SR Simultaneous Lines Drawn in the Sand

[baffledMatt]

the problem is a hypothetical. I inserted hypothetical measuring paameters consitent withthe laws fo physics.

No, you have no idea what the laws of physics are so you are not qualified to make this statement.

I described the ls-strips. I describes how pairs of strips were numberd such that the same numbed pairs wee equal distane from he midpoint. Are you telling me SR does not allow finding midpoints of the ls-strips?

You will find the midpoint, but each observer will measure a different distance to that midpoint. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

If you are telling me this I will ignroe you. equal

Go ahead, you'll only be shooting yourself in the foot. You can even believe you won the argument if you like and continue through life oblivious to your ignorance. I don't care.

Themeasurement: using the most accurate stainless steel measuring tape possible tobe constructed, the midpoints ot the numbered ls-striops were located equidistant fro M' n the moving frame.
When the photons were emitted the nearest pair of co=numberd ls-strips were exposed. to the emitted dhotons, situated one wave length from the photons. Are you sayuing this is physially impossible?

It is impossible to get the results you describe. You take it as an assumption that this can be measured, but this assumption is against the laws of physics. Hence, any conclusions you draw from it is equally unphysical.

I am making the exposure of the ls-strips that are placed one wave length from the photons emitted in the stationary frame. If you think this is not a physical possiblity, then say so. I don't rmember saying I was determining a 'real' property. I said I was obtaining a iny mark on an ls_ striop, period. What is so diffiicult in grasping something that is not of a complex nature requiring all the scurrying around.

You have such a high opinion of yourself yet you completely fail to grasp the subtlety of what I am trying to tell you. The measurement is physically possible, but getting the result you are assuming in physically impossible.

This is just my opinion, but I believe that mathematical models are to a very large extent a corruption on the progress of phsyics. Ptolemy's system worked you know, satisfactorily even thoufgh groundless a a refledtion of natural dynamics. Thus, Ptolemy's model was a precursor to the coruption that relativity theory has had on the progress of science. Sillines, but this is just m yopinion.

Go on, admit it. You just can't do the math can you? It's ok, not everyone is good at maths and there are lots of other things you can be instead of a physicist.

Matt

 

[ram2048]

with an obvious velocity limit of C what makes you think that your physics will always be the same?

if you're inside a spaceship traveling 99.99999999999% C and decide to pitch a baseball at 100 mph inside the craft, would it go faster than light speed?

 

[quantumdude]

geistkiesel,

I deleted your last post. Threats of physical violence are unacceptable.

with an obvious velocity limit of C what makes you think that your physics will always be the same?

That, by itself, does not guarantee that the physics will always be the same. SR rests on two postulates: The constancy of the speed of light, and the relativity postulate, which states that the laws of physics will be the same in every frame. By requiring these two, we arrive at the Lorentz transformation.

if you're inside a spaceship traveling 99.99999999999% C and decide to pitch a baseball at 100 mph inside the craft, would it go faster than light speed?

No, it won't.

 

[quantumdude]

The intrinsic fallacies off Special Relativity Theory.[/size]

Postulates of Special Relativity Theory
The laws of physics and the measure of the speed of light are invariant in all inertial frames.

Experimental Conditions:

1. One battery with power for two photons only is connected with a single switch to two lights.
   [*] Jill is walking toward Jack who is at the midpoint of the lights.
   [*]When Jill reaches Jack the lights are switched on simultaneously.
   

Contradictory Observations

1. Jack observes the lights switched on simultaneously.
   [*]Jill observes the lights switched on sequentially.
   

The intrinsic fallacies of geistkiesel's crackpot physics[/size]

1. It doesn't recognize the importance of mathematics to physics. (See, it doesn't matter if you can provide a qualitative discussion of a phenomenon if you can't discuss it quantitatively. As Warren Siegel put it, physics is not just about "what comes up must come down". It's also about where and when it comes down.)
2. It doesn't recognize the importance of experimental work to physics. (Made clear by the fact that not a single real experiment is ever cited).
3. It assumes that a thought experiment is a valid substitute for #2. (See "experimental conditions" in the quoted post for a good laugh).

Irrational Basis of Special Relativity Theory.[/size]

1. Violation of conservation of energy principal.
   

1. 
   
   No, it doesn't. Relativistic Lagrangians are still invariant under time translations, and so energy is still conserved.
   
   

   • Two energy units available.
     [*] Four units of energy claimed.
     

   • 
     
     "Energy units" have nothing to do with any physical theory, and in fact there are many energy units available to all theories. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with that.
     
     

   [*] No rational explanation for the sequential order of photon emissions.

   
   That's not true at all. The explanation stems from the postulates. And the postulates cannot be said to be "irrational" just because you personally don't like them.
   
   

   [*] Violation of invariance of physical laws in inertial frames.

This is the dumbest of all your points. SR is designed to preserve the invariance of physical laws in all frames.

Geistkiesel, it's time for you to put up or shut up. You think that energy conservation is violated in SR? Fine: prove it. You think that SR doesn't preserve the invariance of physical laws in inertial frames? Fine: prove it. And don't just blather on for pages on end, show the mathematical details.

 

[Hurkyl]

with an obvious velocity limit of C what makes you think that your physics will always be the same?

One philosophical reason to do so is that given that we, as earthbound folk whirling around the sun, which is circumnavigating the Milky way, which is hurtling towards Andromeda, with both being sucked towards the great attractor, which has who knows what relationship to the next big thing, it is an extraordinarily bold claim that we are lucky enough to (nearly) be in the one frame where the laws of physics look "right".


As a practical matter, experiments confirm that the physics still looks the same, many of astonishing predictions stemming in part from this assumption have been confirmed, and it is an integral part of the most accurate theory known to man.

 

[geistkiesel]

One philosophical reason to do so is that given that we, as earthbound folk whirling around the sun, which is circumnavigating the Milky way, which is hurtling towards Andromeda, with both being sucked towards the great attractor, which has who knows what relationship to the next big thing, it is an extraordinarily bold claim that we are lucky enough to (nearly) be in the one frame where the laws of physics look "right".


As a practical matter, experiments confirm that the physics still looks the same, many of astonishing predictions stemming in part from this assumption have been confirmed, and it is an integral part of the most accurate theory known to man.

Hurkyl-
Look at Dayton Miller's papers re Michelson Morely experiments. Beside thefact that DM essentially eproduced MM results, nopt NULL, but a wave shift ~1.20 of what was then predicted.
I am direing this at your statement that the milky Way is "hurtling towards Andrmeda'. In DM's analysis he took great pains to determine the direcion of m,
otion we are heading and came to different conclusion than that suspected in the1930's .It has been awhile since I read the paper, but i recall he ws looking for some motion (earth-solar system-milkyway) that would explain the 1/20wave length from the "expected" shift. Apparently we ain't heading to Andromeda.( or what was geneally believd then)

 

[russ_watters]

Contradictory Observations

1. Jack observes the lights switched on simultaneously.
   [*]Jill observes the lights switched on sequentially.
   

I guess I should have seen this before, but its preplexing in a way - this isn't a contradiction in any version of relativity. It isn't unique to Einstein's. Its should be obvious. What you are showing here is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of physics that is far more basic than Einstein's version of Relativity.

Haven't you ever played catch with a ball? If you are throwing the ball at a moving person, you need to anticipate where the person is going to be when the ball gets there and aim for that spot, not where the person is now. Thats all forms of relativity, its simultenaety, and its built into the human brain at a subconscious level (the part of the brain that co-ordinates movement).

Thinking about it more, maybe the issue is speed. In your Jack and Jill example, if you take it literally, the speed of light is so fast compared to the speed they walk, they wouldn't notice the difference - but the difference would exist, nonetheless. The only way they could possibly see the light switch on simultaneously (assuming they were carrying sensitive enough instruments to measure the difference) is if C is infinite. For a thought experiment like that, C is so much higher than the speed they walk at that it may as well be infinite to Jack and Jill. But to an atomic clock and a GPS satellite (a device capable of noticing that C is finite), C is not infinite.

Is that all this issue is about?

 

[baffledMatt]

geistkiesel,

I deleted your last post. Threats of physical violence are unacceptable.

Blimey, well I hope it wasn't directed at me.

Well geistkiesel, I'm afraid that I've had enough of your attitude so I'll leave you to wallow in a pit of your own, well, whatever it is you are wallowing in at this moment in time.

Believe what you like, ignore everyone and everything around you. Live in the belief that you are and always will be right about everything. Yell at, hurl abuse at (and threaten?!) people who try to tell you otherwise. I don't care, it's your life.

All I can say is good luck.

Matt

 

[geistkiesel]

Variance of designed invariance in Special Relativity

The intrinsic fallacies of geistkiesel's crackpot physics[/size]

1. It doesn't recognize the importance of mathematics to physics. (See, it doesn't matter if you can provide a qualitative discussion of a phenomenon if you can't discuss it quantitatively. As Warren Siegel put it, physics is not just about "what comes up must come down". It's also about where and when it comes down.)

1. 
   
   Wow.! I get it Tom like all the mathematics in your knee jerk propaganda piece! My mistake! There, see,there, some mathematics in Mateson's post that I missed: "list=1" . Where can I research this? Von Neumann, Feynman, Ptolemy, The White Rabbit? What does "1" mean?
   
   

   [*]It doesn't re cognize the importance of experimental work to physics. (Made clear by the fact that not a single real experiment is ever cited).

   
   Well , I guess you're right there. I was posting in thread reagarding an analysis of Einsteins famous impotant experimental work, that "single real experiment" that for the past hundred years tied a few generations of mental powers into sub-human level of performance.
   
   An example, Tom Mateson writes a 'scathing' response to am observvation, citing the need for mathematics, which isn't provided, except for the famous "list = 1" equation, "Stockholm here I come", right Tom Mateson?
   
   The incompetents in this forum who have me picked out for easy pickings have failed to recognize just who is is the "nit" and who is the "picker" on who, who is running experiments and who is living in the fantasy land of sophisticated mathematical theory in physical model development. You haven't arrived yet Tom, you're still in the memorization stage of your scientific development. Your silly post here is a public relation adventure, designed to hold yourself up as a justifiably smug, silly old man, hey I vote for Tom Mateson.
   
   

   [*]It assumes that a thought experiment is a valid substitute for #2. (See "experimental conditions" in the quoted post for a good laugh).

I saw some more mathematics from the great scientist, Tom Mateson: Heh, Tom Can you prove that "2" there?

Let em see e^(i(pi)) +1 = ? , what was that again? Has anybody seen my calculator, I don'tthink it's 27.

No, it doesn't. Relativistic Lagrangians are still invariant under time translations, and so energy is still conserved.



"Energy units" have nothing to do with any physical theory, and in fact there are many energy units available to all theories. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with that.

Hey, Tom I read in a supeman comic book about the conservation of energy and it dawned on me that SR theory as it applies to "simultabeity" constructs" is a patently obvious violation of the conservation priinciple".
The thought expeiment limited the energy out put to two photons, which are ultimately absorbed in Pacoima . California. Speacial relativity theory by reconstructing reality with the addition of another set of events, creates two more emitted photons for the moving observer, just because the observer is there. Neat triick. I guess I confused you with the "unit enregy" shorthand. OK the battery had enough power to provide two 27 megawatt bursts of enrgy for the production of photons. After the theorists got their pocket calculators clicking and a clacking, relativity theory produced 2 more 27 megawatt buirst of nonsimutaneous photons for those n the moving frame who just happened to be in the 'hood'. I wish I could do that.

I'm going to rest now for a bit. Two number "27" in the same paragraph, has me bushed and a little light in the head.

That's not true at all. The explanation stems from the postulates. And the postulates cannot be said to be "irrational" just because you personally don't like them.

i like Postulates, I took three of them to lunch just last week. Postulates, those are mental aberrations of theoretical physicicts that substitute for experiemntal results, like the kind i was accused (I plead Guilty yer honor) of not performing.

SO Tom , if one is a fancy pants phsiquest, like yourself where postulations are official substitutes for real experiments I can do that too: I had a note from an engineer who said I could peform as many mental gymnastifications as I could possibly,or even Impossibly, postulate. So here.

This is the dumbest of all your points. SR is designed to preserve the invariance of physical laws in all frames.

Geistkiesel, it's time for you to put up or shut up. You think that energy conservation is violated in SR? Fine: prove it. You think that SR doesn't preserve the invariance of physical laws in inertial frames? Fine: prove it. And don't just blather on for pages on end, show the mathematical details.

I blathered in less than a page. You are reading some one elses blathes.

You ought to get your money back, because your designed invariance flange just cracked and there are all kinds od invariances spewing from special relativity theory all over the immobile moving frame..

Put up or shut up?

Does anybody want to run an Einstein "train experiment" where we measure the simultaneious photon emissions tested with photosensitive devices, as a test of simultaneity , which according to the famous "put up or shut up" physicsist Tom Mateson, should be able to produce two extra photons for any stray observer casually passing through the hood?[/size]



Phrased another way: Who is willing to provide assets to directly test SR theory. If the test fails we could be in some serious rank doodoo if we are skirting around reality in some ptolemaic fog. Does everybody understand? to allow existence of SR that is infected with bloated mathematical contrivances some investigative work will be in order right?

The cheapest way to solve the problem, of course, is have Tom Mateson splain it all to everybody. I hear he is a cetificated "experiment bypass" authority. myself, I have to bust knuckles and drop tools on the floor and break glass [just by entering labs!yeah], and turn dials, and swear a lot. Well actually they don'teven let me do that. They have professionals available that know how all about that. Myself, I like to watch.

 

[quantumdude]

Wow.! I get it Tom like all the mathematics in your knee jerk propaganda piece! My mistake! There, see,there, some mathematics in Mateson's post that I missed: "list=1" . Where can I research this? Von Neumann, Feynman, Ptolemy, The White Rabbit? What does "1" mean?

No, the "list=1" only shows up when you quote the post. It's part of the formatting that generates the numbered lists. See how it doesn't actually appear in my post?

Well , I guess you're right there. I was posting in thread reagarding an analysis of Einsteins famous impotant experimental work, that "single real experiment" that for the past hundred years tied a few generations of mental powers into sub-human level of performance.

Einstein never did any experimental work. You'd know that if you had half a clue.

An example, Tom Mateson writes a 'scathing' response to am observvation, citing the need for mathematics, which isn't provided, except for the famous "list = 1" equation, "Stockholm here I come", right Tom Mateson?

What math do you want to see here? Do you want me to write the equation that describes just what an ignorant fool you are? I'm afraid that all the computing power in the world couldn't crunch that one any time soon.

The incompetents in this forum who have me picked out for easy pickings have failed to recognize just who is is the "nit" and who is the "picker" on who, who is running experiments and who is living in the fantasy land of sophisticated mathematical theory in physical model development. You haven't arrived yet Tom, you're still in the memorization stage of your scientific development. Your silly post here is a public relation adventure, designed to hold yourself up as a justifiably smug, silly old man, hey I vote for Tom Mateson.

I saw some more mathematics from the great scientist, Tom Mateson: Heh, Tom Can you prove that "2" there?

Let em see e^(i(pi)) +1 = ? , what was that again? Has anybody seen my calculator, I don'tthink it's 27.

What the hell are you talking about?

Hey, Tom I read in a supeman comic book about the conservation of energy and it dawned on me followed by some extremely stupid remarks

No comment on that part.

Speacial relativity theory by reconstructing reality with the addition of another set of events, creates two more emitted photons for the moving observer, just because the observer is there. Neat triick.

It doesn't "reconstruct reality", it simply describes it. Try to understand the difference.

I guess I confused you with the "unit enregy" shorthand.

You didn't "confuse" me, you simply said it wrong. "Units of energy" are things like Joules, ft-lb, kW-h, and the like.

OK the battery had enough power to provide two 27 megawatt bursts of enrgy for the production of photons. After the theorists got their pocket calculators clicking and a clacking, relativity theory produced 2 more 27 megawatt buirst of nonsimutaneous photons for those n the moving frame who just happened to be in the 'hood'. I wish I could do that.

You don't understand a thing. It's not that there are different photons in each frame, it's that there are different spaitotemporal intervals in each frame.

I'm going to rest now for a bit. Two number "27" in the same paragraph, has me bushed and a little light in the head.

Don't hurt yourself, cupcake.

i like Postulates, I took three of them to lunch just last week. Postulates, those are mental aberrations of theoretical physicicts that substitute for experiemntal results, like the kind i was accused (I plead Guilty yer honor) of not performing.

Again, you don't understand a thing. Postulates aren't used in place of experiments. They are submitted to be tested by experiments. And you know what? The postulates of SR have survived every test put to them.

SO Tom , if one is a fancy pants phsiquest, like yourself where postulations are official substitutes for real experiments I can do that too: I had a note from an engineer who said I could peform as many mental gymnastifications as I could possibly,or even Impossibly, postulate. So here.

You are a retard.

I blathered in less than a page. You are reading some one elses blathes.

You ought to get your money back, because your designed invariance flange just cracked and there are all kinds od invariances spewing from special relativity theory all over the immobile moving frame..

In English please?

Put up or shut up?

Does anybody want to run an Einstein "train experiment" where we measure the simultaneious photon emissions tested with photosensitive devices, as a test of simultaneity , which according to the famous "put up or shut up" physicsist Tom Mateson, should be able to produce two extra photons for any stray observer casually passing through the hood?[/size]

Phrased another way: Who is willing to provide assets to directly test SR theory. If the test fails we could be in some serious rank doodoo if we are skirting around reality in some ptolemaic fog. Does everybody understand? to allow existence of SR that is infected with bloated mathematical contrivances some investigative work will be in order right?

Actually, SR is tested every day, in particle accelerators and, with GPS systems, and with nuclear reactors and weapons, and even with humble radios in moving cars. There is a wealth of experimental information available for anyone who wants to see it, and all of it confirms SR and shows Galilean relativity to be wrong. But you don't want any part of it, because you prefer to remain in willful ignorance, screaming anti-SR nonsense like a jackass.

The cheapest way to solve the problem, of course, is have Tom Mateson splain it all to everybody. I hear he is a cetificated "experiment bypass" authority. myself, I have to bust knuckles and drop tools on the floor and break glass [just by entering labs!yeah], and turn dials, and swear a lot. Well actually they don'teven let me do that. They have professionals available that know how all about that. Myself, I like to watch.

No, the cheapest way for you to solve your problem is to invest the time and energy studying real physics. That's the only way you will break free of these errors you are making.

On that note, I don't see any point in this thread continuing. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to contribute here.