Notable philosophical stupidity by the great SRian
Mike
There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
purely philosophical...
Socrates and Plato are very proud of you Dirt. You are a good
philosophy student. Probably, those are the only courses you passed.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158454611....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
And in context and with a less silly pointer:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b3e0835f62ff4c0e
> The answer is NO. All measurements can take place from the frame at
> rest in the frame of the laboratory and relative speed only calculated
> using the velocity addition formula.
Has anyone ever precisely measured directly the relative velocity
between two moving objects at every-day-life velocities, and
found a difference between the result of the classic velocity
addition formula and the relativistic velocity composition formula?
To use your words: "The answer is NO".
No one has done an experiment where a velocity of 10 m/s was
combined with a velocity of 10 m/s, which gave exactly
20.00000000000000 m/s like predicted by the classic theory, as
opposed to the 19.99999999999998 m/s that is predicted by
relativity theory.
There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
purely philosophical, which in your case is obviously a euphemism
for psychopathological.
This is a killer argument and you know it. The fact that you never
give a decent reply to it, demonstrates your malicious agenda, or
at best, your autistic imbecility.
Always glad to oblige :-)
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:wUaPg.81102$8I6.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
dstupid/dm = V
dstupid = Vdm + infinity.
Androcles, inventor of the integration constant.
Mike
The Ghost In The Machine
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:07:56 GMT
<wUaPg.81102$8I6.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
>
> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158454611....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
>>
>> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
>> relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
>> purely philosophical...
>>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
>>
>>
>> Socrates and Plato are very proud of you Dirt. You are a good
>> philosophy student. Probably, those are the only courses you passed.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> And in context and with a less silly pointer:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b3e0835f62ff4c0e
>
>> The answer is NO. All measurements can take place from the frame at
>> rest in the frame of the laboratory and relative speed only calculated
>> using the velocity addition formula.
>
> Has anyone ever precisely measured directly the relative velocity
Define "precisely". At the velocity of 10 m/s one gets an
error (gamma - 1) of about 5.556 * 10^-16. For a solid
beam 1m long the value of 5.556 * 10^-16 m is a small
fraction of a nucleon.
This is easily swamped by thermal effects, even were the beam
platinum-iridium:
http://www.goodfellow.com/csp/active/gfMaterialInfo.csp?MATID=PT02
For every nano-K the beam expands by about 8.7 * 10^-15 m.
(This is apparently what Miller ran into during his experiments.
I don't know if he used this alloy, but this is one of the best
alloys for thermal stabilization I for one know about -- since it
was used for the standard meter bar, if I'm not mistaken.)
http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/pertable/77.html
indicates the specific heat of both platinum and iridium
is 0.13 J g^-1 K^-1 or 130 J kg^-1 K^-1. If we assume
1 cm^2 cross section (a fairly slender dowel or bar)
the mass of the beam will be about 2.156 kg;
accelerating it to 10 m/s will require 107.8 J. If one
then stops it and transfers the energy of friction into
heating the beam (as opposed to bending it, twisting it,
or making noises), one raises the temperature thereof by
107.8 J / (130 J kg^-1 K^-1 * 2.156 kg) = 0.385 K.
Small wonder one cannot directly measure the length compression.
However, one can easily measure it indirectly by mounting a laser
or transmitter on the moving object, and measuring the wavelength
of that laser or transmitter from the laboratory rest frame.
This can be done in a multitude of ways -- GPS is one, and
stellar spectral observations are another.
Given sufficient speed one can easily measure the ratio of
wavelengths: 1, (c+v)/c, or sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c). The first
is predicted by "frictionless aether" theory; the second by
rigid aether theory with an observer motionless with respect
to the aether; the third by SR.
Of course 10 m/s isn't quite sufficient in this case. ;-)
> between two moving objects at every-day-life velocities, and
> found a difference between the result of the classic velocity
> addition formula and the relativistic velocity composition formula?
> To use your words: "The answer is NO".
> No one has done an experiment where a velocity of 10 m/s was
> combined with a velocity of 10 m/s, which gave exactly
> 20.00000000000000 m/s like predicted by the classic theory, as
> opposed to the 19.99999999999998 m/s that is predicted by
> relativity theory.
> There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
> relativistic formula.
Certainly not at *these* speeds. :-) At 10 km/s, though, the gamma
error is 5.556 * 10^-10 -- and that's a few atoms wide in said
platinum-iridium beam.
(Unfortunately for the beam, it will require 107.8 MJ to accelerate it;
stopping it will then vaporize it, if done incorrectly.)
> The only basis one could have for doing so, is
> purely philosophical, which in your case is obviously a euphemism
> for psychopathological.
>
> This is a killer argument and you know it. The fact that you never
> give a decent reply to it, demonstrates your malicious agenda, or
> at best, your autistic imbecility.
>
> Always glad to oblige :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
The Ghost In The Machine
<ele...@yahoo.gr>
wrote
on 17 Sep 2006 07:08:52 -0700
<1158502132.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
And the reason a 7 TeV proton beam at LHC has a frequency of only
about 11.245 kHz when zipping around a circumference of 27 km is ... ?
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cdc0u3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Mike
| <ele...@yahoo.gr>
| wrote
| on 17 Sep 2006 07:08:52 -0700
| <1158502132.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
| >
| > Dirt Van Dar Mortal wrote:
| >
| > There is no experimental basis for preferring the classic over the
| > relativistic formula. The only basis one could have for doing so, is
| > purely philosophical...
| >
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/05cb66812171a136?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_b3e0835f62ff4c0e
| >
| > Socrates and Plato are very proud of you Dirt. You are a good
| > philosophy student. Probably, those are the only courses you passed.
| >
| > Mike
| >
|
| And the reason a 7 TeV proton beam at LHC has a frequency of only
| about 11.245 kHz when zipping around a circumference of 27 km is ... ?
Take me to see the tachyon, dad.
I'm so excited, 27 km in 1/11245 secs.
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Androcles
Sorcerer
Take me to see the tachyon, dad.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
wrote
on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:31:34 GMT
<awgPg.5351$2Q4...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Considering the frequency should be 1.38 MHz according to Newtonian
calculations -- are *you* all there yet? :-)
>
> Androcles
Sorcerer
f = 1/t.
v = d/t = d*f
= 27000 * 11245 = 303,615,000 m/s
| -- are *you* all there yet? :-)
Yes, are you?
Ghost's calculation: 37,260,000,000 m/s = 124.2c.
Lap time 7.2463768115942028985507246376812e-7 seconds.
Take me to see the tachyon, dad.
I'm even more excited, 27 km in 1/1,380,000 secs.