| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2007 04:03:56 PM |
| Object: |
Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
2. Time dilation:
Is the passage of a clock second in A's frame correspond to the
passage of a clock second in B's frame? IOW does a clock second in A's
frame has the same duration as a clock second in B's frame? If not how
can SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant when the
clock second use to define light speed is not an universal interval of
time?
3. Clock rate:
Are two clocks in two different inertial frames are running at the
same rate? If so why does some SRians claims that the passage of a
clock second in observer A's frames correspond to the passage of less
than a clock second in B's frame?
4. Some runts of the SRians says that the observed difference in rates
between the GPS clock and the ground clock is due to the GPS clock is
not inertial compared to the ground clock. Yet in real life the ground
clock is also not inertial. Does that mean that the observed
difference in the rates of the two clocks is due to the ground clock
is more inertial than the GPS clock? For that matter what is more
inertial mean?
5. An SR observer claims that he is in a state of rest and that's why
he asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
the rods moving wrt him are constracted. This assertion of the SR
observer claims that he is in a preferred frame. Is this what SR
claim? ALSO when the SR observer claims that he is in a state of
rest....wrt what he is at rest?
6. SR is based on the constancy of the one-way speed of light and yet
no direct one-way measurement of the speed of light ever been
performed. Why??
.
|
|
| User: "harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
30 Mar 2007 02:48:30 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured. Don't expect any such expert to be an expert
in *metaphysics*. Actually, contradictory articles continue to appear about
such issues in mainstream journals. And as is typical with such matters,
different people mean different things with the same words.
Have fun!
Harald
2. Time dilation:
Is the passage of a clock second in A's frame correspond to the
passage of a clock second in B's frame? IOW does a clock second in A's
frame has the same duration as a clock second in B's frame? If not how
can SR says that the speed of light is a universal constant when the
clock second use to define light speed is not an universal interval of
time?
3. Clock rate:
Are two clocks in two different inertial frames are running at the
same rate? If so why does some SRians claims that the passage of a
clock second in observer A's frames correspond to the passage of less
than a clock second in B's frame?
4. Some runts of the SRians says that the observed difference in rates
between the GPS clock and the ground clock is due to the GPS clock is
not inertial compared to the ground clock. Yet in real life the ground
clock is also not inertial. Does that mean that the observed
difference in the rates of the two clocks is due to the ground clock
is more inertial than the GPS clock? For that matter what is more
inertial mean?
5. An SR observer claims that he is in a state of rest and that's why
he asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
the rods moving wrt him are constracted. This assertion of the SR
observer claims that he is in a preferred frame. Is this what SR
claim? ALSO when the SR observer claims that he is in a state of
rest....wrt what he is at rest?
6. SR is based on the constancy of the one-way speed of light and yet
no direct one-way measurement of the speed of light ever been
performed. Why??
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
31 Mar 2007 09:49:44 AM |
|
|
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
31 Mar 2007 01:34:59 PM |
|
|
On 31 Mar 2007 07:49:44 -0700, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
By no means. Only the most vocal, self righteous, and hysterical.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
31 Mar 2007 03:19:11 PM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
01 Apr 2007 12:50:02 PM |
|
|
On 31 Mar 2007 13:19:11 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Oh goodoh. I've always wondered why the Drapers of this world spend
all their time lecturing on experiments but don't do any experiments.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
01 Apr 2007 01:17:21 PM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 12:50 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2007 13:19:11 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Oh goodoh. I've always wondered why the Drapers of this world spend
all their time lecturing on experiments but don't do any experiments.
:>)
I wonder why you've wasted all that time wondering about something
that isn't true.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
02 Apr 2007 11:30:59 AM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2007 11:17:21 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Oh goodoh. I've always wondered why the Drapers of this world spend
all their time lecturing on experiments but don't do any experiments.
I wonder why you've wasted all that time wondering about something
that isn't true.
True? Is that anything like "real"? Perhaps you'd care to define
"true"? Or even "real"? We can start out real slow. Maybe you should
begin by moving your lips. You know kinda like you do when you read?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
01 Apr 2007 07:56:12 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
PD
Did you really think this couldn't be done, Seto?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
02 Apr 2007 12:13:50 PM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 8:56 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Then why don't you SRians got all the government's money do it??
Did you really think this couldn't be done, Seto?- Hide quoted text -
Then do it!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
02 Apr 2007 01:09:16 PM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 12:13 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:56 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Then why don't you SRians got all the government's money do it??
Because, as I've pointed out to you before, experiments whose results
are no better than the collective results from other experiments
already performed are not approved, because it makes no sense to spend
government money on an experiment that does not advance the body of
knowledge. And there are custodians of the government's money whose
job it is to be familiar with the body of knowledge and to know when
an experimental proposal will not advance that.
There are results from sets of complementary experiments that amount
to effectively knowing the answer to this experiment before even
running it, and so it makes no sense to fund it.
It would be like having an experimental result that 8+3=11 and 8+3=12,
and then proposing that we run a check that 8+5=13.
Did you really think this couldn't be done, Seto?- Hide quoted text -
Then do it!!!!!!!!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 01:03:22 PM |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2007 11:09:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
because it makes no sense to spend
government money on an experiment that does not advance the body of
knowledge.
And which "body of knowledge" would that be exactly since for SR all
we seem to have at present is a body of data and not knowledge at all?
And there are custodians of the government's money whose
job it is to be familiar with the body of knowledge and to know when
an experimental proposal will not advance that.
Oh well isn't that just swell. "The government's money" indeed. And
here I thought it was the people's money. "Custodians"? And here I
thought Congress was the custodian of the people's money. And I'm sure
Congress could really give a rat's ***** which experiments in SR are
performed. So you must have some other benevolent custodian in mind
such as philosopher dentists like yourself whose infinite wisdom and
empirical pretensions represent the true guardian of government money
in science. My, Draper, but it seems an all too easy and rapid
transition from political socialism to academic scholastic fascism.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 03:00:16 PM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 1:03 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 11:09:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
because it makes no sense to spend
government money on an experiment that does not advance the body of
knowledge.
And which "body of knowledge" would that be exactly since for SR all
we seem to have at present is a body of data and not knowledge at all?
And there are custodians of the government's money whose
job it is to be familiar with the body of knowledge and to know when
an experimental proposal will not advance that.
Oh well isn't that just swell. "The government's money" indeed. And
here I thought it was the people's money. "Custodians"? And here I
thought Congress was the custodian of the people's money.
I see you understand government funding as well and as deeply as you
understand just about anything. You may want to ask somebody what the
Department of Energy or the National Science Foundation do, who their
employees work for, and how they review grant requests.
Unless of course you just want to babble and foam.
PD
And I'm sure
Congress could really give a rat's ***** which experiments in SR are
performed. So you must have some other benevolent custodian in mind
such as philosopher dentists like yourself whose infinite wisdom and
empirical pretensions represent the true guardian of government money
in science. My, Draper, but it seems an all too easy and rapid
transition from political socialism to academic scholastic fascism.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 01:33:35 PM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 2:03 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 2 Apr 2007 11:09:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
because it makes no sense to spend
government money on an experiment that does not advance the body of
knowledge.
And which "body of knowledge" would that be exactly since for SR all
we seem to have at present is a body of data and not knowledge at all?
Hmmm. Lester seems to have just ruled out all experiments of
all kinds as advancing the body of knowledge.
Let me see if I can explain this to you, Lester. Before
you do an experiment, you have a question: What happens
if I do this? You probably also have a hypothesis: I think
that so-and-so will happen if I do this. But after you
do the experiment, you have a piece of knowledge you
didn't have before: what actually happens when I do this.
Wondering what happens, predicting what should happen,
finding out what happens. Three different parts of
the advancement of knowledge.
Wait, you've also ruled out the "prediction" part,
dismissing it as fortune-telling, right? So to you
all that's left in "science" is sitting around the
cave wondering how the world acts, but being afraid
to actually find out?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
03 Apr 2007 07:15:51 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:56 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Then why don't you SRians got all the government's money do it??
Did you really think this couldn't be done, Seto?- Hide quoted text -
Then do it!!!!!!!!
How can you be so clueless, Seto? Do you think "they" stopped the
Moon's motion in order to measure its size from Earth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
03 Apr 2007 01:02:07 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 8:15 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:56 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Then why don't you SRians got all the government's money do it??
Did you really think this couldn't be done, Seto?- Hide quoted text -
Then do it!!!!!!!!
How can you be so clueless, Seto? Do you think "they" stopped the
Moon's motion in order to measure its size from Earth?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
03 Apr 2007 09:24:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on 3 Apr 2007 11:02:07 -0700
<1175623327.772799.166050@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
On Apr 3, 8:15 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:56 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Then why don't you SRians got all the government's money do it??
Did you really think this couldn't be done, Seto?- Hide quoted text -
Then do it!!!!!!!!
How can you be so clueless, Seto? Do you think "they" stopped the
Moon's motion in order to measure its size from Earth?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
Kenseto does have a point; all we're doing is measuring the round trip
time from here to the Moon -- a gigantic TLWS, if one will. That we can
draw any conclusions about the Moon's position from this is merely a,
ahem, reflection of the hypothesis that c is everywhere constant. :-)
--
#191,
Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
03 Apr 2007 10:37:01 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
Kenseto does have a point; all we're doing is measuring the round trip
time from here to the Moon -- a gigantic TLWS, if one will. That we can
draw any conclusions about the Moon's position from this is merely a,
ahem, reflection of the hypothesis that c is everywhere constant. :-)
*****--Bounce a laser of the moon and measure its distance. Use
Doppler shift to measure its radial velocity. Several measurements
of a period of time can be used to determine the elliptical orbit.
Just as a ruler is reliable for measuring short distances, pulsed
electromagnetic radiation is reliable for distances to the moon. You
can do both in the lab... you can use the laser to the moon.
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 12:04:30 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT
<x3FQh.30858$_c5.19459@attbi_s22>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
Kenseto does have a point; all we're doing is measuring the round trip
time from here to the Moon -- a gigantic TLWS, if one will. That we can
draw any conclusions about the Moon's position from this is merely a,
ahem, reflection of the hypothesis that c is everywhere constant. :-)
*****--Bounce a laser of the moon and measure its distance. Use
Doppler shift to measure its radial velocity. Several measurements
of a period of time can be used to determine the elliptical orbit.
Pedant Point: one has to use the modified SR variant of doppler shift:
v = (1 - (l0/l)^2)/(1 + (l0/l)^2)
and again that's not a direct measurement; that's a calculation.
A correct one, as far as we know, but a calculation nonetheless.
In any event, the actual raw data is in picoseconds.
Lambda is also given in units of either 0.1 nm or 1 nm,
though I'm not sure if that's the returned wavelength or
the outgoing wavelength. I would hope the former but I
don't know. A sensitive CCD device on a diffraction grating
would probably do for the lambda measurement.
Either way, both time and lambda are definitely
measurements. The data also includes some other
measurements, such as pressure and signal quality.
The measurements do not include velocity; that's an inference.
One might go either way regarding distance, as we've defined
lightspeed as constant (and for good reason); therefore,
time = distance and one can measure the Moon's distance to
a precision of 3/10 of a millimeter. I don't know the accuracy
offhand, but would hope it's comparable.
Just as a ruler is reliable for measuring short distances, pulsed
electromagnetic radiation is reliable for distances to the moon. You
can do both in the lab... you can use the laser to the moon.
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
A ruler has a certain measurement inaccuracy; a laser is
in fact better. Again, 1 picosecond is about 3/10 of a
millimeter. Absent additional equipment such as a screw
micrometer one would be very hardpressed to measure that
sort of accuracy with a ruler.
As for Kenseto...he's still working on your given problem. :-)
I've not seen a response therefrom regarding same yet.
--
#191,
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 12:54:16 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT
<x3FQh.30858$_c5.19459@attbi_s22>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
Kenseto does have a point; all we're doing is measuring the round trip
time from here to the Moon -- a gigantic TLWS, if one will. That we can
draw any conclusions about the Moon's position from this is merely a,
ahem, reflection of the hypothesis that c is everywhere constant. :-)
*****--Bounce a laser of the moon and measure its distance. Use
Doppler shift to measure its radial velocity. Several measurements
of a period of time can be used to determine the elliptical orbit.
Pedant Point: one has to use the modified SR variant of doppler shift:
v = (1 - (l0/l)^2)/(1 + (l0/l)^2)
and again that's not a direct measurement; that's a calculation.
A correct one, as far as we know, but a calculation nonetheless.
In any event, the actual raw data is in picoseconds.
Lambda is also given in units of either 0.1 nm or 1 nm,
though I'm not sure if that's the returned wavelength or
the outgoing wavelength. I would hope the former but I
don't know. A sensitive CCD device on a diffraction grating
would probably do for the lambda measurement.
Either way, both time and lambda are definitely
measurements. The data also includes some other
measurements, such as pressure and signal quality.
The measurements do not include velocity; that's an inference.
One might go either way regarding distance, as we've defined
lightspeed as constant (and for good reason); therefore,
time = distance and one can measure the Moon's distance to
a precision of 3/10 of a millimeter. I don't know the accuracy
offhand, but would hope it's comparable.
Just as a ruler is reliable for measuring short distances, pulsed
electromagnetic radiation is reliable for distances to the moon. You
can do both in the lab... you can use the laser to the moon.
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
A ruler has a certain measurement inaccuracy; a laser is
in fact better. Again, 1 picosecond is about 3/10 of a
millimeter. Absent additional equipment such as a screw
micrometer one would be very hardpressed to measure that
sort of accuracy with a ruler.
As for Kenseto...he's still working on your given problem. :-)
I've not seen a response therefrom regarding same yet.
For some reason, Seto, is afraid to spit out a number. :-\
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 08:16:08 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:54:16 GMT
<c4HQh.31813$oV.3477@attbi_s21>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT
<x3FQh.30858$_c5.19459@attbi_s22>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
Kenseto does have a point; all we're doing is measuring the round trip
time from here to the Moon -- a gigantic TLWS, if one will. That we can
draw any conclusions about the Moon's position from this is merely a,
ahem, reflection of the hypothesis that c is everywhere constant. :-)
*****--Bounce a laser of the moon and measure its distance. Use
Doppler shift to measure its radial velocity. Several measurements
of a period of time can be used to determine the elliptical orbit.
Pedant Point: one has to use the modified SR variant of doppler shift:
v = (1 - (l0/l)^2)/(1 + (l0/l)^2)
and again that's not a direct measurement; that's a calculation.
A correct one, as far as we know, but a calculation nonetheless.
In any event, the actual raw data is in picoseconds.
Lambda is also given in units of either 0.1 nm or 1 nm,
though I'm not sure if that's the returned wavelength or
the outgoing wavelength. I would hope the former but I
don't know. A sensitive CCD device on a diffraction grating
would probably do for the lambda measurement.
Either way, both time and lambda are definitely
measurements. The data also includes some other
measurements, such as pressure and signal quality.
The measurements do not include velocity; that's an inference.
One might go either way regarding distance, as we've defined
lightspeed as constant (and for good reason); therefore,
time = distance and one can measure the Moon's distance to
a precision of 3/10 of a millimeter. I don't know the accuracy
offhand, but would hope it's comparable.
Just as a ruler is reliable for measuring short distances, pulsed
electromagnetic radiation is reliable for distances to the moon. You
can do both in the lab... you can use the laser to the moon.
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
A ruler has a certain measurement inaccuracy; a laser is
in fact better. Again, 1 picosecond is about 3/10 of a
millimeter. Absent additional equipment such as a screw
micrometer one would be very hardpressed to measure that
sort of accuracy with a ruler.
As for Kenseto...he's still working on your given problem. :-)
I've not seen a response therefrom regarding same yet.
For some reason, Seto, is afraid to spit out a number. :-\
Indeed, although I for one would want to estimate the velocity given the
frequency ratio, since the latter is far easier to measure (because of
Frauenhofer lines).
In SR, one can use a variant of the formula above. In IRT the formulae
relating velocity and wavelength aren't even available, at least as far
as I've seen thus far; the best I can do is:
f_ab = f_aa * sqrt(Fab / (2 * Faa - Fab))
where, f_ab is the "instantaneous prediction" of the source
and Fab is the measured mean frequency of the source,
in A's frame as measured by B.
Of course how B can measure coordinates in A's frame is anyone's guess.
--
#191,
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
05 Apr 2007 09:49:10 AM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 9:16 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:54:16 GMT
<c4HQh.31813$oV.3477@attbi_s21>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT
<x3FQh.30858$_c5.19459@attbi_s22>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
Kenseto does have a point; all we're doing is measuring the round trip
time from here to the Moon -- a gigantic TLWS, if one will. That we can
draw any conclusions about the Moon's position from this is merely a,
ahem, reflection of the hypothesis that c is everywhere constant. :-)
*****--Bounce a laser of the moon and measure its distance. Use
Doppler shift to measure its radial velocity. Several measurements
of a period of time can be used to determine the elliptical orbit.
Pedant Point: one has to use the modified SR variant of doppler shift:
v = (1 - (l0/l)^2)/(1 + (l0/l)^2)
and again that's not a direct measurement; that's a calculation.
A correct one, as far as we know, but a calculation nonetheless.
In any event, the actual raw data is in picoseconds.
Lambda is also given in units of either 0.1 nm or 1 nm,
though I'm not sure if that's the returned wavelength or
the outgoing wavelength. I would hope the former but I
don't know. A sensitive CCD device on a diffraction grating
would probably do for the lambda measurement.
Either way, both time and lambda are definitely
measurements. The data also includes some other
measurements, such as pressure and signal quality.
The measurements do not include velocity; that's an inference.
One might go either way regarding distance, as we've defined
lightspeed as constant (and for good reason); therefore,
time = distance and one can measure the Moon's distance to
a precision of 3/10 of a millimeter. I don't know the accuracy
offhand, but would hope it's comparable.
Just as a ruler is reliable for measuring short distances, pulsed
electromagnetic radiation is reliable for distances to the moon. You
can do both in the lab... you can use the laser to the moon.
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
A ruler has a certain measurement inaccuracy; a laser is
in fact better. Again, 1 picosecond is about 3/10 of a
millimeter. Absent additional equipment such as a screw
micrometer one would be very hardpressed to measure that
sort of accuracy with a ruler.
As for Kenseto...he's still working on your given problem. :-)
I've not seen a response therefrom regarding same yet.
For some reason, Seto, is afraid to spit out a number. :-\
Indeed, although I for one would want to estimate the velocity given the
frequency ratio, since the latter is far easier to measure (because of
Frauenhofer lines).
In SR, one can use a variant of the formula above. In IRT the formulae
relating velocity and wavelength aren't even available, at least as far
as I've seen thus far; the best I can do is:
f_ab = f_aa * sqrt(Fab / (2 * Faa - Fab))
where, f_ab is the "instantaneous prediction" of the source
and Fab is the measured mean frequency of the source,
in A's frame as measured by B.
Of course how B can measure coordinates in A's frame is anyone's guess.
Hey idiot runt how many times do I have to tell you that Fab is the
mean frequency of B's standard light source *as measured by A*.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
06 Apr 2007 12:43:28 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on 5 Apr 2007 07:49:10 -0700
<1175784550.031264.258050@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
On Apr 4, 9:16 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:54:16 GMT
<c4HQh.31813$oV.3477@attbi_s21>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<sworml...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT
<x3FQh.30858$_c5.19459@attbi_s22>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
Kenseto does have a point; all we're doing is measuring the round trip
time from here to the Moon -- a gigantic TLWS, if one will. That we can
draw any conclusions about the Moon's position from this is merely a,
ahem, reflection of the hypothesis that c is everywhere constant. :-)
*****--Bounce a laser of the moon and measure its distance. Use
Doppler shift to measure its radial velocity. Several measurements
of a period of time can be used to determine the elliptical orbit.
Pedant Point: one has to use the modified SR variant of doppler shift:
v = (1 - (l0/l)^2)/(1 + (l0/l)^2)
and again that's not a direct measurement; that's a calculation.
A correct one, as far as we know, but a calculation nonetheless.
In any event, the actual raw data is in picoseconds.
Lambda is also given in units of either 0.1 nm or 1 nm,
though I'm not sure if that's the returned wavelength or
the outgoing wavelength. I would hope the former but I
don't know. A sensitive CCD device on a diffraction grating
would probably do for the lambda measurement.
Either way, both time and lambda are definitely
measurements. The data also includes some other
measurements, such as pressure and signal quality.
The measurements do not include velocity; that's an inference.
One might go either way regarding distance, as we've defined
lightspeed as constant (and for good reason); therefore,
time = distance and one can measure the Moon's distance to
a precision of 3/10 of a millimeter. I don't know the accuracy
offhand, but would hope it's comparable.
Just as a ruler is reliable for measuring short distances, pulsed
electromagnetic radiation is reliable for distances to the moon. You
can do both in the lab... you can use the laser to the moon.
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
A ruler has a certain measurement inaccuracy; a laser is
in fact better. Again, 1 picosecond is about 3/10 of a
millimeter. Absent additional equipment such as a screw
micrometer one would be very hardpressed to measure that
sort of accuracy with a ruler.
As for Kenseto...he's still working on your given problem. :-)
I've not seen a response therefrom regarding same yet.
For some reason, Seto, is afraid to spit out a number. :-\
Indeed, although I for one would want to estimate the velocity given the
frequency ratio, since the latter is far easier to measure (because of
Frauenhofer lines).
In SR, one can use a variant of the formula above. In IRT the formulae
relating velocity and wavelength aren't even available, at least as far
as I've seen thus far; the best I can do is:
f_ab = f_aa * sqrt(Fab / (2 * Faa - Fab))
where, f_ab is the "instantaneous prediction" of the source
and Fab is the measured mean frequency of the source,
in A's frame as measured by B.
Of course how B can measure coordinates in A's frame is anyone's guess.
Hey idiot runt how many times do I have to tell you that Fab is the
mean frequency of B's standard light source *as measured by A*.
Thank you; my memory is not always perfect. :-) However, are you
referring to geometric or arithmetic mean here?
--
#191,
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 11:54:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
And who would you prefer should rot his brain?
~v~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 08:42:05 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick
<dontbother@nowhere.net>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:54:24 -0700
<d0m713pfgltgovmn2nl2ockk6cgb8gs2rt@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
And who would you prefer should rot his brain?
~v~~
Oh you're funny. :-P
--
#191,
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
05 Apr 2007 12:25:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:42:05 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick
<dontbother@nowhere.net>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:54:24 -0700
<d0m713pfgltgovmn2nl2ockk6cgb8gs2rt@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
And who would you prefer should rot his brain?
~v~~
Oh you're funny. :-P
Thanks, Ghost. Wit like a motions to adjourn is always in order.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 10:11:29 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick
<dontbother@nowhere.net>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:54:24 -0700
<d0m713pfgltgovmn2nl2ockk6cgb8gs2rt@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
And who would you prefer should rot his brain?
~v~~
Oh you're funny. :-P
Lester just seeks attention... he is insignificant... pay no
attention to him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
06 Apr 2007 12:44:14 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:11:29 GMT
<BNZQh.32879$_c5.30910@attbi_s22>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick
<dontbother@nowhere.net>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:54:24 -0700
<d0m713pfgltgovmn2nl2ockk6cgb8gs2rt@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
And who would you prefer should rot his brain?
~v~~
Oh you're funny. :-P
Lester just seeks attention... he is insignificant... pay no
attention to him.
Is he behind a curtain? :-) ;-) :-)
In any event, my brain is not rotted yet. :-)
--
#191,
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
06 Apr 2007 05:15:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:44:14 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:11:29 GMT
<BNZQh.32879$_c5.30910@attbi_s22>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick
<dontbother@nowhere.net>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:54:24 -0700
<d0m713pfgltgovmn2nl2ockk6cgb8gs2rt@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
And who would you prefer should rot his brain?
~v~~
Oh you're funny. :-P
Lester just seeks attention... he is insignificant... pay no
attention to him.
Of course Lester is insignificant. Just not so insignificant as Play
it again, Sam, Draper, and Stringfellow Bob. By all means pay no
attention to Lester. Pay attention to Sam. Why? Because he says so.
Is he behind a curtain? :-) ;-) :-)
In any event, my brain is not rotted yet. :-)
Sam can always hope for the best.
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Zick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
14 Apr 2007 06:10:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:11:29 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick
<dontbother@nowhere.net>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:54:24 -0700
<d0m713pfgltgovmn2nl2ockk6cgb8gs2rt@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:37:01 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Ghost--don't let Seto rot your brain!
And who would you prefer should rot his brain?
~v~~
Oh you're funny. :-P
Lester just seeks attention...
Natcherly. I just prefer not to get it by measuring other guys rods.
he is insignificant... pay no attention to him.
All contributions gratefully accepted
~v~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
04 Apr 2007 07:51:49 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:15 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:56 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:49 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:48 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:
"kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Most of the arguements in these NG are the results of the runts of the
SRians (such as Eric Gisse, PD, Sam Wormley, ghost, and Vdm) keep on
saying that "that's not what SR says" and at the same time each will
give different anwsers as to what SR is really saying. So my
suggestion is: why don't the real SR experts such as Tom Roberts or
Paul Andersen give answers to the following questions so that we
cranks can use them as reference to what SR is really saying.
Good start! But your choice of who are and who are not real experts seems a
bit arbitrary to me.
I had to pick somebody. They seem to be most knowledgeable.
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame? If it is real physical contraction then
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod? Also
how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Here you go wrong: SR isn't saying anything about such things, insted it
predicts what will be measured.
How do they measure the length of a moving rod?
There are multiple ways to do this, Ken.
I've suggested several design options for you, including firing a line
of cameras simultaneously, where the firing signal is sent from a
common trigger through equal-length delay lines to all the cameras.
Then why don't you SRians got all the government's money do it??
Did you really think this couldn't be done, Seto?- Hide quoted text -
Then do it!!!!!!!!
How can you be so clueless, Seto? Do you think "they" stopped the
Moon's motion in order to measure its size from Earth?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hey idiot it is not a measurement. It is an estimation based on the SR
theory.
That must be the way it works in Setoland. Outside Setoland,
measurements are simply comparisons against standards which are effected
with absolutely no involvement of theories.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
29 Mar 2007 04:47:01 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1175202236.703773.116290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[snip rant]
6. SR is based on the constancy of the one-way speed of light and yet
no direct one-way measurement of the speed of light ever been
performed. Why??
Because we want to keep the most stupid people on the
planet as ignorant as possible.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Some questions the SR experts need to clarify |
29 Mar 2007 05:25:26 PM |
|
|
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame?
Depends on the meaning of the words *you* use. In MANY SR books, the
meaning of the words used are nebulous and ill defined which is why
there are many confusions even among professional Relativists.
Length contraction is a *measured* effect. A rod traveling will have a
measured length to be shorter than its proper length. This measured
length is called "length".
how come there is no real physical expansion of the observed rod?
Define "real, physical".
Also how come the return rod will remain the same length when it rejoins
with the observer's rod.
Such questions are irrelevant in SR. SR predicts that a rod at rest
will have a measured length equal to its proper length.
Same thing about time and clocks. Its about *measurements*.
5. An SR observer claims that he is in a state of rest and that's why
he asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
the rods moving wrt him are contracted. This assertion of the SR
observer claims that he is in a preferred frame. Is this what SR
claim?
Some books might claim that and some dont. Depends on what the author
means.
ALSO when the SR observer claims that he is in a state of
rest....wrt what he is at rest?
Depends of the context. It would seem to mean that he is at rest wrt
himself.
6. SR is based on the constancy of the one-way speed of light and yet
no direct one-way measurement of the speed of light ever been
performed. Why??
It has not been performed bcause there has been no feasible
experiments proposed (yet), and a few other reasons...
.
|
|
|
|
