| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2006 12:19:34 PM |
| Object: |
For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Theories_incompatible_with_relativity
Special relativity is not compatible with the physical existence of the
following objects, forces, or laws (except in the nonrelativistic limit
in which all speeds are much less than c):
1. Infinitely rigid rods, or any other object which transmits forces at
infinite speeds. Note that this would require the existence of a new
force which is not currently explained by any of the laws of physics.
2. Tachyon particles, unless these particles cannot transmit any
information at superluminal speeds, or are somehow not subject to the
laws of cause and effect.
3. Rulers which are immune to Lorentz contraction. Again, this would
require a new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
7. Forces which can act instantaneously at a distance; this includes
Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law of electrostatics. Note
however that these two laws can be modified (to general relativity and
Maxwell's equations respectively) in a manner consistent with or
generalizing the theory of special relativity. There are also some laws
of physics which act non-locally but do not transmit information at
superluminal speeds, and which are thus technically (if not
philosophically) consistent with special relativity; the primary
example here is the collapse of the wave function.
8. Laws of nature which are Galilean invariant instead of Lorentz
invariant, or which are not invariant under either of these two
transformations.
9. The Newtonian velocity addition law v = v1 + v2; this law is
replaced by the relativistic addition law.
10. Conservation of Newtonian momentum defined as p = mv and Newtonian
kinetic energy defined as E = 1/2 mv^2. The equivalent conserved
quantities are p = Ev / c^2 and E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 (which reduce
to the Newtonian ones in the low-velocity limit). Similarly, Newton's
second law in the form F = ma is no longer valid, but must be replaced
by F = dp/dt (which is in fact closer to Newton's original formulation
of this law).
11. The Schrödinger equation, which is the quantization of
non-relativistic equation E = p^2 / 2m + V from Newtonian mechanics.
This can be replaced by the Dirac equation, Klein-Gordon equation, or
quantum field theory.
12. Nonrelativistic fluid equations such as the Euler equations and
Navier-Stokes equations; these must be replaced by relativistic fluid
equations such as the Relativistic Euler equations.
13. Additivity of mass; the total mass of a system (as determined by
solving the equation E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where E is the total energy
and p is the total momentum) is not necessarily equal to the sum of the
masses of its components, just as the length of a sum of vectors is not
necessarily equal to the sum of the lengths of the individual vectors.
Indeed there is a triangle inequality which says that the total mass is
always greater than or equal to the sum of the individual masses.
However, the total mass of a system remains conserved (this is a
consequence of conservation of energy and momentum).
14. Conservation of particle number is compatible with relativity, but
once quantum mechanics is also added, it is possible that this
conservation law breaks down, leading to spontaneous particle creation
and annihilation. This phenomenon is usually studied within the
framework of quantum field theory.
15. Wormholes or other objects which affect the topology of spacetime.
However, these objects can be compatible with general relativity.
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 01:05:25 PM |
|
|
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:W_clh.331785$1i1.204397@attbi_s72...
For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Theories_incompatible_with_relativity
Special relativity is not compatible with the physical existence of
the
following objects, forces, or laws (except in the nonrelativistic
limit
in which all speeds are much less than c):
1. Infinitely rigid rods, or any other object which transmits forces
at
infinite speeds. Note that this would require the existence of a
new
force which is not currently explained by any of the laws of
physics.
2. Tachyon particles, unless these particles cannot transmit any
information at superluminal speeds, or are somehow not subject to
the
laws of cause and effect.
3. Rulers which are immune to Lorentz contraction. Again, this would
require a new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would require
a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
7. Forces which can act instantaneously at a distance; this includes
Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law of electrostatics. Note
however that these two laws can be modified (to general relativity
and
Maxwell's equations respectively) in a manner consistent with or
generalizing the theory of special relativity. There are also some
laws
of physics which act non-locally but do not transmit information at
superluminal speeds, and which are thus technically (if not
philosophically) consistent with special relativity; the primary
example here is the collapse of the wave function.
8. Laws of nature which are Galilean invariant instead of Lorentz
invariant, or which are not invariant under either of these two
transformations.
9. The Newtonian velocity addition law v = v1 + v2; this law is
replaced by the relativistic addition law.
10. Conservation of Newtonian momentum defined as p = mv and Newtonian
kinetic energy defined as E = 1/2 mv^2. The equivalent conserved
quantities are p = Ev / c^2 and E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 (which reduce
to the Newtonian ones in the low-velocity limit). Similarly,
Newton's
second law in the form F = ma is no longer valid, but must be
replaced
by F = dp/dt (which is in fact closer to Newton's original
formulation
of this law).
11. The Schrödinger equation, which is the quantization of
non-relativistic equation E = p^2 / 2m + V from Newtonian
mechanics.
This can be replaced by the Dirac equation, Klein-Gordon equation,
or
quantum field theory.
12. Nonrelativistic fluid equations such as the Euler equations and
Navier-Stokes equations; these must be replaced by relativistic
fluid
equations such as the Relativistic Euler equations.
13. Additivity of mass; the total mass of a system (as determined by
solving the equation E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where E is the total
energy
and p is the total momentum) is not necessarily equal to the sum of
the
masses of its components, just as the length of a sum of vectors is
not
necessarily equal to the sum of the lengths of the individual
vectors.
Indeed there is a triangle inequality which says that the total
mass is
always greater than or equal to the sum of the individual masses.
However, the total mass of a system remains conserved (this is a
consequence of conservation of energy and momentum).
14. Conservation of particle number is compatible with relativity, but
once quantum mechanics is also added, it is possible that this
conservation law breaks down, leading to spontaneous particle
creation
and annihilation. This phenomenon is usually studied within the
framework of quantum field theory.
15. Wormholes or other objects which affect the topology of spacetime.
However, these objects can be compatible with general relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 01:09:37 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:W_clh.331785$1i1.204397@attbi_s72...
For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Theories_incompatible_with_relativity
Special relativity is not compatible with the physical existence of the
following objects, forces, or laws (except in the nonrelativistic limit
in which all speeds are much less than c):
1. Infinitely rigid rods, or any other object which transmits forces at
infinite speeds. Note that this would require the existence of a new
force which is not currently explained by any of the laws of physics.
2. Tachyon particles, unless these particles cannot transmit any
information at superluminal speeds, or are somehow not subject to the
laws of cause and effect.
3. Rulers which are immune to Lorentz contraction. Again, this would
require a new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
7. Forces which can act instantaneously at a distance; this includes
Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law of electrostatics. Note
however that these two laws can be modified (to general relativity and
Maxwell's equations respectively) in a manner consistent with or
generalizing the theory of special relativity. There are also some laws
of physics which act non-locally but do not transmit information at
superluminal speeds, and which are thus technically (if not
philosophically) consistent with special relativity; the primary
example here is the collapse of the wave function.
8. Laws of nature which are Galilean invariant instead of Lorentz
invariant, or which are not invariant under either of these two
transformations.
9. The Newtonian velocity addition law v = v1 + v2; this law is
replaced by the relativistic addition law.
10. Conservation of Newtonian momentum defined as p = mv and Newtonian
kinetic energy defined as E = 1/2 mv^2. The equivalent conserved
quantities are p = Ev / c^2 and E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 (which reduce
to the Newtonian ones in the low-velocity limit). Similarly, Newton's
second law in the form F = ma is no longer valid, but must be replaced
by F = dp/dt (which is in fact closer to Newton's original formulation
of this law).
11. The Schrödinger equation, which is the quantization of
non-relativistic equation E = p^2 / 2m + V from Newtonian mechanics.
This can be replaced by the Dirac equation, Klein-Gordon equation, or
quantum field theory.
12. Nonrelativistic fluid equations such as the Euler equations and
Navier-Stokes equations; these must be replaced by relativistic fluid
equations such as the Relativistic Euler equations.
13. Additivity of mass; the total mass of a system (as determined by
solving the equation E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where E is the total energy
and p is the total momentum) is not necessarily equal to the sum of the
masses of its components, just as the length of a sum of vectors is not
necessarily equal to the sum of the lengths of the individual vectors.
Indeed there is a triangle inequality which says that the total mass is
always greater than or equal to the sum of the individual masses.
However, the total mass of a system remains conserved (this is a
consequence of conservation of energy and momentum).
14. Conservation of particle number is compatible with relativity, but
once quantum mechanics is also added, it is possible that this
conservation law breaks down, leading to spontaneous particle creation
and annihilation. This phenomenon is usually studied within the
framework of quantum field theory.
15. Wormholes or other objects which affect the topology of spacetime.
However, these objects can be compatible with general relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 04:31:15 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RJdlh.331826$1i1.88720@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the
existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
No such device exist in IRT. In IRT all objects are in a state of absolute
motion so how can IRT has a devvice that can record absolute position????
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would
require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
Again in IRT time dilation is represented by a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames. In fact that's the
reason why all observers measures the same speed of light with his own clock
and ruler. In IRT the speed of light is defined as a constant math ratio as
measured by all observer as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m lpng physically)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
A clock second in a specific frame will record a specific amount of absolute
time (duration). A clock second in different frames will record a different
amount of absolute time and this SR call "Time dilation". The concept of
absolute time is needed to explain why the speed of light is measured to be
constant in all frames.
Ken Seto
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:W_clh.331785$1i1.204397@attbi_s72...
For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Theories_incompatible_with_relativity
Special relativity is not compatible with the physical existence of
the
following objects, forces, or laws (except in the nonrelativistic
limit
in which all speeds are much less than c):
1. Infinitely rigid rods, or any other object which transmits
forces at
infinite speeds. Note that this would require the existence of a
new
force which is not currently explained by any of the laws of
physics.
2. Tachyon particles, unless these particles cannot transmit any
information at superluminal speeds, or are somehow not subject
to the
laws of cause and effect.
3. Rulers which are immune to Lorentz contraction. Again, this
would
require a new force not currently explained by the laws of
physics.
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the
existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would
require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
7. Forces which can act instantaneously at a distance; this
includes
Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law of electrostatics.
Note
however that these two laws can be modified (to general
relativity and
Maxwell's equations respectively) in a manner consistent with or
generalizing the theory of special relativity. There are also
some laws
of physics which act non-locally but do not transmit information
at
superluminal speeds, and which are thus technically (if not
philosophically) consistent with special relativity; the primary
example here is the collapse of the wave function.
8. Laws of nature which are Galilean invariant instead of Lorentz
invariant, or which are not invariant under either of these two
transformations.
9. The Newtonian velocity addition law v = v1 + v2; this law is
replaced by the relativistic addition law.
10. Conservation of Newtonian momentum defined as p = mv and
Newtonian
kinetic energy defined as E = 1/2 mv^2. The equivalent conserved
quantities are p = Ev / c^2 and E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 (which
reduce
to the Newtonian ones in the low-velocity limit). Similarly,
Newton's
second law in the form F = ma is no longer valid, but must be
replaced
by F = dp/dt (which is in fact closer to Newton's original
formulation
of this law).
11. The Schrödinger equation, which is the quantization of
non-relativistic equation E = p^2 / 2m + V from Newtonian
mechanics.
This can be replaced by the Dirac equation, Klein-Gordon
equation, or
quantum field theory.
12. Nonrelativistic fluid equations such as the Euler equations and
Navier-Stokes equations; these must be replaced by relativistic
fluid
equations such as the Relativistic Euler equations.
13. Additivity of mass; the total mass of a system (as determined by
solving the equation E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where E is the total
energy
and p is the total momentum) is not necessarily equal to the sum
of the
masses of its components, just as the length of a sum of vectors
is not
necessarily equal to the sum of the lengths of the individual
vectors.
Indeed there is a triangle inequality which says that the total
mass is
always greater than or equal to the sum of the individual
masses.
However, the total mass of a system remains conserved (this is a
consequence of conservation of energy and momentum).
14. Conservation of particle number is compatible with relativity,
but
once quantum mechanics is also added, it is possible that this
conservation law breaks down, leading to spontaneous particle
creation
and annihilation. This phenomenon is usually studied within the
framework of quantum field theory.
15. Wormholes or other objects which affect the topology of
spacetime.
However, these objects can be compatible with general
relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
30 Dec 2006 05:03:44 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45959606$0$18064$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RJdlh.331826$1i1.88720@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the
existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
No such device exist in IRT. In IRT all objects are in a state of absolute
motion so how can IRT has a devvice that can record absolute position????
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would
require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
Again in IRT time dilation is represented by a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames. In fact that's the
reason why all observers measures the same speed of light with his own
clock
and ruler. In IRT the speed of light is defined as a constant math ratio
as
measured by all observer as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m lpng physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
(snip)
Ken Seto
Time does not move. It is expandable or contractible, inflationary or
deflationary (even to negatively inflating or deflating), relatively
speaking, but it does not move. It does not even 'co-move'. Regarding
Relativity, neither does space move. It too is expandable or
contractible..., relatively speaking, but it does not move.
According to 'c' both space and time are absolute -- "space-time" is an
absolute -- but that absolutism is balloon quality expandable here,
contractible there, relative to any observer but THE Observer in THE
Inertial Frame. The baseline observer in the baseline frame. The one single
God of Scale and Scaling.
According to Relativity the space and time of c will always be measurably
the same constant for the expanded or the contracted (no difference in any
local measurement of c). But the expanded space and time of c, for the
expanded space-time observer, has to break out -- shatter into -- into many
differing spaces and times, each [one] of the many contracted space-times
corresponding to the space-time of some [one] contracted observer. The
expanded observer incorporates the many differing contracted space-times of
the many differing contracted observers into his own singularly local and
different space-time frame relative to him alone (just like each one of the
many contracted observers then singularly incorporated as far as he and his
expanded frame is concerned).
Constants, such as 'c', are hyper-dimensional in quality. Thus its
space-time (thus 'space-time' itself) -- what it is -- is intrinsically
hyper-quality. It can parcel or de-parcel (particulate or de-particulate),
but it cannot and will not move. Not even 'co-move'.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
31 Dec 2006 04:43:36 AM |
|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45959606$0$18064$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RJdlh.331826$1i1.88720@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the
existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
No such device exist in IRT. In IRT all objects are in a state of absolute
motion so how can IRT has a devvice that can record absolute position????
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would
require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
Again in IRT time dilation is represented by a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames. In fact that's the
reason why all observers measures the same speed of light with his own
clock
and ruler. In IRT the speed of light is defined as a constant math ratio
as
measured by all observer as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m lpng physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
(snip)
Ken Seto
Time does not move. It is expandable or contractible, inflationary or
deflationary (even to negatively inflating or deflating), relatively
speaking, but it does not move. It does not even 'co-move'. Regarding
Relativity, neither does space move. It too is expandable or
contractible..., relatively speaking, but it does not move.
According to 'c' both space and time are absolute -- "space-time" is an
absolute -- but that absolutism is balloon quality expandable here,
contractible there, relative to any observer but THE Observer in THE
Inertial Frame. The baseline observer in the baseline frame. The one single
God of Scale and Scaling.
According to Relativity the space and time of c will always be measurably
the same constant for the expanded or the contracted (no difference in any
local measurement of c). But the expanded space and time of c, for the
expanded space-time observer, has to break out -- shatter into -- into many
differing spaces and times, each [one] of the many contracted space-times
corresponding to the space-time of some [one] contracted observer. The
expanded observer incorporates the many differing contracted space-times of
the many differing contracted observers into his own singularly local and
different space-time frame relative to him alone (just like each one of the
many contracted observers then singularly incorporated as far as he and his
expanded frame is concerned).
Constants, such as 'c', are hyper-dimensional in quality. Thus its
space-time (thus 'space-time' itself) -- what it is -- is intrinsically
hyper-quality. It can parcel or de-parcel (particulate or de-particulate),
but it cannot and will not move. Not even 'co-move'.
GLB
It doesn't compute. You are molding your own categories of imagination.
All is energy, even time. The relativity is processing that data of
observation. The Space remains a mystery. It is non-local, has no
concept of center.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
30 Dec 2006 06:53:58 PM |
|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45959606$0$18064$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RJdlh.331826$1i1.88720@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the
existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
No such device exist in IRT. In IRT all objects are in a state of absolute
motion so how can IRT has a devvice that can record absolute position????
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would
require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
Again in IRT time dilation is represented by a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames. In fact that's the
reason why all observers measures the same speed of light with his own
clock
and ruler. In IRT the speed of light is defined as a constant math ratio
as
measured by all observer as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m lpng physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
(snip)
Ken Seto
Time does not move. It is expandable or contractible, inflationary or
deflationary (even to negatively inflating or deflating), relatively
speaking, but it does not move. It does not even 'co-move'. Regarding
Relativity, neither does space move. It too is expandable or
contractible..., relatively speaking, but it does not move.
According to 'c' both space and time are absolute -- "space-time" is an
absolute -- but that absolutism is balloon quality expandable here,
contractible there, relative to any observer but THE Observer in THE
Inertial Frame. The baseline observer in the baseline frame. The one single
God of Scale and Scaling.
According to Relativity the space and time of c will always be measurably
the same constant for the expanded or the contracted (no difference in any
local measurement of c). But the expanded space and time of c, for the
expanded space-time observer, has to break out -- shatter into -- into many
differing spaces and times, each [one] of the many contracted space-times
corresponding to the space-time of some [one] contracted observer. The
expanded observer incorporates the many differing contracted space-times of
the many differing contracted observers into his own singularly local and
different space-time frame relative to him alone (just like each one of the
many contracted observers then singularly incorporated as far as he and his
expanded frame is concerned).
Constants, such as 'c', are hyper-dimensional in quality. Thus its
space-time (thus 'space-time' itself) -- what it is -- is intrinsically
hyper-quality. It can parcel or de-parcel (particulate or de-particulate),
but it cannot and will not move. Not even 'co-move'.
GLB
"Mumbo Jumbo, rhubarb rhubarb Tickety bubarb yak yak yak"...
- "Stop the world, I want to get off" (1966)
pgs 391-392, "The Elegant Universe", Brian Greene (1999)
"5. For the mathematically inclined reader, we note that from the
spacetime position 4-vector x = (ct, x_sub1, x_sub2, x_sub3) = ct, x_bar
we can produce the velocity 4-vector u = dx/dtau, where tau is the proper
time defined by dtau^2 = dt^2 - c^-2 (dx_sub1^2 + dx_sub2^2 +dx_sub3^2).
Then, the "speed through spacetime" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u,
[((c^2 dt^2 - dx_bar^2)/(dt^2 - c^-2 dx_bar^2))]^0.5, which is identically
the speed of light, c. Now, we can rearrange the equation c^2 (dt/dtau)^2
- (dx_bar/dtau)^2 = c^2, to be c^2 (dtau/dt)^2 + (dx_bar/dt)^2 = c^2. This
shows than an increase in an object's speed through space, [(dx_bar/dt)^2]^0.5
must be accompanied by a decrease in dtau/dt, the latter being the object's
speed through time (the rate at which time elapses on its own clock, dtau,
as compared with that on our stationary clock, dt)".
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
31 Dec 2006 08:04:32 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:GSDlh.197300$aJ.81055@attbi_s21...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45959606$0$18064$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RJdlh.331826$1i1.88720@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the
existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
No such device exist in IRT. In IRT all objects are in a state of
absolute
motion so how can IRT has a devvice that can record absolute
position????
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would
require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
Again in IRT time dilation is represented by a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames. In fact that's
the
reason why all observers measures the same speed of light with his own
clock
and ruler. In IRT the speed of light is defined as a constant math ratio
as
measured by all observer as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m lpng physically)/the absolute
time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
(snip)
Ken Seto
Time does not move. It is expandable or contractible, inflationary or
deflationary (even to negatively inflating or deflating), relatively
speaking, but it does not move. It does not even 'co-move'. Regarding
Relativity, neither does space move. It too is expandable or
contractible..., relatively speaking, but it does not move.
According to 'c' both space and time are absolute -- "space-time" is an
absolute -- but that absolutism is balloon quality expandable here,
contractible there, relative to any observer but THE Observer in THE
Inertial Frame. The baseline observer in the baseline frame. The one
single God of Scale and Scaling.
According to Relativity the space and time of c will always be
measurably the same constant for the expanded or the contracted (no
difference in any local measurement of c). But the expanded space and
time of c, for the expanded space-time observer, has to break out --
shatter into -- into many differing spaces and times, each [one] of the
many contracted space-times corresponding to the space-time of some [one]
contracted observer. The expanded observer incorporates the many
differing contracted space-times of the many differing contracted
observers into his own singularly local and different space-time frame
relative to him alone (just like each one of the many contracted
observers then singularly incorporated as far as he and his expanded
frame is concerned).
Constants, such as 'c', are hyper-dimensional in quality. Thus its
space-time (thus 'space-time' itself) -- what it is -- is intrinsically
hyper-quality. It can parcel or de-parcel (particulate or
de-particulate), but it cannot and will not move. Not even 'co-move'.
GLB
"Mumbo Jumbo, rhubarb rhubarb Tickety bubarb yak yak yak"...
- "Stop the world, I want to get off" (1966)
pgs 391-392, "The Elegant Universe", Brian Greene (1999)
"5. For the mathematically inclined reader, we note that from the
spacetime position 4-vector x = (ct, x_sub1, x_sub2, x_sub3) = ct, x_bar
we can produce the velocity 4-vector u = dx/dtau, where tau is the
proper
time defined by dtau^2 = dt^2 - c^-2 (dx_sub1^2 + dx_sub2^2 +dx_sub3^2).
Then, the "speed through spacetime" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u,
[((c^2 dt^2 - dx_bar^2)/(dt^2 - c^-2 dx_bar^2))]^0.5, which is
identically
the speed of light, c. Now, we can rearrange the equation c^2
(dt/dtau)^2
- (dx_bar/dtau)^2 = c^2, to be c^2 (dtau/dt)^2 + (dx_bar/dt)^2 = c^2.
This
shows than an increase in an object's speed through space,
[(dx_bar/dt)^2]^0.5
must be accompanied by a decrease in dtau/dt, the latter being the
object's
speed through time (the rate at which time elapses on its own clock,
dtau,
as compared with that on our stationary clock, dt)".
Greene addresses one and only one traveler and traveler's clock. The
limitations of the speed of light create a minimum of two travelers and two
traveler's clocks, the real traveler and clock, and the virtual traveler and
clock. Now if physicists deal in the [light-time] virtual traveler made by
the limitations of the speed of light, what is done in the physics
establishment to deal with the unobservable real traveler in the
'unobservable universe'? If physicists deal in the unobserved real traveler
in the 'unobservable universe', what is done in the physics establishment to
deal with the observed [light-time] virtual traveler existing nowhere else
but in the falseness of the "OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE" strictly made a light-time
virtual space and time by the limitations of the speed of light upon
transmission of all "space-time" information?
I don't think you can or will answer since you don't divide the traveler
into two or more travelers needing two or more descriptions. Also since you
don't divided the Universe into two or more universes needing two or more
descriptions.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
31 Dec 2006 08:35:00 AM |
|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Greene addresses one and only one traveler and traveler's clock. The
limitations of the speed of light create a minimum of two travelers and two
traveler's clocks, the real traveler and clock, and the virtual traveler and
clock.
And what makes one traveler "real" and one traveler "virtual" in your
opinion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
31 Dec 2006 02:21:37 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:oUPlh.333735$1i1.2253@attbi_s72...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Greene addresses one and only one traveler and traveler's clock. The
limitations of the speed of light create a minimum of two travelers and
two traveler's clocks, the real traveler and clock, and the virtual
traveler and clock.
And what makes one traveler "real" and one traveler "virtual" in your
opinion?
The way light transmission of information to observers, regarding time,
works of course:
Src(t0)................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t1)>(t0)>......................|Obs(t1)|
Src(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>..............|Obs(t2)|
Src(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>......|Obs(t3)|
Src(t4)>(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>|(t0)Obs(t4)|
(Src-real(t4)..........................|Src-virt(t0)Obs-real(t4)|)
Or far better, far more like it, in my view:
Src(t0).....................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>.........................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>(-t3)>.......|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>)-t3)>|(-t4)Obs(t0)|
It would stretch out (in between) for traveling sources going aways from
observers.
It would squeeze (in between) for traveling sources oncoming to observers.
Remember that time stops (t = 0) at the speed of light.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
31 Dec 2006 04:04:59 PM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:LoGdncrEzo3fgQXYnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:oUPlh.333735$1i1.2253@attbi_s72...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Greene addresses one and only one traveler and traveler's clock. The
limitations of the speed of light create a minimum of two travelers and
two traveler's clocks, the real traveler and clock, and the virtual
traveler and clock.
And what makes one traveler "real" and one traveler "virtual" in your
opinion?
The way light transmission of information to observers, regarding time,
works of course:
Src(t0)................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t1)>(t0)>......................|Obs(t1)|
Src(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>..............|Obs(t2)|
Src(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>......|Obs(t3)|
Src(t4)>(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>|(t0)Obs(t4)|
(Src-real(t4)..........................|Src-virt(t0)Obs-real(t4)|)
Or far better, far more like it, in my view:
Src(t0).....................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>.........................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>(-t3)>.......|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>)-t3)>|(-t4)Obs(t0)|
It would stretch out (in between) for traveling sources going aways from
observers. Something like:
| Traveler |<| c |>| Observer |
| Traveler |<=| c |=>| Observer |
| Traveler |<==| c |==>| Observer |
| Traveler |<===| c |===>| Observer |
It would squeeze (in between) for traveling sources oncoming to
observers. Something like:
| Traveler |===>| c |<===| Observer |
| Traveler |==>| c |<==| Observer |
| Traveler |=>| c |<=| Observer |
| Traveler |>| c |<| Observer |
Remember that time stops (t = 0) at the speed of light.
GLB
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
31 Dec 2006 03:48:51 PM |
|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:oUPlh.333735$1i1.2253@attbi_s72...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Greene addresses one and only one traveler and traveler's clock. The
limitations of the speed of light create a minimum of two travelers and
two traveler's clocks, the real traveler and clock, and the virtual
traveler and clock.
And what makes one traveler "real" and one traveler "virtual" in your
opinion?
The way light transmission of information to observers, regarding time,
works of course:
Src(t0)................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t1)>(t0)>......................|Obs(t1)|
Src(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>..............|Obs(t2)|
Src(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>......|Obs(t3)|
Src(t4)>(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>|(t0)Obs(t4)|
(Src-real(t4)..........................|Src-virt(t0)Obs-real(t4)|)
Or far better, far more like it, in my view:
Src(t0).....................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>.........................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>(-t3)>.......|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>)-t3)>|(-t4)Obs(t0)|
It would stretch out (in between) for traveling sources going aways from
observers.
It would squeeze (in between) for traveling sources oncoming to observers.
Remember that time stops (t = 0) at the speed of light.
GLB
One traveler is no more real than the other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
01 Jan 2007 05:33:15 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:7fWlh.334444$1i1.215348@attbi_s72...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:oUPlh.333735$1i1.2253@attbi_s72...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Greene addresses one and only one traveler and traveler's clock. The
limitations of the speed of light create a minimum of two travelers and
two traveler's clocks, the real traveler and clock, and the virtual
traveler and clock.
And what makes one traveler "real" and one traveler "virtual" in your
opinion?
The way light transmission of information to observers, regarding time,
works of course:
Src(t0)................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t1)>(t0)>......................|Obs(t1)|
Src(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>..............|Obs(t2)|
Src(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>......|Obs(t3)|
Src(t4)>(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>|(t0)Obs(t4)|
(Src-real(t4)..........................|Src-virt(t0)Obs-real(t4)|)
Or far better, far more like it, in my view:
Src(t0).....................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>.........................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>(-t3)>.......|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>)-t3)>|(-t4)Obs(t0)|
It would stretch out (in between) for traveling sources going aways
from observers.
It would squeeze (in between) for traveling sources oncoming to
observers.
Remember that time stops (t = 0) at the speed of light.
GLB
One traveler is no more real than the other.
I'm sad to see such an answer from you. You diminish yourself. I'm neither
of Berkeley's breed dealing only in 'immaterialism' nor am I of Johnson's
breed attempting to refute all immaterialism by kicking rocks. I can see to
work both these facets of a multi-faceted Universe at once and will continue
on in doing so.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
01 Jan 2007 02:57:19 PM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:pI6dndcxP_F2bAXYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:7fWlh.334444$1i1.215348@attbi_s72...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:oUPlh.333735$1i1.2253@attbi_s72...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
Greene addresses one and only one traveler and traveler's clock. The
limitations of the speed of light create a minimum of two travelers
and two traveler's clocks, the real traveler and clock, and the
virtual traveler and clock.
And what makes one traveler "real" and one traveler "virtual" in your
opinion?
The way light transmission of information to observers, regarding
time, works of course:
Src(t0)................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t1)>(t0)>......................|Obs(t1)|
Src(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>..............|Obs(t2)|
Src(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>(t0)>......|Obs(t3)|
Src(t4)>(t3)>(t2)>(t1)>|(t0)Obs(t4)|
(Src-real(t4)..........................|Src-virt(t0)Obs-real(t4)|)
Or far better, far more like it, in my view:
Src(t0).....................................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>.........................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>................|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>(-t3)>.......|Obs(t0)|
Src(t0)>(-t1)>(-t2)>)-t3)>|(-t4)Obs(t0)|
It would stretch out (in between) for traveling sources going aways
from observers.
It would squeeze (in between) for traveling sources oncoming to
observers.
Remember that time stops (t = 0) at the speed of light.
GLB
One traveler is no more real than the other.
I'm sad to see such an answer from you. You diminish yourself. I'm neither
of Berkeley's breed dealing only in 'immaterialism' nor am I of Johnson's
breed attempting to refute all immaterialism by kicking rocks. I can see
to work both these facets of a multi-faceted Universe at once and will
continue on in doing so.
GLB
After further thought I remember that the real traveler being within the
unobservable universe rather than the observable universe could easily be
subject to a wider interpretation of the principle of uncertainty concerning
any observation from a distance. Position and velocity of the traveler would
be pure guesswork on the part of observers at greater and greater distances
in the [unobserved] universe from observers, which is what I myself was
saying before. So in that scenario Sam is right in his answer that one
traveler is no more real than the other -- relative to the observer, and I
was wrong. I trapped myself in the same false position I accuse him and
others of being in so often. That of trying to quantum entangle via
telepathy the simultaneous intrinsic realities of the observer and traveler
so that neither is entirely dependent upon the speed of light -- and the
dire limitations of it -- for coordinating truer relative positioning and
velocity. Just because I can see how it would work in my mind's eye doesn't
transmit it to the environmental reality observers and travelers have to
really work with.
Never-the-less, travelers getting into positions to better "warp" space
and time will work just as well for space travelers as it works for pilots
of high flying aircraft versus earth worms.
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 04:34:56 PM |
|
|
On 2006-12-29 22:31:15 +0000, "kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> said:
No such device exist in IRT. In IRT all objects are in a state of absolute
motion so how can IRT has a devvice that can record absolute position????
Absolute motion wrt what?
--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 11:13:39 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:34:56 +0000
<45958b54$0$18605$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
On 2006-12-29 22:31:15 +0000, "kenseto" <kenseto@woh.rr.com> said:
No such device exist in IRT. In IRT all objects are in a state of absolute
motion so how can IRT has a devvice that can record absolute position????
Absolute motion wrt what?
The E-Matrix, of course. :-) Assuming it's well-defined enough to allow
for various theoretical predictions.
--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan
--
#191,
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 01:46:56 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:RJdlh.331826$1i1.88720@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
Sam, if Seto writes that devices which can record absolute position
contradict Galilean relativity, that does not necessarily mean that he
thinks that devices which can record absolute position contradict
Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
Sam, if Seto writes that he requires a new force not currently explained
by the laws of physics, that does not necessarily mean that he requires
a new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
Sam, if Seto writes that clocks can record absolute time, that does not
necessarily mean that he thinks that clocks can record absolute time.
You see, reading and understanding what Ken Seto writes is a bit tricky.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 01:57:02 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RJdlh.331826$1i1.88720@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
For the runt wormy: none of those you listed below is in my theory.
Actually I thought your theory had something to say about
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the
existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
Sam, if Seto writes that devices which can record absolute position
contradict Galilean relativity, that does not necessarily mean that he
thinks that devices which can record absolute position contradict
Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would
require a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
Sam, if Seto writes that he requires a new force not currently explained
by the laws of physics, that does not necessarily mean that he requires
a new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
Sam, if Seto writes that clocks can record absolute time, that does not
necessarily mean that he thinks that clocks can record absolute time.
You see, reading and understanding what Ken Seto writes is a bit tricky.
Dirk Vdm
Perhaps mathematics is a better language! Too bad that doesn't work
for Seto.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "brad" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 01:15:22 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Theories_inc=
ompatible_with_relativity
Special relativity is not compatible with the physical existence of t=
he
following objects, forces, or laws (except in the nonrelativistic lim=
it
in which all speeds are much less than c):
1. Infinitely rigid rods, or any other object which transmits forces =
at
infinite speeds. Note that this would require the existence of a n=
ew
force which is not currently explained by any of the laws of physi=
cs.
2. Tachyon particles, unless these particles cannot transmit any
information at superluminal speeds, or are somehow not subject to =
the
laws of cause and effect.
3. Rulers which are immune to Lorentz contraction. Again, this would
require a new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would require=
a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
7. Forces which can act instantaneously at a distance; this includes
Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law of electrostatics. Note
however that these two laws can be modified (to general relativity=
and
Maxwell's equations respectively) in a manner consistent with or
generalizing the theory of special relativity. There are also some=
laws
of physics which act non-locally but do not transmit information at
superluminal speeds, and which are thus technically (if not
philosophically) consistent with special relativity; the primary
example here is the collapse of the wave function.
8. Laws of nature which are Galilean invariant instead of Lorentz
invariant, or which are not invariant under either of these two
transformations.
9. The Newtonian velocity addition law v =3D v1 + v2; this law is
replaced by the relativistic addition law.
10. Conservation of Newtonian momentum defined as p =3D mv and Newtoni=
an
kinetic energy defined as E =3D 1/2 mv^2. The equivalent conserved
quantities are p =3D Ev / c^2 and E^2 =3D m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 (which r=
educe
to the Newtonian ones in the low-velocity limit). Similarly, Newto=
n's
second law in the form F =3D ma is no longer valid, but must be re=
placed
by F =3D dp/dt (which is in fact closer to Newton's original formu=
lation
of this law).
11. The Schr=F6dinger equation, which is the quantization of
non-relativistic equation E =3D p^2 / 2m + V from Newtonian mechan=
ics.
This can be replaced by the Dirac equation, Klein-Gordon equation,=
or
quantum field theory.
12. Nonrelativistic fluid equations such as the Euler equations and
Navier-Stokes equations; these must be replaced by relativistic fl=
uid
equations such as the Relativistic Euler equations.
13. Additivity of mass; the total mass of a system (as determined by
solving the equation E^2 =3D m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where E is the total=
energy
and p is the total momentum) is not necessarily equal to the sum o=
f the
masses of its components, just as the length of a sum of vectors i=
s not
necessarily equal to the sum of the lengths of the individual vect=
ors.
Indeed there is a triangle inequality which says that the total ma=
ss is
always greater than or equal to the sum of the individual masses.
However, the total mass of a system remains conserved (this is a
consequence of conservation of energy and momentum).
14. Conservation of particle number is compatible with relativity, but
once quantum mechanics is also added, it is possible that this
conservation law breaks down, leading to spontaneous particle crea=
tion
and annihilation. This phenomenon is usually studied within the
framework of quantum field theory.
15. Wormholes or other objects which affect the topology of spacetime.
However, these objects can be compatible with general relativity. =
=
=
=
=
=
=
Sam, no's 5 & 6 seem to preclude that it is possible to speak of =
the age of the Universe. This has always been a problem for me, as it would=
seem to be easier to assign to each and every object its own time, and tha=
t the Universe has no age. This is the point where I get lost. =
=
Than=
ks, Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 04:45:04 PM |
|
|
Sam, no's 5 & 6 seem to preclude that it is
possible to speak of the age of the Universe.
This has always been a problem for me, as it would seem to be easier to assign to each
and every object its own time, and that the Universe has no age. This is the point where I
get lost. > Thanks, Brad
Well this is hilarious. The last comment was right I think, and
immediately wrong on it's own product of logic. It does seem illogical
that the universe is not a summary of time intervals but that is
exactly the point of the miracle. What miracle is it in the universe
that is the question, and here it is the miracle of understanding and
perceiving. In any case you can embed more serious fun time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brad" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
29 Dec 2006 07:56:07 PM |
|
|
boson boss wrote:
Sam, no's 5 & 6 seem to preclude that it is
possible to speak of the age of the Universe.
This has always been a problem for me, as it would seem to be easier to assign to each
and every object its own time, and that the Universe has no age. This is the point where I
get lost. > Thanks, Brad
Well this is hilarious. The last comment was right I think, and
immediately wrong on it's own product of logic. It does seem illogical
that the universe is not a summary of time intervals but that is
exactly the point of the miracle. What miracle is it in the universe
that is the question, and here it is the miracle of understanding and
perceiving. In any case you can embed more serious fun time. I have spent almost 60 years of fun time. Now I hope to recover the wonder of my childhood in what time I have left. I am curious as to the role time dilation may play , in what is perceived to be the age of the Universe . It seems to me that with the enormous masses involved Time is more convoluted than just extrapolating backwards . No one I know thinks of such things so I'm forced to bore the people of these ng's with my questions. Ridicule and insolence are not my intentions I have great respect for your knowledge Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
30 Dec 2006 04:45:21 AM |
|
|
brad wrote:
boson boss wrote:
Sam, no's 5 & 6 seem to preclude that it is
possible to speak of the age of the Universe.
This has always been a problem for me, as it would seem to be easier to assign to each
and every object its own time, and that the Universe has no age. This is the point where I
get lost. > Thanks, Brad
Well this is hilarious. The last comment was right I think, and
immediately wrong on it's own product of logic. It does seem illogical
that the universe is not a summary of time intervals but that is
exactly the point of the miracle. What miracle is it in the universe
that is the question, and here it is the miracle of understanding and
perceiving. In any case you can embed more serious fun time. I have spent almost 60 years of fun time. Now I hope to recover the wonder of my childhood in what time I have left. I am curious as to the role time dilation may play , in what is perceived to be the age of the Universe . It seems to me that with the enormous masses involved Time is more convoluted than just extrapolating backwards . No one I know thinks of such things so I'm forced to bore the people of these ng's with my questions. Ridicule and insolence are not my intentions I have great respect for your knowledge Brad
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting. Who knows what lies convoluted or hidden in universe!
I may propose a formal frame to view the possible solutions for these
issues. Often thoughts arrive about the causalities and the surrounding
world of psyche. I can always tell myself that no matter what I may
think that causalities are, the events are taking place at near light
speed. Since the events are factually taking place at such a great
speed there is enough room to trick my perceptions endlessly.
In my opinion the scientific views are the same. They do 'reveal', but
their consistency is ultimately piled up against a fixed finite
boundaries such as the speed of light. Science also piles against other
walls such as statistics and so forth.
Hence, more play with infinities such as singularities and dynamics is
required in perceiving and understanding. That can be emergent
structures, non equilibrium systems. Who knows.
The energy of some local system can be perfectly finite just as the "c"
may continue it's concrete truthful existence. But again people learn
more to deal with dynamics.
The mathematical understanding appears to be that key to development,
but at the same time math gives the bad name to the abstract as it is
only immaterial order which takes more and more energy to be supported.
Again the immaterial is a birthing perception. Alternatively it
explodes like the universe so its not so immaterial.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
30 Dec 2006 05:24:00 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Theories_inc=
ompatible_with_relativity
That article needs to be cleaned up and its sources corrected.
Special relativity is not compatible with the physical existence of t=
he
following objects, forces, or laws (except in the nonrelativistic lim=
it
in which all speeds are much less than c):
1. Infinitely rigid rods, or any other object which transmits forces =
at
infinite speeds. Note that this would require the existence of a n=
ew
force which is not currently explained by any of the laws of physi=
cs.
I don't see how SR prohibits the existence of a 'rigid rod', from its
axioms. That considering such objects causes contradictory results in
the theory is insufficient to conclude that the theory prohibits such
objects. Maybe the theory has a 'bug' (using computer jargon)
For example:
[1] Suppose there is a rod 1m long, with respect to its own frame.
[2] Suppose that an instantaneous acceleration is applied
*simultaneously* everywhere on that rod, with respect to the rods
initial frame.
The kinematics of the rod allows it to be classified as 'rigid'.
The problem with this scenario is:
[3] Suppose the end velocity of the rod is 0.866c with respect to the
rods initial coframe.
[4] Relative to the rods initial coframe,
*Proper* length of Rod before acceleration =3D 1m
*Proper* length of Rod after acceleration =3D 1 /
sqrt(1-(0.866c)^2/c^2) =3D 2m
Thus the rod has doubled in physical size after the accelartion, and
this violates the supposed invariance of proper length. It would seem
that Special Relativity admits a contradictory result.
QUESTION: How do the postulates of SR prohibit [1], [2]?
These 'bugs' occur all over the place. Even in Newton's physics.
Example:
[5] Suppose two point particles A and B collide at common point x.
[6] A exerts a force F on B at point at point x
[7] B exerts a force -F on A at x.
[8] The resultant force at x is F + (-F) =3D 0
[9] Therefore after the collision, A and B will remain stationary at x.
[10] Momentum is not conserved.
There are many such 'bugs' in physics. That such scenarios are 'bugs'
in the theory does not mean that the scenario is prohibited by that
theory.
2. Tachyon particles, unless these particles cannot transmit any
information at superluminal speeds, or are somehow not subject to =
the
laws of cause and effect.
SR does not prohibit such particles. SR prohibits a luminal particle
accelerating past the luminal barrier and becoming a superluminal
particle. It does not mean superluminal particles (tachyons) cannot
exist. They may even have an observable effect on luminal energy (i.e.
tachyon condensation).
3. Rulers which are immune to Lorentz contraction. Again, this would
require a new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
You can see from the first scenario that such a ruler would be a 'bug'
in the theory - THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE THEORY PROHIBITS SUCH OBJECTS.
4. Devices which can record absolute position. Note that the existence
of such devices would also contradict Galilean relativity.
5. Clocks that are immune to time dilation. Again, this would require=
a
new force not currently explained by the laws of physics.
6. Clocks which can record absolute time. Indeed, the concept of
absolute time is philosophically inconsistent with Einstein's
interpretation of special relativity.
7. Forces which can act instantaneously at a distance; this includes
Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law of electrostatics. Note
however that these two laws can be modified (to general relativity=
and
Maxwell's equations respectively) in a manner consistent with or
generalizing the theory of special relativity. There are also some=
laws
of physics which act non-locally but do not transmit information at
superluminal speeds, and which are thus technically (if not
philosophically) consistent with special relativity; the primary
example here is the collapse of the wave function.
8. Laws of nature which are Galilean invariant instead of Lorentz
invariant, or which are not invariant under either of these two
transformations.
9. The Newtonian velocity addition law v =3D v1 + v2; this law is
replaced by the relativistic addition law.
10. Conservation of Newtonian momentum defined as p =3D mv and Newtoni=
an
kinetic energy defined as E =3D 1/2 mv^2. The equivalent conserved
quantities are p =3D Ev / c^2 and E^2 =3D m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 (which r=
educe
to the Newtonian ones in the low-velocity limit). Similarly, Newto=
n's
second law in the form F =3D ma is no longer valid, but must be re=
placed
by F =3D dp/dt (which is in fact closer to Newton's original formu=
lation
of this law).
11. The Schr=F6dinger equation, which is the quantization of
non-relativistic equation E =3D p^2 / 2m + V from Newtonian mechan=
ics.
This can be replaced by the Dirac equation, Klein-Gordon equation,=
or
quantum field theory.
12. Nonrelativistic fluid equations such as the Euler equations and
Navier-Stokes equations; these must be replaced by relativistic fl=
uid
equations such as the Relativistic Euler equations.
13. Additivity of mass; the total mass of a system (as determined by
solving the equation E^2 =3D m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where E is the total=
energy
and p is the total momentum) is not necessarily equal to the sum o=
f the
masses of its components, just as the length of a sum of vectors i=
s not
necessarily equal to the sum of the lengths of the individual vect=
ors.
Indeed there is a triangle inequality which says that the total ma=
ss is
always greater than or equal to the sum of the individual masses.
However, the total mass of a system remains conserved (this is a
consequence of conservation of energy and momentum).
14. Conservation of particle number is compatible with relativity, but
once quantum mechanics is also added, it is possible that this
conservation law breaks down, leading to spontaneous particle crea=
tion
and annihilation. This phenomenon is usually studied within the
framework of quantum field theory.
15. Wormholes or other objects which affect the topology of spacetime.
However, these objects can be compatible with general relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity |
30 Dec 2006 07:30:56 AM |
|
|
<schoenfeld.one@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1167477840.886137.170650@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto: Theories incompatible with relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity#Theories_incompatible_with_relativity
That article needs to be cleaned up and its sources corrected.
Special relativity is not compatible with the physical existence of the
following objects, forces, or laws (except in the nonrelativistic limit
in which all speeds are much less than c):
1. Infinitely rigid rods, or any other object which transmits forces at
infinite speeds. Note that this would require the existence of a new
force which is not currently explained by any of the laws of physics.
I don't see how SR prohibits the existence of a 'rigid rod', from its
axioms.
Rigidity implies that when you push the rod on one end,
it either
- instantaneously starts moving as a whole, which requires
the disturbance to move at infinite velocity, or
- it never moves at all, which contradicts experience.
That considering such objects causes contradictory results in
the theory is insufficient to conclude that the theory prohibits such
objects. Maybe the theory has a 'bug' (using computer jargon)
Maybe you don't understand the theory.
For example:
[1] Suppose there is a rod 1m long, with respect to its own frame.
Yes, that is the proper lenght of the rod, by definition.
[2] Suppose that an instantaneous acceleration is applied
*simultaneously* everywhere on that rod, with respect to the rods
initial frame.
The kinematics of the rod allows it to be classified as 'rigid'.
The problem with this scenario is:
[3] Suppose the end velocity of the rod is 0.866c with respect to the
rods initial coframe.
[4] Relative to the rods initial coframe,
*Proper* length of Rod before acceleration = 1m
*Proper* length of Rod after acceleration = 1 /
sqrt(1-(0.866c)^2/c^2) = 2m
The transformation equation
Dx' = gamma ( Dx - v Dt )
reduces to your
Dx' = gamma Dx
provided
Dt = 0
i.o.w. provided the distances difference Dx between the endpoints
is measured in the rod's rest-frame. So Dx is the proper length here,
and the quantity
Dx' = gamma Dx
is useless because it is the distance difference between the end
points at different times
Dt' =/= 0 .
When you measure the front and the back of a train at different
times and calculate the difference between these distances, you
get a useless quantity.
Common error. Marcel Luttgens' specialty.
Thus the rod has doubled in physical size after the accelartion, and
this violates the supposed invariance of proper length. It would seem
that Special Relativity admits a contradictory result.
Actually, in this case it would seem that you haven't understood
special relativity.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
