|
| You have provided a link to an image of the Lorentz Transformation in
| the x direction.
|
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
|
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the
axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod" --
Einstein
The faster the rod travels the longer the rod becomes.
The simple proof is 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) is GREATER THAN UNITY,
e.g. 2 = 1/0.5, so for a rod of length 1 moving at 0.866c, its length
becomes 2, which a moronic fuckwit like you calls a "contraction".
And it is Dr. Parker to you, you stupid little fuck.
The rest of your ignorant irrelevant insane drool snipped.
Inertial
news:cf6a8111-21b8-4301...@l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> So I think Mitch is right; the force should go up, but F=dp/
> dt would still work out.
Nothing 'goes up'. We are talking here about an effect on the
*measurements* made by relatively moving observers. The objects being
observed are UNCHANGED. There is no more or less 'force' between objects
because of some moving observer.
BURT
>
> >On Aug 17, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "BURT" wrote in message
>
> >>news:aa6f0d3a-816a-4cee...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >If things get closer together their forces would increase on each
> >> >other. That doesn't make sense.
>
> >> They don';t get closer together.
>
> >If the distances shrink they do.
>
> that it is. A moving observer doesn't change anything.
>
> >> observed. The effect is only on what is MEASURED. So there is NO change
> >> in
> >> the 'forces'. You really are a moron.
>
> >No. Measured length contraction means less distance.
>
Measured length contraction would mean less distance. Show me where I
am wrong.
Thanks for making me popular with your alerts.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:d05dbdbe-45a1-4e80...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>Measured length contraction would mean less distance. Show me where I
>am wrong.
Less distance than what
>Thanks for making me popular with your alerts.
I haven't
Jonathan Doolin
So you're saying that the forces between particles should only be
calculated in the frame where they are stationary?
Inertial
Funny how you think I say things that I don't say. Do you have a reading
disorder?
Jonathan Doolin
> "Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message
>
> news:05ac475d-1bf0-4f02...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 19, 5:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message
>
> >>news:cf6a8111-21b8-4301...@l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > So I think Mitch is right; the force should go up, but F=dp/
> >> > dt would still work out.
>
> >> Nothing 'goes up'. We are talking here about an effect on the
> >> *measurements* made by relatively moving observers. The objects being
> >> observed are UNCHANGED. There is no more or less 'force' between objects
> >> because of some moving observer.
>
> >So you're saying that the forces between particles should only be
> >calculated in the frame where they are stationary?
>
> Funny how you think I say things that I don't say. Do you have a reading
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm just asking you to clarify. It seems to me that the distance
actually is smaller in one frame than the other. Hence, the
gravitational and electrical forces in that frame have to be
correspondingly greater in the frame in which the particles are closer
together.
You're claiming that the "The objects being observed are UNCHANGED."
Perhaps you feel it is my "reading disorder," but to me that seems
equivalent to saying we should only consider physics as "calculated in
the frame where they are stationary." Because only in that reference
frame could you make the claim that the objects being observed are
UNCHANGED." In other reference frames, the objects being observed are
LENGTH CONTRACTED.
I may not have the correct solution to the problem, but it is still a
valid question. The Principle of Relativity is that the laws are the
same in both reference frames. Well, in one of the frames the
particles are closer together. That should mean more force between
them.
Jonathan Doolin
BURT
> "Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message
>
> news:05ac475d-1bf0-4f02...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 19, 5:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message
>
> >>news:cf6a8111-21b8-4301...@l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > So I think Mitch is right; the force should go up, but F=dp/
> >> > dt would still work out.
>
> >> Nothing 'goes up'. We are talking here about an effect on the
> >> *measurements* made by relatively moving observers. The objects being
> >> observed are UNCHANGED. There is no more or less 'force' between objects
> >> because of some moving observer.
>
> >So you're saying that the forces between particles should only be
> >calculated in the frame where they are stationary?
>
> Funny how you think I say things that I don't say. Do you have a reading
>
> - Show quoted text -
Length contraction is measured creating shorter distance inbetween
astronimcal objects. This change in distance in the outer universe
spells havoc to physics.
Your motion can not change a distance in the universe. One AU is 1 AU.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
Sure you have. At least I feel more popular.
I see you don't see that you have a problem.
Mitch Raemsch ;-)
sh...@cadence.com
>
> > >If things get closer together their forces would increase on each
> > >other. That doesn't make sense.
I assume you are talking about gravitational force here.
What do you think doesn't make sense? Yes, I believe the forces would
increase, as measured by the observer in the other frame. I don't
believe that creates any contradiction.
There is no direct, absolute way to measure this force. The observers
can measure it indirectly by observing the acceleration of the object,
and then calculating the force based on the mass. But the two
observers are using different values for the mass, and for the times,
distances and velocities that are involved in the acceleration, each
related to those of the other observer by a Lorentz transform. In the
end, each will determine that the force measured in this way in their
frame matches what the forces should be in their frame, so it "makes
sense". It doesn't matter whether the two observers get the same
value for that force.
Any mechanism for measuring the force will involve some quantity or
quantities that have to be transformed to translate them into the
other frame. The end result will "make sense" to both observers. I
don't have to know what the mechanism is to know this. Its operation
is governed by the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are
Lorentz invariant.
It is generally easier to apply the laws of physics in the frame of
the objects, and then transform the results to determine what would be
seen by observers in other frames. But SR tells us that it is just as
valid to apply the laws of physics in the frame of any observer, and
the results will be the same (assuming that you haven't made a mistake
because the calculations were more complex).
whoever
news:58e4360c-0129-42d9...@o7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>Sure you have. At least I feel more popular.
That's nice for you. Add that to your list of delusions.
> I see you don't see that you have a problem.
I don't have a problem to be seen. Other than me wasting time on you yet
again. But at least I've corrected your mistakes for other readers .. even
though you have no interest in learning or understanding physics.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
whoever
>I'm just asking you to clarify.
OK
> It seems to me that the distance
> actually is smaller in one frame than the other.
Yes it is. But nothing 'goes up' or 'goes down'. Nothing changes. It is
different views of the same events.
Just as a single object has different speeds in different frames all at the
same time. You wouldn't say that the speed of an object 'goes up' when a
fast moving object observes it. It simply has greater speed measured in
that frame than measured in another frame.
> Hence, the
>gravitational and electrical forces in that frame have to be
>correspondingly greater in the frame in which the particles are closer
>together.
There is lots different in what another frame measures .. energies,
momentums, velocities, distances, forces, order of events.
The laws of physics are the same in each frame though
> You're claiming that the "The objects being observed are UNCHANGED."
Yes .. that's common sense (and correct)
> Perhaps you feel it is my "reading disorder," but to me that seems
> equivalent to saying we should only consider physics as "calculated in
> the frame where they are stationary."
That's a reading disorder if you can in any way come to that conclusion from
what I wrote. That said, given the choice, it is usually simpler to do the
math in a frame where an object is a rest (lots of things like velocity are
zero so it makes things easier). But you can do the math in whatever frame
you want/need to using the measurement made in that frame.
> Because only in that reference
> frame could you make the claim that the objects being observed are
> UNCHANGED."
No .. they are unchanged in each frame. Nothing about the objects changes.
However the MEASUREMENTS made of the one object, by moving observers, differ
from each other.
That does NOT mean that anything about the object itself changes.
> In other reference frames, the objects being observed are
> LENGTH CONTRACTED.
Yes they are ... that is an effect on the measurement of the distances in
that frame
>I may not have the correct solution to the problem, but it is still a
> valid question.
What is?
> The Principle of Relativity is that the laws are the
> same in both reference frames.
Yes. That doesn't mean measurements are the same in every frame .. only the
relationships between them follow the same laws of physics
> Well, in one of the frames the
> particles are closer together. That should mean more force between
> them.
It means lots of measurements are different. But
1) the laws of physics are the same in all frames
2) measurements of length, velocity, force, kinetic energy, mass, momentum
etc are frame dependent
3) a moving observer does not have ANY effect on the observed (nothing
changes because a moving observer measure something) .. nothing 'goes up' or
'goes down'.
PD
> On Aug 19, 9:34 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message
>
> >news:05ac475d-1bf0-4f02...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >On Aug 19, 5:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> > >> "Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message
>
> > >>news:cf6a8111-21b8-4301...@l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > So I think Mitch is right; the force should go up, but F=dp/
> > >> > dt would still work out.
>
> > >> Nothing 'goes up'. We are talking here about an effect on the
> > >> *measurements* made by relatively moving observers. The objects being
> > >> observed are UNCHANGED. There is no more or less 'force' between objects
> > >> because of some moving observer.
>
> > >So you're saying that the forces between particles should only be
> > >calculated in the frame where they are stationary?
>
> > Funny how you think I say things that I don't say. Do you have a reading
> > disorder?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm just asking you to clarify. It seems to me that the distance
> actually is smaller in one frame than the other. Hence, the
> gravitational and electrical forces in that frame have to be
> correspondingly greater in the frame in which the particles are closer
> together.
This is precisely one of the realizations that led to general
relativity.
One of the principles of special relativity is the ... well ...
relativity principle -- which says that the laws of physics are
invariant in form regardless of inertial reference frame.
Obviously, then, if you look at any law that invokes a 1/r^2 radial
dependence, such as Coulomb's law or Newton's law of gravity, there is
an immediate problem -- because r is frame-dependent.
Thus, and Einstein saw this right away about Newtonian gravity, a law
like this cannot be invariant with respect to choice of inertial
reference frame.
A useful pursuit would be to investigate how this is resolved for
electromagnetism, since electromagnetism was one of the first sets of
laws shown to be Lorentz-covariant. This might, it's reasonable to
guess, point to how to resolve the matter with Newtonian gravity.
Though superficially this seems promising, you might also recall that
it is *electromagnetism* that is Lorentz-covariant, not Coulomb's law.
And in fact, one of the remarkable results of the Lorentz-covariance
of electromagnetism is that the relative strengths of electric and
magnetic fields in a given situation is frame-dependent. The Lorentz
transform tells you in fact how electric fields transform into
magnetic fields and vice versa. Where this then should worry you is
that Newtonian gravity doesn't appear to have a partner, the way that
the electric field has a partner in the magnetic field. So it can't
work *exactly* the same way.
But if you at least start with this, then you will get both a deeper
understanding of special relativity and the task of general
relativity.
PD
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abd34140-e5b1-4c6c...@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
============================================
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
All one of the... well... principles which say "Examples of this sort", well
eh, Phuckwit Duck?
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has
already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for
which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture
(the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of
Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another
postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely,
that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of
the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies (if we add in my own definition of time and velocity).
kenseto
> On Aug 17, 3:41 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 2:21 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 17, 11:11 am, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 17, 9:29 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "kenseto" wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:f7af48b9-2594-420a...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > >On Aug 17, 8:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Fucking moron Ken confirms his idiocy by showing that doesn't understand
> > > > > > >> that ALL events happen in EVERY frame.
> > > > > > >OK idiot....give us an example of two events....tell us what are these
> > > > > > >two events....happened in A's frame and how these same two events
> > > > > > >happened in B's frame.
>
> > > > > > Ken the Moron apparently doesn't understand the word 'ALL' .. nor apparently
> > > > > > the words 'event' and 'frame'.. They add to the many other words Ken the
> > > > > > Moron doesn't understand.
>
> > > > > Sorry Ken. It really doesn't make sense to ask what frame two events
> > > > > happened. When you clicked "Send" for your ill-thought reply, that is
> > > > > an event. When Inertial sent "Send" for his insulting retort, that
> > > > > was also an event. These events will appear in all inertial reference
> > > > > frames. In some reference frames the two events would appear to be
> > > > > fairly close together, while for others, they would appear to be
> > > > > hundreds of light-years apart in space, and centuries apart in time.
>
> > > > You misundertood....the original poster Tony said that two events in
> > > > A's frame E1 and E2 measures an elapsed time of TA. He then said that
> > > > these same two events measure by different observers B and C....he
> > > > then said that B and C measure a different times for these same two
> > > > events as TB and TC. So my question was How do they do such
> > > > measurements since the events happened in A's frame?
>
> > > All events happen in all frames. The same two events are observed in
> > > frame A, frame B, and frame C.
>
> > If E1 and E2 happened in A's frame and A measures the time of the
> > events to be TA. B and C are light year away from A how do B and C
> > measure the time between the same two events? Doesn't A uses the LT to
> > transform TA into the B and C frames???
>
> No. B and C *measure* them.
How??
>
>
>
> > > You do not know what "reference frame" means, and you do not know what
> > > "event" means.
> > > A tree falling across a road is an event. That event can be observed
> > > in the frame in which the road is at rest. It can also be observed in
> > > the frame in which an eastbound truck is at rest. It can also be
> > > observed in the frame in which a southbound Porsche is at rest. It can
> > > also be observed in the frame in which a Delta Airlines passenger
> > > climbing at 9000 feet is at rest.
>
> > But it can't be observed if B is a light year away from the falling
> > tree so how can B make any measurement of time?
>
> Don't be ridiculous. We *measure* supernovas, which are events that
> occur tens of thousands of light years away.
That's not measuring the time of the super nova. That's using SR/GR to
predict the time of the super nova.
> We *measure* the location of earthquake epicenters that are on the
> other side of the world, without having any information from
> instruments that are near the earthquake.
We are talking about measuring the rate of a clock in a spaceship.
>We *measure* small changes
> in physical processes that are occurring tens of thousands of miles
> above our atmosphere. It isn't all that difficult to *measure*
> something remotely, if the measurement is warranted by sufficient
> scientific interest.
But not measuring the rate of a clock....one can onlky predict the
rate of a clock moving wrt the observer.
>
> > the answer is: he
> > can't. He will rely on A to tansform his time interval for the events
> > using the LT.
>
> And that is simply WRONG. Just because YOU don't have the foggiest
> idea how to measure something that is further away than your hands
> doesn't mean that science is so limited.
So why don't you tell us how to measure the rate of a clock at the
moon??
Ken Seto
>
> You have this stupid notion that the LTs have never been TESTED by
> measurement, just because you don't have any idea how the measurements
> could be done.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > > SR said that if E1 and E2 happened in A's frame and the elapsed time
> > > > is TA then observer A transform this time interval into B's fame using
> > > > the LT. The resulting transformed time interval would be the time
> > > > interval required on the B clock for E1 and E2 to happen in the B
> > > > frame. Notice that there is no measurement by B as the events did not
> > > > happen in the B frame as Tony claimed.
>
> > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
> > > "event" means.
> > > A tree falling across a road is an event. That event can be observed
> > > in the frame in which the road is at rest. It can also be observed in
> > > the frame in which an eastbound truck is at rest. It can also be
> > > observed in the frame in which a southbound Porsche is at rest. It can
> > > also be observed in the frame in which a Delta Airlines passenger
> > > climbing at 9000 feet is at rest.
>
> > But it can't be observed if B is a light year away from the falling
> > can't. He will rely on A to tansform his time interval for the events
> > using the LT.
>
>
> By the time observer B receives a signal from observer A describing
> how these events have transpired, the events will have happened in
> observer B's frame, and the light from those events would have reached
> observer B by that time.
So what is your point?? The original poster said that B and C
measuring the same two E1 and E2 in A's frame and came up with TB and
TC....then they compare these time interval with TA to reach the
conclusion that the events happened at different times. My question to
you all is how do B and C measure the same two events in A's frame to
come up with the answers of TB and TC????
Ken Seto
kenseto
> On Aug 17, 2:49 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 1:36 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 ago, 10:17, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 17, 8:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "kenseto" wrote in message
>
>
> > > > > >On Aug 17, 1:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> "kenseto" wrote in message
>
>
> > > > > >> >On Aug 16, 5:24 pm, Tony M <marc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> Observer A is measuring the time elapsed between two events E1 and E2
> > > > > >> >> as tA.
>
> > > > > >> >What are E1 and E2 ??? Did they happened in A's frame?
>
> > > > > >> Another stupid question from seto .. events happen in EVERY frame.
>
> > > > > >Hey fucking idiot....Tony said every observer measure the elapsed time
> > > > > >for the between the same two events....if E1 and E2 happened in
> > > > > >different frames then they are not the same two events. You are so
> > > > > >fucking stupid.
>
> > > > > Fucking moron Ken confirms his idiocy by showing that doesn't understand
> > > > > that ALL events happen in EVERY frame.
>
> > > > OK idiot....give us an example of two events....tell us what are these
> > > > two events....happened in A's frame and how these same two events
> > > > happened in B's frame.
>
> > > E2=nuclear blast 2
>
> > > On frame A, E1 has coordinates x=-100000km, t=0
> > > E2 has coordinates x=+100000km, t=0, so E1 and E2 were simultaneous on
> > > frame A.
>
> > But Tony didn't ask about simultaneity. He said that A measures the
> > time interval between E1 and E2 as TA. He then said that B measure the
> > time interval between E1 and E2 as TB. He then compare TA directly
> > with TB to reach the conclusion that they are different. My question
> > to him was how does B measure the time interval between E1 and E2 when
> > B is light years away from A and E1 and E2 happened in A's frame?
>
> First of all, B is not "light years away".
But he could be.
> Secondly, if you do not know how to measure two events that are
> further from you than you can reach with your arms, then you have ZERO
> idea how to make experimental measurements.
Tony, the original poster said that B and C measures the time interval
between E1 and E2 in A's frame. I asked all of you to show me how do B
and C do these measurements. Since you are the professor why don't you
tell us how?
> Third, it wouldn't MATTER if B was light years away. B's frame extends
> infinitely in all directions, and so E1 and E2 are still in B's frame,
> as well as A's frame.
The events (two explosions in A's frame) happened in A's frame and A
measure the time interval between the explosions. B is at the moon and
C is on Mars. So how do B and C measure the time interval between
these explosions in A's frame?
Ken Seto
>
> > I suugest that observer A uses the LT to transform his time interval
> > of TA into the B frame and the resulting transformed value of T'AB is
> > the time interval on the B clock if the event were to happen in B's
> > frame.
>
> Well, that's just like you, Ken. Since you don't understand how the
> measurement would be done, you then assume that it can't be a
> measurement at all, even though it is CALLED a measurement explicitly.
> Instead, you choose to believe that the only thing possible is
> prediction, and someone has redefined "measure" to mean "predict". All
> this because you don't know how to do any measurements. It's just like
> you to insist that something you do not understand cannot possibly
> exist.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > On frame B, E1 has coordinates x'=-125000km, t'=+0.25sec
> > > E2 has coordinates x'=+125000km, t'=-0.25sec, so E1 and E2 were not
> > > simultaneous on frame B.
>
> > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
papa...@gmail.com
Quite easy. Both B and C have watches, pencils and paper. They both
write the time indicated by their watches for each event E1 and E2.
The difference between those measurements is the time interval of E1
and E2 in their respective frames B and C. Later they A, B and C can
all meet together and compare results. Those results will be related
through Lorentz Transformations IF all the frames are moving at
constant speed relative to each other.
> > Third, it wouldn't MATTER if B was light years away. B's frame extends
> > infinitely in all directions, and so E1 and E2 are still in B's frame,
> > as well as A's frame.
>
> The events (two explosions in A's frame) happened in A's frame and A
> measure the time interval between the explosions. B is at the moon and
> C is on Mars. So how do B and C measure the time interval between
> these explosions in A's frame?
>
What do you think the importance of measuring only in A's frame is?
If I'm a martian observer C, again with a watch, pencil and paper, I
can measure the interval between E1 and E2 while being comfortably
seated in my martian chair. Same with the mooner guy B. Later with the
very precise information everybody has about Earth and Mars orbits
they can, through the appropiate transformations, determine the
interval which the A guy measured with great precision.
Miguel Rios
rotchm
> between E1 and E2 in A's frame. I asked all of you to show me how do B
> and C do these measurements.
Sigh... You dont know hos they *measure* the time of occurence of
events?
Have you not ever read any books on SR. Go read "spacetime physics",
Taylor/Wheeler.
Observer B, also *meaining* his reference frame, a reference frame
infinite in extent.
B's frame has (e-synched) clocks fixed at every position in his
reference frame. These clocks can be hypothetical; suffice to have
one 'there' to record the value.
As the event E1 (say an explosion) occurs, B's clock at that
location
records the time of occurence, T_e1.
As the event E2 (say an explosion) occurs, B's clock at that
location
records the time of occurence, T_e2.
The time difference ( wrt B) is T_e2 - T_e1.
If B wants to predict the time of occurence on A's clocks, meaning in
A's frame, he performs some extra calculations:
-He must first find where the explosion occured in his own frame ( B's
frame).
-Use these positional values with his T_e1 and T_e2.
-He then applies the LT to these four values.
The numerical values calculated will be what A's clock should (and do)
indicate. This has been verified by experiments.
> The events (two explosions in A's frame) happened in A's frame and A
> measure the time interval between the explosions. B is at the moon and
> C is on Mars. So how do B and C measure the time interval between
> these explosions in A's frame?
As decribed by the procedure above. If B is at rest wrt A ( A and B
in
the same frame), B can use A's clocks or values.
If B is not at rest wrt A, B must firts setup time on his own frame,
as described above ( have e-synch clocks every where). If B can not
do this for he is to far away, then he resorts to an alternative
measurement procedure. This alternative procedure will give the same
result as the prior procedure according to SR. This alternative
procedure consists of receiving the "image" of the two events. B's
*personal* watch (clock) indicates say tt_1 and tt_2. The time
difference is thus tt_2 - tt_1 wrt *B's frame*. Taking the speed of
light c, he can deduce ( and this is also called a measurement) where
in his own frame the two events occured.
He then applies the LT to these four values.
There are other techinques which are equivalent according to SR and
amost (all) of
these techniques have been in agreement with experiments and SR.
YBM
> The events (two explosions in A's frame) happened in A's frame and A
> measure the time interval between the explosions. B is at the moon and
> C is on Mars. So how do B and C measure the time interval between
> these explosions in A's frame?
One of your crazy concept again, Ken? Events that only happens in one
frame ?
What about a knew brain dead Web conference Ken, so that we could
have a laugh again ?
Androcles
"rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:674e9fe1-1223-4200...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
|> Tony, the original poster said that B and C measures the time interval
| > between E1 and E2 in A's frame. I asked all of you to show me how do B
| > and C do these measurements.
|
| Sigh... You dont know hos they *measure* the time of occurence of
| events?
| Have you not ever read any books on SR. Go read "spacetime physics",
| Taylor/Wheeler.
Have you not ever read any papers on SR. Go read
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and shove "spacetime physics", Taylor/Wheeler up your arse.
PD
There's dozens of ways to do that.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > You do not know what "reference frame" means, and you do not know what
> > > > "event" means.
> > > > A tree falling across a road is an event. That event can be observed
> > > > in the frame in which the road is at rest. It can also be observed in
> > > > the frame in which an eastbound truck is at rest. It can also be
> > > > observed in the frame in which a southbound Porsche is at rest. It can
> > > > also be observed in the frame in which a Delta Airlines passenger
> > > > climbing at 9000 feet is at rest.
>
> > > But it can't be observed if B is a light year away from the falling
> > > tree so how can B make any measurement of time?
>
> > Don't be ridiculous. We *measure* supernovas, which are events that
> > occur tens of thousands of light years away.
>
> That's not measuring the time of the super nova. That's using SR/GR to
> predict the time of the super nova.
>
> > We *measure* the location of earthquake epicenters that are on the
> > other side of the world, without having any information from
> > instruments that are near the earthquake.
>
> We are talking about measuring the rate of a clock in a spaceship.
You don't need to take a visual PICTURE of a clock or LOOK at a clock
to know its rate, Ken. Don't be a freakin' idiot.
>
> >We *measure* small changes
> > in physical processes that are occurring tens of thousands of miles
> > above our atmosphere. It isn't all that difficult to *measure*
> > something remotely, if the measurement is warranted by sufficient
> > scientific interest.
>
> But not measuring the rate of a clock....one can onlky predict the
> rate of a clock moving wrt the observer.
>
Don't be ridiculous, Ken. Just because YOU don't know how to measure
the rate of a clock other than by looking at it or by taking a video
picture of it doesn't mean that there aren't other ways to do it. You
just go into vapor lock because you don't know the first think about
experimental design. You think, "Well, I can only think of two ways
this can be done, and neither of these two ways has been done, and so
it's not been done at all, and so no measurement has really been made,
it's only a prediction." That's because you're an IDIOT.