Game: who has the shortest disproof of Special Relativity
josX
"SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
Anyone shorter?
Or be more clear (seems disproofs have a hard time to reach the public ;)).
regards,
jos
--
(Special Relativity->"light moves with an equal velocity for all observers")
Marco Nelissen
> I submit this entry:
>
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
I submit this entry:
Jos "josX" Boersma claims Special Relativity is wrong because he refuses to
apply it properly. He prefers to use his own caricature of Special Relativity
instead, then concludes that it is flawed.
Slightly shorter than yours, and it explains the problem much better.
Marco
Bengt MÃ¥nsson
> I submit this entry:
>
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
>
> Anyone shorter?
>
> Or be more clear (seems disproofs have a hard time to reach the public ;)).
How about
"SR must be wrong because I don't understand it" ?
Here "I" doesn't refer to me. :)
> regards,
> jos
--
___________________________________________________________________
Bengt MÃ¥nsson, Partille, Sweden http://www.algonet.se/~bengtmn/
PhD Theoretical Physics, speciality Classical Fields and Relativity
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Paul Lutus
> I submit this entry:
>
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes
> head-on."
And the fact that the statement is wrong isn't going to affect you in any
way?
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Jem
Don't pay any attention to all those other responses to your entry - they're
all just jealous of your accomplishment. You have indeed discredited SR
with your "time-fastening" idea.
> Anyone shorter?
Your entry was actually the shortest by one word, but the judges have ruled
that "lightbeam" is really 2 words so you just missed by a single word.
Keep trying though - it's clear you have real talent for this.
Ian Stirling
>
> I submit this entry:
>
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
>
> Anyone shorter?
>
SR is wrong because elvis lives!
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
If you've been pounding nails with your forehead for years, it may feel strange
the first time somebody hands you a hammer.
But that doesn't mean that you should strap the hammer to a headband just to
give your skull that old familiar jolt. -- Wayne Throop, during the `TCL Wars'
Marco Nelissen
> SR is wrong because elvis lives!
Disqualified because your failed to properly capitalize 'Elvis'.
josX
Thanks; acknowledgment much appreciated... .
jos
--
Spaceman
of revolutions of the earth in aging/existance time no matter what thier
clocks say.
:)
I think I won!
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Kees de Graaf
| I submit this entry:
|
| "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
| a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
| demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
|
| Anyone shorter?
|
| Or be more clear (seems disproofs have a hard time to reach the public ;)).
't Zit je wel hoog he.
Therapietje, toch, misschien?
-- K
Uncle Al
>
> I submit this entry:
>
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
>
> Anyone shorter?
>
> Or be more clear (seems disproofs have a hard time to reach the public ;)).
Aside from the obvious sub-micron precise operation of particle
accelerators worlwide - and the relativistic correction of large TV
picture tubes - is there any reason for us to believe you are nothing
but a public fool?
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Set Big G = 0 and you have Special Relativiy.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
General Relativity can be empirically broken at the postulate level in
a desktop experiment using existing equipment, but it takes a much
better mind than sad little josX' blob of cerebral grease to
appreciate it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Randy M. Dumse
news:a99srm$76$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Shortest disproof of Special Relativity? Here's mine:
Spacetime is not flat.
There. Guess it's time to move on to the General Theory.
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
news:ubh4dbd...@corp.supernews.com...
> SR is wrong because the "paradox twins" are actually the exact same amount
> of revolutions of the earth in aging/existance time no matter what thier
> clocks say.
> :)
>
> I think I won!
Yup, you won the ignorance award.
"Special relativity is wrong to those who do not understand it"
Now that is the shortest proof.
josX
23:46:49 GMT, in <toghbuo256s108gdd...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:21:01 -0500, "Randy M. Dumse"
><r...@newmicros.com> wrote:
>
>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>news:a99srm$76$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>Shortest disproof of Special Relativity? Here's mine:
>>
>>Spacetime is not flat.
>
>
>Spacetime is curved.
>
>Josh
Here my entry on this subject,
"Time/space curving does not explain anything, because once the
curving is over, everything is uncurved."
Here another, from a different level:
"Time/space should not be defined curving/twisting/bending in an irregular
way and/or depending on local phenomamon: straight coordinate systems
are easier to use."
Other entries sofar here are more like statements where you must know
the underlying idea they hint at, you should contain the entire logic
in the disproof.
regards,
jos
--
josX
23:46:49 GMT, in <toghbuo256s108gdd...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:21:01 -0500, "Randy M. Dumse"
><r...@newmicros.com> wrote:
>
>>news:a99srm$76$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>Shortest disproof of Special Relativity? Here's mine:
>>
>>Spacetime is not flat.
>
>
>Spacetime is curved.
>
>Josh
Here my entry on this subject,
"Time/space curving does not explain anything, because once the
curving is over, everything is uncurved."
Here another, from a different level:
"Time/space should not be defined curving/twisting/bending in an irregular
way and/or depending on local phenomamon: straight coordinate systems
are easier to use."
Other entries sofar here are more like statements where you must know
the underlying idea they hint at, you should contain the entire logic
in the disproof.
regards,
jos
--
http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/relativity_shorter
Marco Nelissen
>
> "Time/space should not be defined curving/twisting/bending in an irregular
> way and/or depending on local phenomamon: straight coordinate systems
> are easier to use."
Translation: "math is hard".
Bilge
Game: who has the shortest disproof of Special Relativity to usenet:
>I submit this entry:
>
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands
> (would demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam
> which comes head-on."
>
>Anyone shorter?
I'd ask if I won, but unless the prize is having you go away, I doubt
that it matters much.
> Or be more clear (seems disproofs have a hard time to reach the
> public ;)).
Except for the morons, that all seem to post them here as if
that will help disseminate them to anyone but (1) other nutcases
posting their own vertsions and (2) people who know enough to
recognize when it's time to shovel.
Sven Hegewisch
"Tut AmongUs @ the hole in the ground" schrieb:
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:02:18 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> Gave us:
>
> >Aside from the obvious sub-micron precise operation of particle
> >accelerators worlwide - and the relativistic correction of large TV
> >picture tubes - is there any reason for us to believe you are nothing
> >but a public fool?
> >
>
> I like your dynamic focus on things, Al. :-]
>
> I manufacture supplies for just such picture tubes. You are correct.
Do you have any reference for that?
Thank you.
Sven Hegewisch
Fused
George Dishman
>
> Here my entry on this subject,
>
> "Time/space curving does not explain anything, because once the
> curving is over, everything is uncurved."
Take a straight line. Curve it. Once the curving is over, it
remains curved.
My entry for the shortest proof of SR: )
> "Time/space should not be defined curving/twisting/bending in an irregular
> way and/or depending on local phenomamon: straight coordinate systems
> are easier to use."
Starlight passing the Sun does not follow a straight path. Nor
does it bend the amount predicted by Newtonian physics, only
relativity gets it right. Conclusion: Reality isn't easy.
--
George Dishman
The arrow of time points in many directions.
Marko Nieuwenhuizen
Next assignment for Jos: Learn the meaning of the word "sarcasm"
Marko
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
Yes, itæ„€ even more than NP
----
Jan C. Bernauer
davidbos
>
> SR is wrong because the "paradox twins" are actually the exact same amount
> of revolutions of the earth in aging/existance time no matter what thier
> clocks say.
> :)
>
SR is right because the twin paradox isn't really a paradox.
db
Jonathan Silverlight
<var...@colorado.edu> writes
Disqualified because it's false, surely :-)
I don't really understand SR but I don't think it's wrong. Isn't there a
quotation by Einstein who was told three people understood it, and he
wondered who the other two were?
Fused
>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>> SR is wrong because the "paradox twins" are actually the exact same amount
>> of revolutions of the earth in aging/existance time no matter what thier
>> clocks say.
>
>
Abhijit
> Anyone shorter?
> regards,
> jos
Yes.
"Lift the other end of about 30 km long water pipe line connected to
reservoir. Speed of water drops instantaneously."
Now tell me who is the coolest, Ah?
Abhi.
Abhijit
> of revolutions of the earth in aging/existance time no matter what thier
> clocks say.
> :)
>
> I think I won!
We never see mud flung from top of tyre of wheel of bike in the
direction of bike as relativity predicts.
I am really cool, man!
Abhi.
George Dishman
message news:3cb95d04...@news.tudelft.nl...
Nope, the twin 'paradox', as with all the others, is a teaching
aid. It helps people find where they still hold Newtonian
preconceptions.
Fused
>"Fused" <I.j.w...@student.tnw.tudelft.nonsense.nonsense.nl> wrote
>
>> >SR is right because the twin paradox isn't really a paradox.
>> >
>> The twin paradox certainly is a _paradox_.
>
>Nope, the twin 'paradox', as with all the others, is a teaching
>aid. It helps people find where they still hold Newtonian
>preconceptions.
>
but isn't. So the problem of the twins, as used as a teaching aid, is
indeed a paradox.
Do I misunderstand the term paradox?
George Jones
No you don't. Actually, it's hard to misuse the word "paradox" because,
for example, my Compact Oxford Dictionary says:
paradox n. seemingly absurd though perhaps actually well-founded
statement; self-contradictory or essentially absurd statement.
So, paradoxically, there are 2 opposite meanings for "paradox."
I prefer the first definition, which is the one you meant, and of which
the twin paradox is an excellent example.
Regards,
George
George Dishman
message news:3cb984a...@news.tudelft.nl...
No, I misunderstood your position. I have seen postings from
too many people who thought 'paradox' and 'contradiction' were
synonymous. You are absolutely correct and I should have noted
your underlining so please accept my apologies.
Bob Kolker
Fused wrote:
> >
> The twin paradox certainly is a _paradox_.
Integrate the proper time along a light like world line. It comes out to
zero. The closer to light like the shorter the aggregate proper time
along the world line.
Bob Kolker
sean
How about; Starlight passing the sun does not follow a straight path
but is refracted by the suns "atmosphere" by a similar amount to that
predicted by relativity theory.
Philip Holman
"Tut AmongUs @ the hole in the ground"
news:bq1jbugkgk2n2rnba...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:31:33 +0200, Sven Hegewisch
> <Sven.He...@t-online.de> Gave us:
> group that large TV picture tubes do not correct for relativistic
> effects?
>
No, I didn't read that into the question although it does leave several
openings
for interpretation. One being, do you have a reference for your manufacture
of
picture tube supplies. I took it as a request for more information about the
relativistic effects of picture tubes.
Phil Holman
Philip Holman
"Abhijit" <xab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:849a0135.02041...@posting.google.com...
I'm thinking the delta flow is delayed at the reservoir end by the speed of
sound through water in traveling 30km.
Phil Holman
Jeff Root
>> "Special relativity is wrong to those who do not understand it"
>> Now that is the shortest proof.
> Disqualified because it's false, surely :-)
contest like this merely because it isn't always true. One
designs for the target audience, and ignores everyone else.
> I don't really understand SR but I don't think it's wrong. Isn't
> there a quotation by Einstein who was told three people understood
> it, and he wondered who the other two were?
have said that, not Einstein! Such a well-known story, about a
Brit! Don't you know *anything*? :-)
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
object. Herb
Jeff Root
> I don't really understand SR but I don't think it's wrong. Isn't
> there a quotation by Einstein who was told three people understood
> it, and he wondered who the other two were?
have wondered who the third person could be. :-)
Steve Harris
message news:3cb95d04...@news.tudelft.nl...
It's not a paradox in the sense of "logical contradition", unless it's
mis-stated with the wrong premises. It is a paradox in the sense of being a
good puzzle. However it has a nice answer: the twin who accelerates stays
younger.
Spaceman is a troll, however, and the rest of his long here have killfiled
him. Recommend you do the same, and save blood pressure.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
_.
George Dishman
news:40f80aa1.02041...@posting.google.com...
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<1018778273.17376....@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> > does it bend the amount predicted by Newtonian physics, only
> > relativity gets it right. Conclusion: Reality isn't easy.
>
> How about; Starlight passing the sun does not follow a straight path
> but is refracted by the suns "atmosphere" by a similar amount to that
> predicted by relativity theory.
Good question, and it goes back to the start of this thread.
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1018622832.24208....@news.demon.co.uk...
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> news:a95t2q$br7$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> <snip>
> > You need to acknowledge that 1. there is always some medium, 2. that
> > we do not know how important or unimportant that low-density medium
> > is or is not, ....
>
> We know precisely how important it is from the refractive index.
The solar atmosphere is well characterised and I expect you will
find plasma effects discussed in any papers addressing the bending
of starlight. The effect has been measured out to very high angles
from the Sun where the GR effect is very small. If refraction is
comparable then it will have to be measured, or calculated based
on indirect measurements (density, composition and degree of
ionisation for example).
If the effect is significantly less than the uncertainty in the
measurement, it can effectively be ignored (treated as a biased
systematic) and you effectively have the vacuum value. If it is
greater, it must be taken into account. Eddington's original
tests were only trying to separate Newton and GR. If you are
checking the prediction to one part in a million, the story may
be different.
Your question illustrates well why Jos' point 2 is incorrect. If
we did not know the extent of the effect, we could not use the
measurement to confirm any theory.
Jeff Root
> "Time/space curving does not explain anything, because once the
> curving is over, everything is uncurved."
I thought you were trying to express a disproof of Special
Relativity. SR doesn't say anything about curving space.
That is General Relativity.
But what is your statement supposed to mean? It's like
saying "Curving a sheet of paper does not explain anything,
because once the curving is over, everything is uncurved."
> Here another, from a different level:
>
> irregular way and/or depending on local phenomamon: straight
> coordinate systems are easier to use."
Michael L. Cunningham
> I submit this entry:
>
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
>
> Anyone shorter?
>
> Or be more clear (seems disproofs have a hard time to reach the public ;)).
>
> regards,
> jos
>
Show me your high school diploma first. We ALL know you failed at math
by your own statements!
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT http://www.n-body.net/registry/bogeystar/
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity.
And I'm not sure of the former".
Albert.
Jonathan Silverlight
<je...@freemars.org> writes
Obviously not! But sometimes it's more fun to send off a quick reply
without checking my facts. I learn more that way :-)
Gregory L. Hansen
In more rigorous philosophical usage, I think a paradox is an apparant
logical contradiction, while a logical contradiction is called a logical
contradiction.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Spaceman
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a9cg87$vn9$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Spaceman is a troll, however, and the rest of his long here have killfiled
> him. Recommend you do the same, and save blood pressure.
I bet we don't see Steve finding out how many Earth revs happened
during the twins existance or even trying to find out why he is wrong.
and why the twins are the same "Earth age old" no matter what the silly
clocks state.
Poor Steve and others..
Brainwashed and shielded by the brainwashing and filters.
<LOL>
The twins are both the exact same amount of revolutions of the Earth old.
too bad the brainwashed can't figure that REAL logic out.
The ignorance is amazing.
a basic ignorance of thew Earth spinning.
<LOL>
"The troll that is correct about the twins being the same age"....
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Spaceman
> direction of bike as relativity predicts.
The paradox twins are the same revs of Earth old.
HAHA!
now I really got ya all!
10 words.
I win!
<ELOL>
George Dishman
>
> "Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
> news:a9cg87$vn9$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Spaceman is a troll, however, and the rest of his long here have
killfiled
> > him. Recommend you do the same, and save blood pressure.
Apparently he has changed mail address.
> I bet we don't see Steve finding out how many Earth revs happened
> during the twins existance or even trying to find out why he is wrong.
> and why the twins are the same "Earth age old" no matter what the silly
> clocks state.
... says he, using the spinning of the Earth as a clock.
> The ignorance is amazing.
> a basic ignorance of thew Earth spinning.
The essence of good trolling is that it should not be obvious and
the purported ignorance should at least be believable. You are not
only a troll but a very poor one at that!
Plonked again!
Maleki
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message news:a9cg87$vn9$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> mis-stated with the wrong premises. It is a paradox in the sense of being a
> good puzzle. However it has a nice answer: the twin who accelerates stays
> younger.
>
I lost all my SR books (two) to lending them to friends
and cannot check it fast enough by myself. But are you
sure that since to place the twin where the other is requires
also "deceleration", the twin actually stays younger?
Spaceman
> Apparently he has changed mail address.
only slightly to ward of the spam.
> ... says he, using the spinning of the Earth as a clock.
Why can't I use such?
What friggen golden rule am I breaking in physics?
Oh it's the "you can't prove it wrong because I am brainwashed rule!
I see now!
<LOL>
> The essence of good trolling is that it should not be obvious and
> the purported ignorance should at least be believable. You are not
> only a troll but a very poor one at that!
Poor guy,
won't allow the truth even when it hits him with the force of the Earth
spinning
as a clock.
> Plonked again!
Thank you!
Next time don't bother even replying huh?
<LOL>
George Dishman
news:a9cpki$24qjo$1...@ID-20678.news.dfncis.de...
Simple spacetime diagram from frame of non-accelerated twin:
| _____ Return
|\
| \
| ) -- Turnaround
| /
|/_____
| Depart
Age is the length of the line, not the vertical separation.
Marco Nelissen
> HAHA!
> now I really got ya all!
> 10 words.
> I win!
> <ELOL>
It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly normal people (with kids and everything!)
can be so utterly delusional, or take such perverse pleasure in trolling usenet.
Hopefully the children will grow up to be normal...
George Dishman
The last post was a bit superficial. The effects observed
during acceleration are dependent on the separation since
the surface of simultaneity is rotating over the worldline
of the distant object. During the acceleration of departure
and return, the two are co-located so only the turnaround
has any effect.
George Dishman
>
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1018816756.6661.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Apparently he has changed mail address.
>
> only slightly to ward of the spam.
>
> > ... says he, using the spinning of the Earth as a clock.
>
> Why can't I use such?
You can use it to measure the age of the twin that stays
on the Earth. To find out if the age of the traveller is
affected by travelling, he needs to take the Earth with
him. Got a spare one handy?
> What friggen golden rule am I breaking in physics?
Rule 37 b: "Thou shalt not clone planets."
> > Plonked again!
>
> Thank you!
> Next time don't bother even replying huh?
Tough, you replied faster than I could plonk!
Spaceman
"Marco Nelissen" <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:a9cqj6$mnj$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Yes,
I agree,
hopefully your children will grow up normal after you state such crap above.
Why do you troll such when you know so much about it?
BTW:
The twins are the same Earth revs old.
They are also the same Earth motions around the sun old.
They are the same amount of farts I make old..
They are the same amount of cigarettes I smoke old too!
They are so "the same age",
it's silly to think they are not.
and a brainwashed sign.
you should try to debrainwash.
It may help you get along with your trolling prob too.
Spaceman
> You can use it to measure the age of the twin that stays
> on the Earth. To find out if the age of the traveller is
> affected by travelling, he needs to take the Earth with
> him. Got a spare one handy?
actually,
Age of humans is based upon Earth revs.
If the Earth spins 20 times from now
you are 20 days more old, no matter what any clock states.
your messing up what time was invented for
to be an absolute age/existance rate for all that exists.
1 trip of the Earth around the sun is one year no matter what you come up
with
in your crap physics theories.
.
clocks merely guess at that rate.
and goof up a lot I see...
<LOL>
> Tough, you replied faster than I could plonk!
That's bologna and you know it!
<LOL>
Bob Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>
>
> actually,
> Age of humans is based upon Earth revs.
> If the Earth spins 20 times from now
> you are 20 days more old, no matter what any clock states.
Not if one's metabolism is slowed down. A person ages according to the
proper time of the frame of reference with respect to which he is at
rest.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
Won't work. You can run the Twin Paradox with ZERO acceleration:
1) Stationary Clock has an infinitesimally short and infinitely
stiff mechanical vane trigger. It is set to zero and not running
2) Spaceship One moving at relative 0.9c has the same clock (made
in the same factory, shown to run identically when touching, etc.).
It is set to zero not running.
3) Spaceship One passes the stationary clock and the vanes touch.
Both clocks are now running, synchronized at the touch. No
accelerations so far - clocks are moving at constant velocity when on.
4) Spaceship Two is identical to Spaceship One, but in the exact
opposite direction. Its clock is off and set to zero.
5) Spaceships One and Two pass. Clock One turns off, Clock Two
turns on when the vanes touch. No accelerations.
6) Spaceship two passes the Stationary Clock and the vanes touch.
Both clocks turn off. No acceleration.
7) All three clocks are now off, each containing an accumulated
interval.
8) NOW you accelerate the ships to bring all three clocks together
for comparison.
9) Add the intervals of Clock One and Clock Two and compare the sum
with the Stationary Clock's interval.
10) You have the Twin paradox - the sum is smaller than it Newton
says it should be, yet no *running* clock was ever accelerated.
Accelerating a stopped clock is irrelevant - you could have written
down the number of seconds elapsed between vane touchings.
If you don't like the idea of vanes physically touching, make the
trigger a one-photon wide lightbeam and separate the two clocks by an
infinitesimal distance at closest approach. If the possibly arguable
infinitesimal fractional second still bothers you, have the experiment
take 100 years according to the Stationary Clock and I award you a
whole second (by anybody's clock) to dither at each contact. I won't
mind and the end result will not change at all.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Marco Nelissen
> "Marco Nelissen" <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> everything!)
>> can be so utterly delusional, or take such perverse pleasure in trolling
> usenet.
>> Hopefully the children will grow up to be normal...
>>
>
> Yes,
> I agree,
Thanks. Glad we got that cleared up.
Spaceman
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CBA0094...@attbi.com...
> Not if one's metabolism is slowed down. A person ages according to the
> proper time of the frame of reference with respect to which he is at
> rest.
Existance rate still does not change.
Why do you twist still?
no matter how fast cells move or do anything.
they exist at the same rate.
age as in existance, never changes.
age as in reactions to surrounding enviroment.
is not what I use as age.
that is wear and tear and growth amount <g>
Do you think just because someone looks older or grows faster
than another that they are older?
What is the metabolism of a rock?
Does it also "change" age like the twin?
<LOL>
How many trips around the sun have you made?
Maybe after a few more trips you will get it.
The brainwashing is hard to break,
but not unbreakable.
C,mon Bob!
You can get it!
break that brainwashing!
:)
The twins are the same Earth trips around the Sun old..
Bob Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>
> Existance rate still does not change.
> Why do you twist still?
Time is what a clock tells you. It is the count of the number of cycles
of a harmonic oscillator.
The matter has already been determined by experiment. Two synchronized
atomic clocks. One stays on the ground, the other goes on a fast jet. On
the return the traveling clock has passed less time than the reference
clock on the ground.
See - Was Einstein Right - by Clifford Wills.
Bob Kolker
Mike Varney
news:<a99srm$76$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>
> > Anyone shorter?
>
> > regards,
> > jos
>
> Yes.
>
> "Lift the other end of about 30 km long water pipe line connected to
> reservoir. Speed of water drops instantaneously."
>
> Now tell me who is the coolest, Ah?
Not you, Twit.
There are so many errors in your "proof" that to go into them would be much
too time consuming.
Spaceman
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> >
> > Existance rate still does not change.
> > Why do you twist still?
>
> Time is what a clock tells you. It is the count of the number of cycles
> of a harmonic oscillator.
damn,
that brainwashing is good.
<LOL>
I notice you ignored the rest so I did some ignoring to your post too.
I still am waiting for you to tell me
how many revs of Earth happened for each twin ?
did one actually spin the earth slower?
your time is a joke.
my time (Earth rotation/motion) at least will show existance rate better.
too bad you are too brainwashed to see what time really is supposed to be.
an absolute for existance rate.
otherwise.
you are counting motions,
and not truly counting "Existance"
for both A and B must exist for the same amount of time
of the experiment.
<LOL>
The brainwashing can be broken.
but only if you want to learn and don't "know it all" already.
time is Earth revs.
I don't care what your clock says!
My noon will be when the Sun is it's highest point
Even if the dang sunb changes rate.
I will change my time,
for that is my "true" time in days.
frig your measurement of time.
it's wrong
and I would be late for lunch if I followed it all the time.
Mark Fergerson
>
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Fused" <I.j.w...@student.tnw.tudelft.nonsense.nonsense.nl> wrote
> >> davidbos <davi...@savemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >SR is right because the twin paradox isn't really a paradox.
> >> >
> >> The twin paradox certainly is a _paradox_.
> >
> >Nope, the twin 'paradox', as with all the others, is a teaching
> >aid. It helps people find where they still hold Newtonian
> >preconceptions.
> >
> That's what I think paradox means. Something that seems contradictory,
> but isn't. So the problem of the twins, as used as a teaching aid, is
> indeed a paradox.
>
> Do I misunderstand the term paradox?
It has also been described (not defined) as "A truth
standing on its head to illustrate a point".
Mark L. Fergerson
Mark Fergerson
time because I don't see any good reason to sort out the
attributions and backbiting (like I never do that).
Spaceman, look up "proper time" and "simultaneity". The
former applies to each twin, but not simultaneously because
_there ain't no such thing_.
Mark L. Fergerson
Bob Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>
> I still am waiting for you to tell me
> how many revs of Earth happened for each twin ?
> did one actually spin the earth slower?
That is irrelevant. One's aging is correlated to his proper time in his
rest frame, not how many times the earth turned.
If you were put into a state of suspended animation, by freezing, for
example you would not age as rapidly as if you were warm. The number of
turns of the planet is irrelevant.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
Why split hairs? If the Earth spins 20 times you are NOT 20 days
older, because a sidereal day is not the same length as a solar day.
Hey, Spacegirlyman, does something spatiotemporally naughty occur each
29 February all at once?
;-Peter Ramsey
news:a99srm$76$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes
head-on."
> Anyone shorter?
3(ab*(cł)m?x)>2(1-x)*=gx
Of course, you could always make it shorter by taking out a few of the
brackets.
;-Peter
--
Visit the laptop of the Gods
http://www.godchecker.com
don't myth it!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Randy Poe
<Spac...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>What is the metabolism of a rock?
The equivalent in weathering properties (hard to measure)
and radioactive decay of various isotopes.
>Does it also "change" age like the twin?
Yes. Just as do muons at high speed.
- Randy
Bas Zoetekouw
> > We never see mud flung from top of tyre of wheel of bike in the
> > direction of bike as relativity predicts.
>
> The paradox twins are the same revs of Earth old.
Unfortunately, the revs for the space travelling twin go faster.
--
Kind regards,
Bas Zoetekouw ``Si l'on sait exactement ce que l'on va
faire, a quoi bon le faire?''
b...@A-Eskwadraat.nl Pablo Picasso
Sven Hegewisch
>
> I did a search, and found this --
>
> http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~wpolyzou/phys12/hw2_sol/hw2_sol.html
>
> Josh
That is a nice example, but the speed of the electrons is calculated
even here nonrelativistic. There is no mention of a necessary
relativistic correction.
Sven Hegewisch
Sven Hegewisch
> >> What? Are you telling Al and myself, and everyone else reading this
> >> group that large TV picture tubes do not correct for relativistic
> >> effects?
> >>
> >
> >No, I didn't read that into the question although it does leave several
> >openings
> >for interpretation. One being, do you have a reference for your manufacture
> >of
> >picture tube supplies. I took it as a request for more information about the
> >relativistic effects of picture tubes.
> >
> A simple Google search on "Dynamic focus" then a search within that
> that has "television" in the field will result in many articles about
> it. The e-beam path to the edges of the screen is longer than that at
> the center. The beam has to be accelerated at the beginning and at
> the end of the each scan line pass.
Let's put some things clear:
"Dynamic focus" is - as the name implies - a dynamic change of the
focus as the electron beam moves over the screen. The reason is
as you mention it, the changing distance from the electron gun
to the screen.
The speed of the electrons as they hit the screen is not
changed with "Dynamic focus".
The speed of the electrons and their energy depends on the voltage
difference between the cathode and the screen ( in picture tubes
connected to the second anode ).
This voltage is held constant and in no way affected by dynamic
focus. ( You even could not change this voltage that fast as the
picture tube has a considerable capacity ).
The brightness per electron hitting the screen depends on
the energy of the electrons, and this energy remains the same
if you calculate the speed with or without relativistic correction.
Dynamic focus changes the voltage on the focus electrode
in the electron gun. This electrode is often called first anode.
There is no need to correct for the speed of the electrons
of about 1/3 the speed of light.
Sven Hegewisch
Jan Panteltje
hole in the ground" <TutAm...@theheartofthecheopspyramid.hol> wrote in
<rpsjbukfg9bm7d4c1...@4ax.com>:
> A simple Google search on "Dynamic focus" then a search within that
>that has "television" in the field will result in many articles about
>it. The e-beam path to the edges of the screen is longer than that at
>the center. The beam has to be accelerated at the beginning and at
>the end of the each scan line pass.
>
It has to be DE-accellerated, it is in every book about TV systems, going
back to about when the first wide angle picture tubes came on the market.
This correction, called 'S' correction, is bigger for wide angle (say 110
degrees) picture tubes, and smaller in say 90 degrees tubes.
I do not think that has anything to to with relativity, but every thing with
geometry.
If the surface of the tube was round, from where the beam was deflected,
the path would always the same, if the screen is flat(ter) then at the
'edges' the defection is more in centimeters for a given angle.
/ /
/alpha /
/ /
. / . . . . . . . .
. .
. .
. .
You can see here that in the left case, at the edge of the screen for every
degree of alpha the spot moves less (on the screen) then in the right case.
Electrons in the picture tube do indeed travel at extremely high speed, and,
also in the right case, the focus point needs to be dynamically adjusted (or
by special electrostatic / magnetic optics) for it to stay focused at the
screen (as the distance to the screen from the 'deflection point' increases
in the right case more then in the left case (where it would be constant for
a circular screen), as the deflection angle increases.
S correction was in the old ages done with a large capacitor in series the
the horizontal defection coil, changing the sawtooth waveform (current) into
a 'S' shape (hence the name).
In modern color monitors a lot of corrections happen electronically.
I suppose that the manufacturers of picture tubes have software that perhaps
uses relativity for calculating the lenses / electron guns / deflection
systems, but I am not sure.
I am sure that in house research (Philips for example) will be well protected
from the competition.
Philips was looking last year for a 'beam landings' expert, required a PhD in
physics at least, and a special interest in the subject I think for sure.
Maybe someone over there could elaborate on this.
Regards JP.
Spaceman
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> >
>
> > I still am waiting for you to tell me
> > how many revs of Earth happened for each twin ?
> > did one actually spin the earth slower?
>
> That is irrelevant. One's aging is correlated to his proper time in his
> rest frame, not how many times the earth turned.
The Earth spin is irrelavant?
<LOL>
It's a big clock.
Why would a clock be irrelavant?
It's very relavant.
too bad you ignore such relavance.
>
> If you were put into a state of suspended animation, by freezing, for
> example you would not age as rapidly as if you were warm. The number of
> turns of the planet is irrelevant.
So if you freeze a body it ceases to exist in time or time runs slower or
stops?
<LOL>
you are funny!
still can't grasp using a bigger clock huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Mark Fergerson" <mferg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3CBA1230...@cox.net...
> I'm going to break one of my usual rules and top-post this
> time because I don't see any good reason to sort out the
> attributions and backbiting (like I never do that).
>
> Spaceman, look up "proper time" and "simultaneity". The
> former applies to each twin, but not simultaneously because
> _there ain't no such thing_.
Mark,
Look up how a clock works and what it counts
too bad you don't know what time was invented for,
or what a clock actually measures or counts.
PS,
It is not counting a thing called time.
It merely counts a motion
It does not measure a thing that is time.
it measures the motion of it's ticker in the surrounding enviroment
and nothing more.
look up clock.
try to build a clock that actually measures time before you
keep spouting such.
for not one clock yet has measured "time".
for time itself.
does not exist.
It can't be measured if it does not exist.
Please do tell me what has ever measured time.
and I will show you it did not measure time,
It simply counted it's own motions.
Spaceman
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3CBA1806...@hate.spam.net...
> Why split hairs? If the Earth spins 20 times you are NOT 20 days
> older, because a sidereal day is not the same length as a solar day.
> Hey, Spacegirlyman, does something spatiotemporally naughty occur each
> 29 February all at once?
If Earth spins 20 times you are 20 Earth days older in Earth time..
You are wrong Unky Doofus.
What happens?
silly humans need to adjust thier incorrect coutning clocks
as usual.
since clocks don't measure time.
they merely guess, and we adjust.
to EARTH Time.
go back in your hole Al.
20 days IS 20 days no matter what you try to
twist it into.
Spaceman
"Bas Zoetekouw" <b...@A-Eskwadraat.nl> wrote in message
news:slrnabl54...@richard.localdomain...
> Spaceman wrote in nl.wetenschap:
> > > We never see mud flung from top of tyre of wheel of bike in the
> > > direction of bike as relativity predicts.
> >
> > The paradox twins are the same revs of Earth old.
>
> Unfortunately, the revs for the space travelling twin go faster.
No,
they don't ,
both twins would measure the same spins of Earth.
and that is what is unfortunate for the time travel doofs.
the time of existance of the twins is the exact same amount of time
always.
or does one twin dissapear for the amount of lost time?
<NOT!>
<LOL>
twins are the same revs old always.
otherwise,
your clock is messing up.
not time.
time can't mess up.
It does not exist to mess up.
Sven Hegewisch
> They do mention SR, but omit it from the calculations:
>
> "The speeds of the electron are quite large, and for accurate
> calculations of the speeds, the effects of special relativity must be
> taken into account. Ignoring such effects, find the electron speed
> just before the electron strikes the screen."
>
> Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a more comprehensive treatment on
> line.
>
> Josh
May I repeat :
There is no mention of a _necesssary_ relativistic correction.
To design, build and use picture tubes you really don't need
relativistic correction of the speed of the electrons.
Sven Hegewisch
Paul Cardinale
> SR is wrong because the "paradox twins" are actually the exact same amount
> of revolutions of the earth in aging/existance time no matter what thier
> clocks say.
> :)
>
> I think I won!
Wrong on both counts.
Paul Cardinale
Bob Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>
> > rest frame, not how many times the earth turned.
>
> The Earth spin is irrelavant?
It is irrelevant to aging. It is very relevant to daylight saving time.
BTW the earth is a shitty clock. It does not keep even time. For the
latest in time pieces see atom clocks. Lots of hits in Google.
Bob Kolker
Marco Nelissen
> <LOL>
> It's a big clock.
> Why would a clock be irrelavant?
> It's very relavant.
> too bad you ignore such relavance.
It's so sad when a troll's credibility goes down the drain because
of bad spelling...
But tell us, Mr. Spaceman, how do YOU explain the observed FACT that
a clock in motion runs slower than a clock at rest?
Marco
Spaceman
> But tell us, Mr. Spaceman, how do YOU explain the observed FACT that
> a clock in motion runs slower than a clock at rest?
A clock that is just "in motion"
does not change the clock rate at all.
it's acceration and decceration that causes the clocks rate change
Don't you know how it actually changes at all?
It's not the motion,
it's that change in motion that creates the change
in countings of motion.
different forces (gravitational and centrifugal forces on mass) change the
clock rate.
and not one of those forces are time.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:ubllg89...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3CBA1806...@hate.spam.net...
> > Why split hairs? If the Earth spins 20 times you are NOT 20 days
> > older, because a sidereal day is not the same length as a solar day.
> > Hey, Spacegirlyman, does something spatiotemporally naughty occur each
> > 29 February all at once?
>
> If Earth spins 20 times you are 20 Earth days older in Earth time..
> You are wrong Unky Doofus.
Earth spins once each 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
A day takes 24 hours.
Earth spins 20 times each 19.95 days.
You are wrong, Baby Spacemouse.
>
> What happens?
> silly humans need to adjust thier incorrect coutning clocks
> as usual.
Silly spacemice need to know some facts before they try to
try to try to try to communicate with intelligent beings.
It might help to learn to spell too.
> since clocks don't measure time.
> they merely guess, and we adjust.
> to EARTH Time.
> go back in your hole Al.
>
> 20 days IS 20 days no matter what you try to
> twist it into.
20 days is 20 days.
20 earth spins is 19.95 days no matter what you
try to try to try to try to troll it into.
Afaic you get the prize of
Most Stupid But Not Even Slightly
Entertaining Troll On The Internet.
Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:mAEu8.19072$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> Earth spins once each 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
Than that is one day.
> A day takes 24 hours.
No ,
it takes what you said above.
> Earth spins 20 times each 19.95 days.
No,
your clock is messed up and you are using 24 hrs where you know there are
only what you state above for a day happening.
your clock is merley off.
> You are wrong, Baby Spacemouse.
No,
Dirk the Jerk,
you have no clue what time is.
one spin is a day,
no matter how much time it takes or what
your puny brain comes up with as one days timing..
<LOL>
> Silly spacemice need to know some facts before they try to
> try to try to try to communicate with intelligent beings.
> It might help to learn to spell too.
I got the facts,
you ignore them and yet know them
the day is not 24 hrs long..
we adjust to 24 hrs to make it an even amoun of the silly
seconds that a clock counts.
> 20 days is 20 days.
> 20 earth spins is 19.95 days no matter what you
> try to try to try to try to troll it into.
19.5 revs of the Earth is 19.5 days.
shove your silly clock in the dirt since it can't tell when noon is
for REAL!
you really do have no clue what a day is huh?
<LOL>
It's not what a clock states.
It's where the sun is in relation to the Earth.
figure it out dufus before you go wronging people
that are not wrong again.
boy you really have a problem doing that huh?
I feel sorry for the time challenged such as you.
A day is not made up of hours or seconds.
It's one rev of the Earth,
or you are an idiot and would be late for lunch if the earth
spun faster.
I wouldn't be late,
for I would still follow Earth time.
like time was designed to be used for.
sheesh!
what a bunch of brainwashed moron time travelers!
<LOL>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:ubm7nag...@corp.supernews.com...
Spacefart,
you had an opportunity to learn something here,
but you didn't use it.
You had lots of opportunities to learn something,
but you never used them.
You will get more opportunities to learn something,
but you will never use them.
You will stay the idiot you were when you
were repelled from your mother's body.
Unlike some idiots, you will never be an entertainer.
But you get My Personal Prize. That should keep
you going for a few days.
Dirk Vdm
Chosp
"Spaceman" <Spac...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
> SR is wrong because the "paradox twins" are actually the exact same amount
> of revolutions of the earth in aging/existance time no matter what thier
> clocks say.
> :)
>
> I think I won!
Guess again.
J. J. Lodder
> what a bunch of brainwashed moron time travelers!
At least this thread serves as a reminder
of why the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.reseach
was a very good idea,
Jan
Abhijit
> My entry for the shortest proof of SR: )
No.It is mine.
"Rotate a ring in vacuum with linear velocity = escape velocity. You
have anti-gravity."
I am indeed coolest man!
Abhi
island
> Spaceman <Spac...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
> Jan
It's been my experience that both have limited levels of usefulness...
Besides, the comedy is a LOT better in the unmoderated groups... ;)
James Hunter
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
>
> >
> >Disqualified because it's false, surely :-)
> >
> >I don't really understand SR but I don't think it's wrong. Isn't there a
> >quotation by Einstein who was told three people understood it, and he
> >wondered who the other two were?
>
> That was GR; SR requires only high school math and enough thought to
> absorb some fairly wild concepts.
That's not true, because it was only *after* Einstone discovered
SR, that he went around claiming that mathema-cretins
are wankers.
Steven Sharp
> To design, build and use picture tubes you really don't need
> relativistic correction of the speed of the electrons.
You need to bend the electron beam to get the picture. The
amount of deflection of a beam moving at relativistic speeds
in a magnetic or electrical field requires relativistic corrections
to get right.
--
Steven Sharp
sh...@cadence.com
J. J. Lodder
island
I'm not sure which point you are referring to, so...
Moderated groups hinder creative "top-down" thinking, which is
ultimately a good thing, but it CAN slow down the process in the
interim, unless you're as well versed as yourself, John Baez, Stephen...
Squark... and the rest...
OR...
...you have to have a twisted sense of humor ;)
josX
Somewhere in this thread i must have missed the disproof of my SR-disproof,
can someone find it for me?
regards,
jos
--
"SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
Marco Nelissen
> Somewhere in this thread i must have missed the disproof of my SR-disproof,
> can someone find it for me?
I think it was determined that you HAVE no "SR-disproof", since you refuse
to use SR the way it should be used. All you've done is disprove your own
caricature-of-SR, and that's really not worth talking about.
If you *really* want to disprove SR (the *real* SR, not your bastard version
of it), then follow the steps that led to the formulation of SR, and show
which one of those steps (or which data that was used in it) is flawed. If on
the other hand you come to the conclusion that the data was valid, and all the
steps were valid too, then you will have come to the conclusion that SR itself
is in fact valid.
Marco
josX
So, you are saying that Special Relativity does not claim light's speed is
the same for all observers?
jos
--
Fused
>
>So, you are saying that Special Relativity does not claim light's speed is
>the same for all observers?
>
and descriptions. Those predictions and descriptions were shown to be
accurate.
Randy Poe
>
> <snip filler>
>
> Somewhere in this thread i must have missed the disproof of my SR-disproof,
> can someone find it for me?
"Disproof" would be an experimental result which was
inconsistent with SR. "I don't think that's the way the
world should work" doesn't constitute an experimental
result.
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes head-on."
I'm guessing this is talking about the Doppler effect.
Is this supposed to be logically inconsistent? Does that
make the purely classical sound Doppler effect logically
inconsistent? Why does a dependence on the sign of v
make something "wrong"?
Also, the implication seems to be that Doppler shift for
light should therefore always be in the same direction,
regardless of whether the source is approaching or
receding. Since the sign-dependence is what is observed,
I fail to see the "wrongness".
- Randy
Michael L Cunningham
><snip filler>
>
>Somewhere in this thread i must have missed the disproof of my SR-disproof,
>can someone find it for me?
>
>regards,
>jos
>
Your disproof is your lack of a high school diploma.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity.
And I'm not sure of the former".
Albert.
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
We've been notified by Building Security that there
have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office.
Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin,
Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into
custody. Security advised us that they could find no
one fitting the description of the fourth cell member,
Bin Workin, in our office.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
George Dishman
> <snip filler>
>
> Somewhere in this thread i must have missed the disproof of my
SR-disproof,
That is because it was in a different thread with the subject
"Einstein's Special Relativity = wrong [disproof repost].".
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:a8plup$am6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Thought-experiment proving Relativity is wrong (at least, that is the
claim)
<snip rest>
> can someone find it for me?
Certainly. A succinct disproof is in the last three paragraphs of
this post but to address your specific request: I first explained
the inadequacies in:
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1018196491.25012....@news.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
> The purpose here is only to point out an omission in your
> experimental setup.
<snip>
> After all your careful exposition of the setup, you have not
> calculated the result. Apply the Lorentz Transforms to the
> events in your setup then everyone can comment on your results.
> At the moment you have just guessed what the result might be.
<snip rest>
In response, you suggested you could measure speed without
synchronising clocks which I pointed out was incorrect in:
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1018202412.595.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> news:a8pu5g$2qu$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
<snip>
> > Synchronization is not an issue, and is unnecesary for determining
speed.
>
> To measure the speed, you have a stick and a clock at each end. You
> note the time on the first clock when the light passes it. You note
> the time on the second clock when the pulse reaches that one. That
> only tells you how long the pulse took to travel the length of the
> stick if you synchronised the clocks before starting so you cannot
> perform the experiment without defining how you will do that. Note
> that, if the clocks are synchronised according to an observer in
> the plane, they cannot be synchronised according to an observer on
> the ground.
<snip rest>
(If you have an alternative method, please explain it.)
> "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands (would
> demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes
head-on."
You still have not dealt with the second point - that you just
guessed what the result of the experiment would be. If you had
calculated it instead, you would find that having an invariant
speed of light requires the same amount of "clock-slowing" and
"length-shortening" regardless of the direction of the light
pulse, and regardless of whether it is the plane-based observer
measuring the ground clocks distances or a ground-based observer
measuring the plane and its clocks.
Of course a significant part of that is the relativity of
simultaneity which will only become apparent when you rectify
the omission in your experimental setup.
In short, guessing the answer isn't a proof.
--
George Dishman
The arrow of time points in many directions.
George Dishman
news:3CBC5AC2...@atl.lmco.com...
> josX wrote:
> >
> > <snip filler>
> >
> > Somewhere in this thread i must have missed the disproof of my
SR-disproof,
> > can someone find it for me?
>
> "Disproof" would be an experimental result which was
> inconsistent with SR. "I don't think that's the way the
> world should work" doesn't constitute an experimental
> result.
It can also be a thought-experiment demonstrating an
internal inconsistency which is what Jos is attempting.
> > "SR is wrong because it demands time-slowing/length-shortening for
> > a lightbeam which catches up with a moving observer, but it demands
(would
> > demand) time-fastening/length-lengthening for a lightbeam which comes
head-on."
>
> I'm guessing this is talking about the Doppler effect.
No, it is to do with a plane with a speed measuring
device and a similar setup on the ground. See an
earlier post in this group:
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:a8plup$am6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Thought-experiment proving Relativity is wrong (at least, that is the
claim)
HTH