| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2006 12:51:27 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
I see your clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and you see my
clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. This idiotic corollary of
the principle of constancy of the speed of light was enough to convince
the zombie world that Einstein was a deity but Einstein's appetite was
unsatiable. In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" one observer is at rest,
another is "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of a rotating disk, the
former sees the latter's clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma as
classic requires and the latter sees the former's clock running...Oh
Divine Einstein...fast by a factor of gamma! Einstein explains: The
latter observer experiences a gravitational field and that is the only
reason why he now sees the observer at rest's clock not running slow by
a factor of 1/gamma as classic requires but rather running fast by a
factor of gamma as Einstein requires. Curiously, the gravitational
field can be reduced to zero (by increasing the diameter of the disc
and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant) and yet things
continue to happen as Einstein requires: the observer rotating with the
disk sees the observer at rest's clock running fast by a factor of
gamma. The zombie world believes things happen exactly in this way
because Einstein is a deity.
Why does the deity need this shift from reciprocal time dilation (as
classic requires) to non-reciprocal time contraction (as Einstein
requires)? The answer can be found here:
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
05 Feb 2006 03:07:41 PM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139035887.809458.60880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I see your clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and you see my
clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. This idiotic corollary of
the principle of constancy of the speed of light was enough to convince
the zombie world that Einstein was a deity but Einstein's appetite was
unsatiable. In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" one observer is at rest,
another is "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of a rotating disk, the
former sees the latter's clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma as
classic requires and the latter sees the former's clock running...Oh
Divine Einstein...fast by a factor of gamma! Einstein explains: The
latter observer experiences a gravitational field and that is the only
reason why he now sees the observer at rest's clock not running slow by
a factor of 1/gamma as classic requires but rather running fast by a
factor of gamma as Einstein requires. Curiously, the gravitational
field can be reduced to zero (by increasing the diameter of the disc
and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant) and yet things
continue to happen as Einstein requires: the observer rotating with the
disk sees the observer at rest's clock running fast by a factor of
gamma. The zombie world believes things happen exactly in this way
because Einstein is a deity.
Why does the deity need this shift from reciprocal time dilation (as
classic requires) to non-reciprocal time contraction (as Einstein
requires)? The answer can be found here:
The reason SR asserts that every observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him
are running slow is because the observer assumes that he is in a state of
absolute rest wrt all the objects moving relative wrt him. This assumption
is bogus but nevertheless the math coming from it is correct for most
experiment performed on earth.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
05 Feb 2006 03:45:15 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139035887.809458.60880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I see your clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and you see my
clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. This idiotic corollary of
the principle of constancy of the speed of light was enough to convince
the zombie world that Einstein was a deity but Einstein's appetite was
unsatiable. In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" one observer is at rest,
another is "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of a rotating disk, the
former sees the latter's clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma as
classic requires and the latter sees the former's clock running...Oh
Divine Einstein...fast by a factor of gamma! Einstein explains: The
latter observer experiences a gravitational field and that is the only
reason why he now sees the observer at rest's clock not running slow by
a factor of 1/gamma as classic requires but rather running fast by a
factor of gamma as Einstein requires. Curiously, the gravitational
field can be reduced to zero (by increasing the diameter of the disc
and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant) and yet things
continue to happen as Einstein requires: the observer rotating with the
disk sees the observer at rest's clock running fast by a factor of
gamma. The zombie world believes things happen exactly in this way
because Einstein is a deity.
Why does the deity need this shift from reciprocal time dilation (as
classic requires) to non-reciprocal time contraction (as Einstein
requires)? The answer can be found here:
The reason SR asserts that every observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him
are running slow is because the observer assumes that he is in a state of
absolute rest wrt all the objects moving relative wrt him. This assumption
is bogus but nevertheless the math coming from it is correct for most
experiment performed on earth.
Ken Seto
Seto has no idea what SR says, except for something he misremembers
from something he read so long ago he can no longer cite the title.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
06 Feb 2006 08:23:14 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139175915.605877.60350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139035887.809458.60880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I see your clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and you see my
clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. This idiotic corollary of
the principle of constancy of the speed of light was enough to
convince
the zombie world that Einstein was a deity but Einstein's appetite was
unsatiable. In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" one observer is at rest,
another is "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of a rotating disk, the
former sees the latter's clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma as
classic requires and the latter sees the former's clock running...Oh
Divine Einstein...fast by a factor of gamma! Einstein explains: The
latter observer experiences a gravitational field and that is the only
reason why he now sees the observer at rest's clock not running slow
by
a factor of 1/gamma as classic requires but rather running fast by a
factor of gamma as Einstein requires. Curiously, the gravitational
field can be reduced to zero (by increasing the diameter of the disc
and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant) and yet things
continue to happen as Einstein requires: the observer rotating with
the
disk sees the observer at rest's clock running fast by a factor of
gamma. The zombie world believes things happen exactly in this way
because Einstein is a deity.
Why does the deity need this shift from reciprocal time dilation (as
classic requires) to non-reciprocal time contraction (as Einstein
requires)? The answer can be found here:
The reason SR asserts that every observer sees all the clocks moving wrt
him
are running slow is because the observer assumes that he is in a state
of
absolute rest wrt all the objects moving relative wrt him. This
assumption
is bogus but nevertheless the math coming from it is correct for most
experiment performed on earth.
Ken Seto
Seto has no idea what SR says, except for something he misremembers
from something he read so long ago he can no longer cite the title.
PD is a runt of the SRians. He has no idea what SR said. For example: he
said that SR says that length contraction is real whereas SR says that
length contraction is a perspective effect....it is a geometric projection
of the moving rod onto the observer's frame. He also said that SR says that
length is not an inherent property of a rod but then he can't explain what
is it that is contracting.
I can prove that SR assumes that every observer assumes himself to be in a
state of absolute rest as follows:
A sees B's clock (and all the clocks in the universe) to be running 1/gamma
slow.
A sees B's rod (and all the rods in the universe) to be contracted by a
factor of 1/gamma
B sees A's clock (and all the clocks in the universe) to be running 1/gamma
slow.
B sees A's rod (and all the rods in the universe) to be contracted by a
factor of 1/gamma.
The only way that this is true is that A assumes that he is in a state of
absolute rest and all the clocks and rods are in a state of motion wrt him.
The only way that this is true is that B assumes that he is in a state of
absolute rest and all the clocks and rods are in a state of motion wrt him.
Strangely enough the SR math derived from the above bogus assumptions will
yield predictions agree with experimental results performed on earth labs.
Why? Because all these experiments involve accelerating particles to a
higher state of absolute motion compared to the lab observer's absolute
motion. That's why the lab observer is able to predict correctly that the
rods and clocks in the particle's frame to be length contracted and time
dilated (running slow).
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
06 Feb 2006 11:10:37 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139175915.605877.60350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139035887.809458.60880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I see your clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and you see my
clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. This idiotic corollary of
the principle of constancy of the speed of light was enough to
convince
the zombie world that Einstein was a deity but Einstein's appetite was
unsatiable. In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" one observer is at rest,
another is "sitting eccentrically" on the edge of a rotating disk, the
former sees the latter's clock running slow by a factor of 1/gamma as
classic requires and the latter sees the former's clock running...Oh
Divine Einstein...fast by a factor of gamma! Einstein explains: The
latter observer experiences a gravitational field and that is the only
reason why he now sees the observer at rest's clock not running slow
by
a factor of 1/gamma as classic requires but rather running fast by a
factor of gamma as Einstein requires. Curiously, the gravitational
field can be reduced to zero (by increasing the diameter of the disc
and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant) and yet things
continue to happen as Einstein requires: the observer rotating with
the
disk sees the observer at rest's clock running fast by a factor of
gamma. The zombie world believes things happen exactly in this way
because Einstein is a deity.
Why does the deity need this shift from reciprocal time dilation (as
classic requires) to non-reciprocal time contraction (as Einstein
requires)? The answer can be found here:
The reason SR asserts that every observer sees all the clocks moving wrt
him
are running slow is because the observer assumes that he is in a state
of
absolute rest wrt all the objects moving relative wrt him. This
assumption
is bogus but nevertheless the math coming from it is correct for most
experiment performed on earth.
Ken Seto
Seto has no idea what SR says, except for something he misremembers
from something he read so long ago he can no longer cite the title.
PD is a runt of the SRians. He has no idea what SR said. For example: he
said that SR says that length contraction is real whereas SR says that
length contraction is a perspective effect....it is a geometric projection
of the moving rod onto the observer's frame.
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
(Please don't tell me you heard it here. If you learned relativity from
newsgroups, that explains everything.)
He also said that SR says that
length is not an inherent property of a rod but then he can't explain what
is it that is contracting.
Sure I can. You just haven't asked.
I can prove that SR assumes that every observer assumes himself to be in a
state of absolute rest as follows:
A sees B's clock (and all the clocks in the universe) to be running 1/gamma
slow.
A sees B's rod (and all the rods in the universe) to be contracted by a
factor of 1/gamma
B sees A's clock (and all the clocks in the universe) to be running 1/gamma
slow.
B sees A's rod (and all the rods in the universe) to be contracted by a
factor of 1/gamma.
The only way
The previous three words are precisely where your "argument" breaks.
Now, it may be "the only way" you have managed to wrap your head around
it, but that's not surprising because there is much about SR (or
classical physics, for that matter) that you do not have your head
wrapped around.
PD
that this is true is that A assumes that he is in a state of
absolute rest and all the clocks and rods are in a state of motion wrt him.
The only way that this is true is that B assumes that he is in a state of
absolute rest and all the clocks and rods are in a state of motion wrt him.
Strangely enough the SR math derived from the above bogus assumptions will
yield predictions agree with experimental results performed on earth labs.
Why? Because all these experiments involve accelerating particles to a
higher state of absolute motion compared to the lab observer's absolute
motion. That's why the lab observer is able to predict correctly that the
rods and clocks in the particle's frame to be length contracted and time
dilated (running slow).
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
07 Feb 2006 08:54:38 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139245837.249533.308580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139175915.605877.60350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The reason SR asserts that every observer sees all the clocks moving
wrt
him
are running slow is because the observer assumes that he is in a
state
of
absolute rest wrt all the objects moving relative wrt him. This
assumption
is bogus but nevertheless the math coming from it is correct for
most
experiment performed on earth.
Ken Seto
Seto has no idea what SR says, except for something he misremembers
from something he read so long ago he can no longer cite the title.
PD is a runt of the SRians. He has no idea what SR said. For example: he
said that SR says that length contraction is real whereas SR says that
length contraction is a perspective effect....it is a geometric
projection
of the moving rod onto the observer's frame.
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
(Please don't tell me you heard it here. If you learned relativity from
newsgroups, that explains everything.)
What is your reference that length contraction is real??
What I said is true because every SR observer says that his meter stick
measures 1 meter long. Therefore length contraction must be a perspective
effect....much like I see you from a distance that you are shorter than you
actually are.
He also said that SR says that
length is not an inherent property of a rod but then he can't explain
what
is it that is contracting.
Sure I can. You just haven't asked.
So what is contracting?
I can prove that SR assumes that every observer assumes himself to be in
a
state of absolute rest as follows:
A sees B's clock (and all the clocks in the universe) to be running
1/gamma
slow.
A sees B's rod (and all the rods in the universe) to be contracted by a
factor of 1/gamma
B sees A's clock (and all the clocks in the universe) to be running
1/gamma
slow.
B sees A's rod (and all the rods in the universe) to be contracted by a
factor of 1/gamma.
The only way
The previous three words are precisely where your "argument" breaks.
There is no break in my arguement. The only observer in the universe who can
claim that all the clocks in the universe are running slow is the observer
who is at absolute rest. Both SR and LET used this assumption and that's why
SR and LET have identical math.
Now, it may be "the only way" you have managed to wrap your head around
it, but that's not surprising because there is much about SR (or
classical physics, for that matter) that you do not have your head
wrapped around.
Ranting is not a valid arguement.
Ken Seto
PD
that this is true is that A assumes that he is in a state of
absolute rest and all the clocks and rods are in a state of motion wrt
him.
The only way that this is true is that B assumes that he is in a state
of
absolute rest and all the clocks and rods are in a state of motion wrt
him.
Strangely enough the SR math derived from the above bogus assumptions
will
yield predictions agree with experimental results performed on earth
labs.
Why? Because all these experiments involve accelerating particles to a
higher state of absolute motion compared to the lab observer's absolute
motion. That's why the lab observer is able to predict correctly that
the
rods and clocks in the particle's frame to be length contracted and
time
dilated (running slow).
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
07 Feb 2006 01:41:06 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139245837.249533.308580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139175915.605877.60350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The reason SR asserts that every observer sees all the clocks moving
wrt
him
are running slow is because the observer assumes that he is in a
state
of
absolute rest wrt all the objects moving relative wrt him. This
assumption
is bogus but nevertheless the math coming from it is correct for
most
experiment performed on earth.
Ken Seto
Seto has no idea what SR says, except for something he misremembers
from something he read so long ago he can no longer cite the title.
PD is a runt of the SRians. He has no idea what SR said. For example: he
said that SR says that length contraction is real whereas SR says that
length contraction is a perspective effect....it is a geometric
projection
of the moving rod onto the observer's frame.
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
(Please don't tell me you heard it here. If you learned relativity from
newsgroups, that explains everything.)
What is your reference that length contraction is real??
Are you avoiding my question. I've given you the references for
experimental evidence for length contraction. You refuse to read them
and instead simply assert that they could not show evidence for length
contraction.
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
What I said is true because every SR observer says that his meter stick
measures 1 meter long. Therefore length contraction must be a perspective
effect....much like I see you from a distance that you are shorter than you
actually are.
Not so. Every observer says his meter stick (the one he's holding) is 1
m long. This doesn't mean that it IS 1 m long. It just happens to be 1
m long when it's stationary with respect to him. It will not be 1 m
long as soon as it's moving wrt him, and every other observer moving
wrt to the ruler would agree that it is not 1 m long.
I don't know where you got the idea that a meter stick is 1 m long even
if it's moving.
Meter sticks come with instructions that say you have to use them when
they're stationary with respect to you. Failure to read the
instructions is not the responsibility of the manufacturer.
He also said that SR says that
length is not an inherent property of a rod but then he can't explain
what
is it that is contracting.
Sure I can. You just haven't asked.
So what is contracting?
The length. Not the rod, but its length. The length is defined by a
procedure, which we started to talk about. It involves marking the
locations of the endpoints of that object and making those marks
simultaneously. It is important to make the marks simultaneously
because if the object is moving and you first mark one end and then the
other, you're obviously not going to be measuring the length correctly.
It is certainly feasible to mark both ends simultaneously -- we've
talked about a feasible way to do that.
Following the *identical* procedure for measuring length, another
observer looking at the *same* object will get a different answer for
the length.
I can prove that SR assumes that every observer assumes himself to be in
a
state of absolute rest as follows:
A sees B's clock (and all the clocks in the universe) to be running
1/gamma
slow.
A sees B's rod (and all the rods in the universe) to be contracted by a
factor of 1/gamma
B sees A's clock (and all the clocks in the universe) to be running
1/gamma
slow.
B sees A's rod (and all the rods in the universe) to be contracted by a
factor of 1/gamma.
The only way
The previous three words are precisely where your "argument" breaks.
There is no break in my arguement. The only observer in the universe who can
claim that all the clocks in the universe are running slow is the observer
who is at absolute rest.
Sorry. That's not the case. That is NOT "the only observer". It is the
only observer you can think of, apparently, but that's because of your
limited imagination, not because that's really the only one.
Both SR and LET used this assumption
You say that repeatedly, even though SR says explicitly that it does
NOT make that assumption. You instead "infer" that SR *must* mean that,
and that its statements to the contrary must be lies. However, that is
entirely your own conclusion and not what SR says at all.
and that's why
SR and LET have identical math.
Now, it may be "the only way" you have managed to wrap your head around
it, but that's not surprising because there is much about SR (or
classical physics, for that matter) that you do not have your head
wrapped around.
Ranting is not a valid arguement.
I'm not making an argument, Ken. No one owes you an argument. If you
make a statement that is contrary to fact, regardless of your logic,
regardless of what you perceive to be "the only ways," regardless of
your refusal to read the experimental papers, then that mistake will
simply be corrected, with or without argument.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
08 Feb 2006 08:38:09 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139341266.887831.25150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139245837.249533.308580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
(Please don't tell me you heard it here. If you learned relativity
from
newsgroups, that explains everything.)
What is your reference that length contraction is real??
Are you avoiding my question. I've given you the references for
experimental evidence for length contraction. You refuse to read them
and instead simply assert that they could not show evidence for length
contraction.
Those references are not measuring the length of a moving rod. The only way
to measure the length of a moving rod is to mark both ends of the rods
simultaneously in your frame. In real life such a procedure is not doable
and that's why it was never been done.
Your experiments show space contraction (in the observer's frame) from the
accelerated particle's point of view....but that's not measuring the length
of a moving rod. The space contraction as perceived by the particle's point
of view is better explained by the fact that it is in a higher state of
absolute motion after acceleration.
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
I don't need any reference. The SR math says that:
L'=Lo/gamma.
This is a perspective effect.
What I said is true because every SR observer says that his meter stick
measures 1 meter long. Therefore length contraction must be a
perspective
effect....much like I see you from a distance that you are shorter than
you
actually are.
Not so. Every observer says his meter stick (the one he's holding) is 1
m long. This doesn't mean that it IS 1 m long. It just happens to be 1
m long when it's stationary with respect to him. It will not be 1 m
long as soon as it's moving wrt him, and every other observer moving
wrt to the ruler would agree that it is not 1 m long.
But it is a perspective effect. At the rest frame of the ruler it is 1 meter
long. This is true no matter who is looking at it.
I don't know where you got the idea that a meter stick is 1 m long even
if it's moving.
Meter sticks come with instructions that say you have to use them when
they're stationary with respect to you. Failure to read the
instructions is not the responsibility of the manufacturer.
He also said that SR says that
length is not an inherent property of a rod but then he can't
explain
what
is it that is contracting.
Sure I can. You just haven't asked.
So what is contracting?
The length. Not the rod, but its length.
So now length is an inherent property of the rod???
The length is defined by a
procedure, which we started to talk about. It involves marking the
locations of the endpoints of that object and making those marks
simultaneously. It is important to make the marks simultaneously
because if the object is moving and you first mark one end and then the
other, you're obviously not going to be measuring the length correctly.
It is certainly feasible to mark both ends simultaneously -- we've
talked about a feasible way to do that.
It's not doable and never been done. The length contraction equation of SR
describes the perspective effect. In real life a rod has the same physical
length in all frames. However, the light path length of a rod is different
in different frames. This is the perspective effect that the SR equation is
describing.
Following the *identical* procedure for measuring length, another
observer looking at the *same* object will get a different answer for
the length.
The previous three words are precisely where your "argument" breaks.
There is no break in my arguement. The only observer in the universe who
can
claim that all the clocks in the universe are running slow is the
observer
who is at absolute rest.
Sorry. That's not the case. That is NOT "the only observer". It is the
only observer you can think of, apparently, but that's because of your
limited imagination, not because that's really the only one.
Both SR and LET used this assumption
You say that repeatedly, even though SR says explicitly that it does
NOT make that assumption. You instead "infer" that SR *must* mean that,
and that its statements to the contrary must be lies. However, that is
entirely your own conclusion and not what SR says at all.
Show me where SR says explicitly that it does not make that assumption.
Every SR observer asserts that from his rest frame he sees all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted and the equation for that is:
L'=Lo/gamma.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
08 Feb 2006 11:22:21 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139341266.887831.25150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139245837.249533.308580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
(Please don't tell me you heard it here. If you learned relativity
from
newsgroups, that explains everything.)
What is your reference that length contraction is real??
Are you avoiding my question. I've given you the references for
experimental evidence for length contraction. You refuse to read them
and instead simply assert that they could not show evidence for length
contraction.
Those references are not measuring the length of a moving rod.
That's right. Do you think Lorentz contraction only applies to "moving
rods"?
Do you think it's necessary to actually find or make a rod, set it
moving, and measure it, to establish length contraction? What in the
name of heaven gave you that idea?
The only way
to measure the length of a moving rod is to mark both ends of the rods
simultaneously in your frame. In real life such a procedure is not doable
and that's why it was never been done.
Your experiments show space contraction (in the observer's frame) from the
accelerated particle's point of view....but that's not measuring the length
of a moving rod. The space contraction as perceived by the particle's point
of view is better explained by the fact that it is in a higher state of
absolute motion after acceleration.
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
I don't need any reference. The SR math says that:
L'=Lo/gamma.
Yes, that's a relationship between two measured lengths, yes.
This is a perspective effect.
Where is your reference for that?
What I said is true because every SR observer says that his meter stick
measures 1 meter long. Therefore length contraction must be a
perspective
effect....much like I see you from a distance that you are shorter than
you
actually are.
Not so. Every observer says his meter stick (the one he's holding) is 1
m long. This doesn't mean that it IS 1 m long. It just happens to be 1
m long when it's stationary with respect to him. It will not be 1 m
long as soon as it's moving wrt him, and every other observer moving
wrt to the ruler would agree that it is not 1 m long.
But it is a perspective effect. At the rest frame of the ruler it is 1 meter
long. This is true no matter who is looking at it.
As long as the "no matter who" is at rest with it. If they're moving
with respect to it, its length is not 1 m, nor is there any reason it
should be.
Suppose I slap a sticker on a bullet marked "at rest" and notice that
while I'm stickering it that it is indeed at rest. Now I fire it out of
a gun. Does the sticker still make it at rest?
I don't know where you got the idea that a meter stick is 1 m long even
if it's moving.
Meter sticks come with instructions that say you have to use them when
they're stationary with respect to you. Failure to read the
instructions is not the responsibility of the manufacturer.
I see you ignored this.
He also said that SR says that
length is not an inherent property of a rod but then he can't
explain
what
is it that is contracting.
Sure I can. You just haven't asked.
So what is contracting?
The length. Not the rod, but its length.
So now length is an inherent property of the rod???
No! Not at all. If it were an inherent property of the rod, then the
rod itself would be changing, but it's not.
The length is defined by a
procedure, which we started to talk about. It involves marking the
locations of the endpoints of that object and making those marks
simultaneously. It is important to make the marks simultaneously
because if the object is moving and you first mark one end and then the
other, you're obviously not going to be measuring the length correctly.
It is certainly feasible to mark both ends simultaneously -- we've
talked about a feasible way to do that.
It's not doable and never been done.
Sure it has. It's been measured for all sorts of cases where Lorentz
contraction is below the limit of precision of measurement. It's also
been measured for cases where the Lorentz contraction is *easily*
observed, just not for a "rod". You have this insane idea that it *has*
to be a rod AND it *has* to be measurably contracted, to demonstrate
that measuring a moving thing is possible.
The length contraction equation of SR
describes the perspective effect. In real life a rod has the same physical
length in all frames.
No, it doesn't. That's a mistake.
However, the light path length of a rod is different
in different frames. This is the perspective effect that the SR equation is
describing.
Following the *identical* procedure for measuring length, another
observer looking at the *same* object will get a different answer for
the length.
The previous three words are precisely where your "argument" breaks.
There is no break in my arguement. The only observer in the universe who
can
claim that all the clocks in the universe are running slow is the
observer
who is at absolute rest.
Sorry. That's not the case. That is NOT "the only observer". It is the
only observer you can think of, apparently, but that's because of your
limited imagination, not because that's really the only one.
Both SR and LET used this assumption
You say that repeatedly, even though SR says explicitly that it does
NOT make that assumption. You instead "infer" that SR *must* mean that,
and that its statements to the contrary must be lies. However, that is
entirely your own conclusion and not what SR says at all.
Show me where SR says explicitly that it does not make that assumption.
Every SR observer
Right there. You said it yourself. SR says this is true for EVERY
observer, not just the one that you think that can rightfully claim it,
the one with the lowest absolute motion in the universe. Now, you may
think that it is NOT TRUE for every observer. But the fact of the
matter is you were claiming what SR says, and SR explicitly says it IS
TRUE for EVERY observer, not just one.
asserts that from his rest frame he sees all the rods
moving wrt him are contracted and the equation for that is:
L'=Lo/gamma.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
09 Feb 2006 08:26:20 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139419341.343305.306090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139341266.887831.25150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139245837.249533.308580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
(Please don't tell me you heard it here. If you learned relativity
from
newsgroups, that explains everything.)
What is your reference that length contraction is real??
Are you avoiding my question. I've given you the references for
experimental evidence for length contraction. You refuse to read them
and instead simply assert that they could not show evidence for length
contraction.
Those references are not measuring the length of a moving rod.
That's right. Do you think Lorentz contraction only applies to "moving
rods"?
Do you think it's necessary to actually find or make a rod, set it
moving, and measure it, to establish length contraction? What in the
name of heaven gave you that idea?
Because a direct measurement of the length of a moving rod is the only way
to find out if length contraction is real. The results of those experiments
you cited can be interpreted as that the accelerated particles achieved a
higher state of absolute motion than the lab observer and that's why they
were able to cover a larger distance in the lab frame.
The only way
to measure the length of a moving rod is to mark both ends of the rods
simultaneously in your frame. In real life such a procedure is not
doable
and that's why it was never been done.
Your experiments show space contraction (in the observer's frame) from
the
accelerated particle's point of view....but that's not measuring the
length
of a moving rod. The space contraction as perceived by the particle's
point
of view is better explained by the fact that it is in a higher state of
absolute motion after acceleration.
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
I don't need any reference. The SR math says that:
L'=Lo/gamma.
Yes, that's a relationship between two measured lengths, yes.
No such measurement have been made.
This is a perspective effect.
Where is your reference for that?
No need for any reference....the moving rod in its rest frame remains the
same length and when it returns it has the same length. Therefore the
predicted length contraction is a perspective effect.
Not so. Every observer says his meter stick (the one he's holding) is
1
m long. This doesn't mean that it IS 1 m long. It just happens to be 1
m long when it's stationary with respect to him. It will not be 1 m
long as soon as it's moving wrt him, and every other observer moving
wrt to the ruler would agree that it is not 1 m long.
But it is a perspective effect. At the rest frame of the ruler it is 1
meter
long. This is true no matter who is looking at it.
As long as the "no matter who" is at rest with it. If they're moving
with respect to it, its length is not 1 m, nor is there any reason it
should be.
That's why the predicted length contraction is a perpective effect.
Suppose I slap a sticker on a bullet marked "at rest" and notice that
while I'm stickering it that it is indeed at rest. Now I fire it out of
a gun. Does the sticker still make it at rest?
This is a faulty arguement....but SR says that from the rest frame of the
bullet it is still at rest.
I don't know where you got the idea that a meter stick is 1 m long
even
if it's moving.
Meter sticks come with instructions that say you have to use them when
they're stationary with respect to you. Failure to read the
instructions is not the responsibility of the manufacturer.
I see you ignored this.
He also said that SR says that
length is not an inherent property of a rod but then he can't
explain
what
is it that is contracting.
Sure I can. You just haven't asked.
So what is contracting?
The length. Not the rod, but its length.
So now length is an inherent property of the rod???
No! Not at all. If it were an inherent property of the rod, then the
rod itself would be changing, but it's not.
So from that you are saying that length contraction is not real.
The length is defined by a
procedure, which we started to talk about. It involves marking the
locations of the endpoints of that object and making those marks
simultaneously. It is important to make the marks simultaneously
because if the object is moving and you first mark one end and then
the
other, you're obviously not going to be measuring the length
correctly.
It is certainly feasible to mark both ends simultaneously -- we've
talked about a feasible way to do that.
It's not doable and never been done.
Sure it has. It's been measured for all sorts of cases where Lorentz
contraction is below the limit of precision of measurement. It's also
been measured for cases where the Lorentz contraction is *easily*
observed, just not for a "rod". You have this insane idea that it *has*
to be a rod AND it *has* to be measurably contracted, to demonstrate
that measuring a moving thing is possible.
The length contraction equation of SR
describes the perspective effect. In real life a rod has the same
physical
length in all frames.
No, it doesn't. That's a mistake.
However, the light path length of a rod is different
in different frames. This is the perspective effect that the SR equation
is
describing.
Following the *identical* procedure for measuring length, another
observer looking at the *same* object will get a different answer for
the length.
Sorry. That's not the case. That is NOT "the only observer". It is the
only observer you can think of, apparently, but that's because of your
limited imagination, not because that's really the only one.
Both SR and LET used this assumption
You say that repeatedly, even though SR says explicitly that it does
NOT make that assumption. You instead "infer" that SR *must* mean
that,
and that its statements to the contrary must be lies. However, that is
entirely your own conclusion and not what SR says at all.
Show me where SR says explicitly that it does not make that assumption.
Every SR observer
Right there. You said it yourself. SR says this is true for EVERY
observer, not just the one that you think that can rightfully claim it,
the one with the lowest absolute motion in the universe. Now, you may
think that it is NOT TRUE for every observer. But the fact of the
matter is you were claiming what SR says, and SR explicitly says it IS
TRUE for EVERY observer, not just one.
Sigh....that's my point the PoR said: Every observer is claiming that he is
in a state of absolute rest and that's why every observer claims that all
the clocks in the universe are running slow and all the rods in the universe
are contracted.
This PoR assumption is bogus. Why? Because no observer is in a state of
absolute rest. Therefore each observer must see some clocks moving wrt him
are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
09 Feb 2006 09:27:59 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139419341.343305.306090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139341266.887831.25150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139245837.249533.308580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
(Please don't tell me you heard it here. If you learned relativity
from
newsgroups, that explains everything.)
What is your reference that length contraction is real??
Are you avoiding my question. I've given you the references for
experimental evidence for length contraction. You refuse to read them
and instead simply assert that they could not show evidence for length
contraction.
Those references are not measuring the length of a moving rod.
That's right. Do you think Lorentz contraction only applies to "moving
rods"?
Do you think it's necessary to actually find or make a rod, set it
moving, and measure it, to establish length contraction? What in the
name of heaven gave you that idea?
Because a direct measurement of the length of a moving rod is the only way
to find out if length contraction is real.
That is crap. You think that direct measurement is the only way to do
measurement. This is why your experimental proposal has been flatly
round-filed. You have no sense whatsoever of experimental science.
The results of those experiments
you cited can be interpreted as that the accelerated particles achieved a
higher state of absolute motion than the lab observer and that's why they
were able to cover a larger distance in the lab frame.
The references I gave have NOTHING TO DO with muons. They have NOTHING
to do with particles traveling a longer distance in the lab frame. You
seem to be aware of only four experiments having to do with special
relativity. This is perhaps due to your limited readings in physics in
general and in special relativity in particular. I've got no sympathy
for you if you won't do the work.
The only way
to measure the length of a moving rod is to mark both ends of the rods
simultaneously in your frame. In real life such a procedure is not
doable
and that's why it was never been done.
Your experiments show space contraction (in the observer's frame) from
the
accelerated particle's point of view....but that's not measuring the
length
of a moving rod. The space contraction as perceived by the particle's
point
of view is better explained by the fact that it is in a higher state of
absolute motion after acceleration.
What is your reference that SR says that length contraction is a
perspective effect?
I don't need any reference. The SR math says that:
L'=Lo/gamma.
Yes, that's a relationship between two measured lengths, yes.
No such measurement have been made.
That's where you're wrong. I've given you references, which you seem to
think have something to do with something completely other than what
they in fact pertain to.
This is a perspective effect.
Where is your reference for that?
No need for any reference....
Then it is NOT an SR statement that it is a perspective effect, despite
your repeated lies to that effect. It is a Ken Seto statement that it
is a perspective effect.
I'll repeat this to you: I have no objection to your making statements
about what YOU believe is true. Have at it. I have a ton of objections
to your making statements about what SR says is true, especially since
you don't have any idea what SR says, since you can't cite any
reference that supports your claims about what SR says.
the moving rod in its rest frame remains the
same length and when it returns it has the same length. Therefore the
predicted length contraction is a perspective effect.
Not so. Every observer says his meter stick (the one he's holding) is
1
m long. This doesn't mean that it IS 1 m long. It just happens to be 1
m long when it's stationary with respect to him. It will not be 1 m
long as soon as it's moving wrt him, and every other observer moving
wrt to the ruler would agree that it is not 1 m long.
But it is a perspective effect. At the rest frame of the ruler it is 1
meter
long. This is true no matter who is looking at it.
As long as the "no matter who" is at rest with it. If they're moving
with respect to it, its length is not 1 m, nor is there any reason it
should be.
That's why the predicted length contraction is a perpective effect.
Nope. It's as real as it gets. There is NO reason why it *should* be 1
m long for every observer.
Suppose I slap a sticker on a bullet marked "at rest" and notice that
while I'm stickering it that it is indeed at rest. Now I fire it out of
a gun. Does the sticker still make it at rest?
This is a faulty arguement....but SR says that from the rest frame of the
bullet it is still at rest.
You miss my point completely. You are an idiot. Do you think that just
because a meter stick has a label on it that says "one meter" that it
is one meter long, regardless of the observer?
I don't know where you got the idea that a meter stick is 1 m long
even
if it's moving.
Meter sticks come with instructions that say you have to use them when
they're stationary with respect to you. Failure to read the
instructions is not the responsibility of the manufacturer.
I see you ignored this.
I see you still ignored this.
He also said that SR says that
length is not an inherent property of a rod but then he can't
explain
what
is it that is contracting.
Sure I can. You just haven't asked.
So what is contracting?
The length. Not the rod, but its length.
So now length is an inherent property of the rod???
No! Not at all. If it were an inherent property of the rod, then the
rod itself would be changing, but it's not.
So from that you are saying that length contraction is not real.
Nope. You seem to think that the only thing that is "real" is the
inherent properties of the rod. Where on earth did you get that idea?
The length is defined by a
procedure, which we started to talk about. It involves marking the
locations of the endpoints of that object and making those marks
simultaneously. It is important to make the marks simultaneously
because if the object is moving and you first mark one end and then
the
other, you're obviously not going to be measuring the length
correctly.
It is certainly feasible to mark both ends simultaneously -- we've
talked about a feasible way to do that.
It's not doable and never been done.
Sure it has. It's been measured for all sorts of cases where Lorentz
contraction is below the limit of precision of measurement. It's also
been measured for cases where the Lorentz contraction is *easily*
observed, just not for a "rod". You have this insane idea that it *has*
to be a rod AND it *has* to be measurably contracted, to demonstrate
that measuring a moving thing is possible.
The length contraction equation of SR
describes the perspective effect. In real life a rod has the same
physical
length in all frames.
No, it doesn't. That's a mistake.
However, the light path length of a rod is different
in different frames. This is the perspective effect that the SR equation
is
describing.
Following the *identical* procedure for measuring length, another
observer looking at the *same* object will get a different answer for
the length.
Sorry. That's not the case. That is NOT "the only observer". It is the
only observer you can think of, apparently, but that's because of your
limited imagination, not because that's really the only one.
Both SR and LET used this assumption
You say that repeatedly, even though SR says explicitly that it does
NOT make that assumption. You instead "infer" that SR *must* mean
that,
and that its statements to the contrary must be lies. However, that is
entirely your own conclusion and not what SR says at all.
Show me where SR says explicitly that it does not make that assumption.
Every SR observer
Right there. You said it yourself. SR says this is true for EVERY
observer, not just the one that you think that can rightfully claim it,
the one with the lowest absolute motion in the universe. Now, you may
think that it is NOT TRUE for every observer. But the fact of the
matter is you were claiming what SR says, and SR explicitly says it IS
TRUE for EVERY observer, not just one.
Sigh....that's my point the PoR said: Every observer is claiming that he is
in a state of absolute rest
How can two observers that *know* they are moving with respect to each
other both claim they are in a state of absolute rest??? That would be
idiotic! The POR would not dream of saying something so idiotic. Are
you nuts? That would be like saying the POR says that every observer
claims he is Napolean.
Why don't you go back to some *reading* and find out what the PoR
*really* says, instead of continuing month after month claiming that it
says something patently idiotic? Do you take us all for fools?
and that's why every observer claims that all
the clocks in the universe are running slow and all the rods in the universe
are contracted.
This PoR assumption is bogus. Why? Because no observer is in a state of
absolute rest. Therefore each observer must see some clocks moving wrt him
are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
10 Feb 2006 09:02:34 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139498879.632908.77310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139419341.343305.306090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139341266.887831.25150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139245837.249533.308580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Those references are not measuring the length of a moving rod.
That's right. Do you think Lorentz contraction only applies to "moving
rods"?
Do you think it's necessary to actually find or make a rod, set it
moving, and measure it, to establish length contraction? What in the
name of heaven gave you that idea?
Because a direct measurement of the length of a moving rod is the only
way
to find out if length contraction is real.
That is crap. You think that direct measurement is the only way to do
measurement. This is why your experimental proposal has been flatly
round-filed. You have no sense whatsoever of experimental science.
What you said is crap. Direct measurement will eliminate or confirm the
possibility that length contraction is a perpsective effect. You even
proposed a direct measurement procedure.....so why you physicists refused to
do it?
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS directly. It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in agreement with
SR.
That's why the predicted length contraction is a perpective effect.
Nope. It's as real as it gets. There is NO reason why it *should* be 1
m long for every observer.
No it's not real. The rod in your frame is 1 meter long after a journey and
the rod remains 1 meter long. Therefore the observed contraction during the
rod in motion is a perspective effect. Much like that I see a buidling from
a distance to be shorter than it's actual length.
Suppose I slap a sticker on a bullet marked "at rest" and notice that
while I'm stickering it that it is indeed at rest. Now I fire it out
of
a gun. Does the sticker still make it at rest?
This is a faulty arguement....but SR says that from the rest frame of
the
bullet it is still at rest.
You miss my point completely. You are an idiot. Do you think that just
because a meter stick has a label on it that says "one meter" that it
is one meter long, regardless of the observer?
No you are the idiot.....there are two meter sticks. One takes a journey and
return. The traveling meter stick will have the same length as the stay at
home meter stick after return. Therefore the predicted contraction is a
perspective effect.
Sigh....that's my point the PoR said: Every observer is claiming that he
is
in a state of absolute rest
How can two observers that *know* they are moving with respect to each
other both claim they are in a state of absolute rest??? That would be
idiotic! The POR would not dream of saying something so idiotic. Are
you nuts? That would be like saying the POR says that every observer
claims he is Napolean.
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what PoR is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in the
universe are running slow.
Why don't you go back to some *reading* and find out what the PoR
*really* says, instead of continuing month after month claiming that it
says something patently idiotic? Do you take us all for fools?
Hey idiot PoR says that all frames (including the absolute rest frame) are
equivalent. So Einstein choosed the simplest frame ...the absolute rest
frame....to derive the SR math. That's why the SR math only show length
contraction.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
11 Feb 2006 02:51:45 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS directly. It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in agreement with
SR.
What do you make of this from Professor Ned Wright's site:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light? The
hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source can
easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from distant
supernovae. When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming
from material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000
km/sec. Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a
supernova are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a
distance D in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be spread
out by dt = (dv/c)(D/c)."
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c = 6000
years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of 200
years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives at
the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5 billion
times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what PoR is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in the
universe are running slow.
That is your uneducated opinion of what the PoR says. In fact it says
no such thing. Have you read and digested his 1905 paper?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
11 Feb 2006 08:16:27 AM |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsk8j201q4m@enews4.newsguy.com...
kenseto wrote:
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS directly. It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in agreement
with
SR.
What do you make of this from Professor Ned Wright's site:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light? The
hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source can
easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from distant
supernovae. When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming
from material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000
km/sec. Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a
supernova are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a
distance D in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be spread
out by dt = (dv/c)(D/c)."
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c = 6000
years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of 200
years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives at
the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5 billion
times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what PoR
is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in the
universe are running slow.
That is your uneducated opinion of what the PoR says. In fact it says
no such thing. Have you read and digested his 1905 paper?
Hey idiot....doppler shift is caused by the varying speed of the incoming
light.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
13 Feb 2006 03:37:22 AM |
|
|
In article <%kmHf.97489$Q11.30164@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsk8j201q4m@enews4.newsguy.com...
kenseto wrote:
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS directly. It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in agreement
with
SR.
What do you make of this from Professor Ned Wright's site:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light? The
hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source can
easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from distant
supernovae. When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming
from material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000
km/sec. Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a
supernova are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a
distance D in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be spread
out by dt = (dv/c)(D/c)."
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c = 6000
years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of 200
years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives at
the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5 billion
times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what PoR
is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in the
universe are running slow.
That is your uneducated opinion of what the PoR says. In fact it says
no such thing. Have you read and digested his 1905 paper?
Hey idiot....doppler shift is caused by the varying speed of the incoming
light.
Ken Seto
No, by the wavelength stretching or contracting. If it's moving away from you,
the distance bet. waves 2 and 3 is greater than that bet. waves 1 and 2.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
13 Feb 2006 10:32:36 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dsq5fh$g56$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <%kmHf.97489$Q11.30164@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsk8j201q4m@enews4.newsguy.com...
kenseto wrote:
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS directly.
It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in agreement
with
SR.
What do you make of this from Professor Ned Wright's site:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light? The
hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source can
easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from distant
supernovae. When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming
from material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000
km/sec. Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a
supernova are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a
distance D in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be spread
out by dt = (dv/c)(D/c)."
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c = 6000
years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of 200
years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives at
the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5 billion
times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what
PoR
is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in the
universe are running slow.
That is your uneducated opinion of what the PoR says. In fact it says
no such thing. Have you read and digested his 1905 paper?
Hey idiot....doppler shift is caused by the varying speed of the incoming
light.
Ken Seto
No, by the wavelength stretching or contracting. If it's moving away from
you,
the distance bet. waves 2 and 3 is greater than that bet. waves 1 and 2.
There is nothing during the transit of light that will strech or compress
the wave length. OTOH, if the observer is moving wrt the light that will
cause the observer to see a frequency shift of the light and that in turn
means that the incoming speed of light is changed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
13 Feb 2006 04:40:35 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:Ew2If.79850$tK4.1412@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dsq5fh$g56$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <%kmHf.97489$Q11.30164@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsk8j201q4m@enews4.newsguy.com...
kenseto wrote:
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS
directly.
It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in
agreement
with
SR.
What do you make of this from Professor Ned Wright's site:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light? The
hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source can
easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from distant
supernovae. When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming
from material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000
km/sec. Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a
supernova are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a
distance D in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be spread
out by dt = (dv/c)(D/c)."
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c =
6000
years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of 200
years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives
at
the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5 billion
times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what
PoR
is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in
the
universe are running slow.
That is your uneducated opinion of what the PoR says. In fact it
says
no such thing. Have you read and digested his 1905 paper?
Hey idiot....doppler shift is caused by the varying speed of the
incoming
light.
Ken Seto
No, by the wavelength stretching or contracting. If it's moving away
from
you,
the distance bet. waves 2 and 3 is greater than that bet. waves 1 and 2.
There is nothing during the transit of light that will strech or compress
the wave length. OTOH, if the observer is moving wrt the light that will
cause the observer to see a frequency shift of the light and that in turn
means that the incoming speed of light is changed.
Yes, that is correct, wave lenghts do not change.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
13 Feb 2006 11:42:36 AM |
|
|
In article <dsr1hd$dbm$1@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi>,
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:Ew2If.79850$tK4.1412@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dsq5fh$g56$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <%kmHf.97489$Q11.30164@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsk8j201q4m@enews4.newsguy.com...
kenseto wrote:
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS
directly.
It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in
agreement
with
SR.
What do you make of this from Professor Ned Wright's site:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light? The
hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source can
easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from distant
supernovae. When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming
from material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000
km/sec. Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a
supernova are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a
distance D in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be spread
out by dt = (dv/c)(D/c)."
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c =
6000
years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of 200
years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives
at
the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5 billion
times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what
PoR
is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in
the
universe are running slow.
That is your uneducated opinion of what the PoR says. In fact it
says
no such thing. Have you read and digested his 1905 paper?
Hey idiot....doppler shift is caused by the varying speed of the
incoming
light.
Ken Seto
No, by the wavelength stretching or contracting. If it's moving away
from
you,
the distance bet. waves 2 and 3 is greater than that bet. waves 1 and 2.
There is nothing during the transit of light that will strech or compress
the wave length. OTOH, if the observer is moving wrt the light that will
cause the observer to see a frequency shift of the light and that in turn
means that the incoming speed of light is changed.
Yes, that is correct, wave lenghts do not change.
Henry Haapalainen
BS. Wavelengths change is there is motion of the source vis-a-vis the
detector.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
13 Feb 2006 11:40:44 AM |
|
|
In article <Ew2If.79850$tK4.1412@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dsq5fh$g56$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <%kmHf.97489$Q11.30164@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsk8j201q4m@enews4.newsguy.com...
kenseto wrote:
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS directly.
It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in agreement
with
SR.
What do you make of this from Professor Ned Wright's site:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light? The
hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source can
easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from distant
supernovae. When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming
from material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000
km/sec. Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a
supernova are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a
distance D in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be spread
out by dt = (dv/c)(D/c)."
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c = 6000
years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of 200
years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives at
the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5 billion
times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what
PoR
is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in the
universe are running slow.
That is your uneducated opinion of what the PoR says. In fact it says
no such thing. Have you read and digested his 1905 paper?
Hey idiot....doppler shift is caused by the varying speed of the incoming
light.
Ken Seto
No, by the wavelength stretching or contracting. If it's moving away from
you,
the distance bet. waves 2 and 3 is greater than that bet. waves 1 and 2.
There is nothing during the transit of light that will strech or compress
the wave length.
Not a wavelength, but successive wavelenghts will be different depending on
the motion of the source and detector.
OTOH, if the observer is moving wrt the light that will
cause the observer to see a frequency shift of the light and that in turn
means that the incoming speed of light is changed.
No, that the wavelength has. c = lambda X nu
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Procrusteanizes Time Dilation |
14 Feb 2006 08:15:17 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dsr1tc$f0h$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <Ew2If.79850$tK4.1412@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dsq5fh$g56$1@leto.cc.emory.edu...
In article <%kmHf.97489$Q11.30164@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dsk8j201q4m@enews4.newsguy.com...
kenseto wrote:
Another example is that physicists refused to measure OWLS
directly.
It
seems that physicists will do those experiments that are in
agreement
with
SR.
What do you make of this from Professor Ned Wright's site:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light? The
hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source can
easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from
distant
supernovae. When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming
from material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000
km/sec. Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a
supernova are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a
distance D in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be
spread
out by dt = (dv/c)(D/c)."
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c =
6000
years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of 200
years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives
at
the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5 billion
times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
That's right ....it's an idiotic statement but that's exactly what
PoR
is
saying when it asserts that every observer sees all the clocks in
the
universe are running slow.
That is your uneducated opinion of what the PoR says. In fact it
says
no such thing. Have you read and digested his 1905 paper?
Hey idiot....doppler shift is caused by the varying speed of the
incoming
light.
Ken Seto
No, by the wavelength st | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
