| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2006 09:47:43 AM |
| Object: |
The reason why SR is incomplete |
An SR observer declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This is the reason why SR
is incomplete. Why? Because the only observer who can claim that is the
observer who is in a state of absolute rest. Since no observer is in a
state of absolute rest then SR is valid only if the observed frame is
in a higher state of absolute motion then the observer. This is the
reason why SR is valid in accelerator design applications.
In real life all observers are in different states of absolute motion.
Therefore an observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow and some of the clocks moving wrt him are running fast.
This new interpretation leads to a new theory of relativity called IRT.
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT
are valid in all environments, including gravity. A desciprion of IRT
is in the paper entitled "Unification pf Physics" (page 4) in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
10 Oct 2006 09:53:35 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse
<jowr.pi@gmail.com>
wrote
on 7 Oct 2006 16:07:57 -0700
<1160262477.166039.246240@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
[...]
Since each observer measures a different amount of "absolute rest", the
notion is worthless of the state of rest isn't absolute if you shift to
a different reference frame.
ROTFLOL...."measures a different amount of "absolute rest" indeed. You
are a moron.
It is a wast of time talking to an indoctrinated idiot like you.
Answer these questions:
What is the justification that enables an SR observer to claim that all
the clocks in the universe moving wrt him are running slow? Doesn't
that mean that the SR observer's clock is the preferred clock....the
fastest running clock in the universe?
You have got to be shitting me. That is the stupidest question I have
read all day.
NO KEN, IT DOES NOT MEAN THE OBSERVER'S CLOCK IS THE PREFERRED CLOCK
BECAUSE THERE CAN BE AS MANY OBSERVERS AS YOU WANT IN SPECIAL
RELATIVITY, WITH EACH SEEING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Hey idiot....each SR observer sees the same thing. Each SR observer
will say that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and this
assertion of SR places each SR observer in a preferred frame. You
really need to learn what SR says.
Really?!
You think I am the one who needs to learn what SR says?
But of course; after all, kenseto wrote a book on the subject, making
him an Esteemed Author. :-) (Or maybe just a Steamed Author. I'm not
quite sure which.)
You are the one
asserting each SR observer will see the SAME THING which isn't even
remotely close to being true.
I'm not sure what kenseto is on about here. Part of
the proble, of course, is that an observer moving with
respect to a clock has to be able to *observe* that clock.
Most observers use light rays (one could use sound, but
it's not nearly as fast, in some contexts), and therefore,
since the clock is moving, there is a delay between the
clock ticking off a second and the observer seeing it.
This delay, in SR, yields the ratio
sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) (if the source is moving directly
away). If the clock is approaching v changes sign and
the ratio, elegantly enough, becomes the reciprocal.
Hey idiot....when are you going to learn that an SR observer will see
all the clocks moving wrt him are running at a slower rate of t/gamma.
What you give above is doppler shift .....not clock rate.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
11 Oct 2006 01:00:12 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on 10 Oct 2006 07:53:35 -0700
<1160492015.729660.158290@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse
<jowr.pi@gmail.com>
wrote
on 7 Oct 2006 16:07:57 -0700
<1160262477.166039.246240@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[snip]
You are the one
asserting each SR observer will see the SAME THING which isn't even
remotely close to being true.
I'm not sure what kenseto is on about here. Part of
the proble, of course, is that an observer moving with
respect to a clock has to be able to *observe* that clock.
Most observers use light rays (one could use sound, but
it's not nearly as fast, in some contexts), and therefore,
since the clock is moving, there is a delay between the
clock ticking off a second and the observer seeing it.
This delay, in SR, yields the ratio
sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) (if the source is moving directly
away). If the clock is approaching v changes sign and
the ratio, elegantly enough, becomes the reciprocal.
Hey idiot....when are you going to learn that an SR observer will see
all the clocks moving wrt him are running at a slower rate of t/gamma.
What you give above is doppler shift .....not clock rate.
Define "see".
Proper observation of the clock moving towards or away
from the observer involves several issues. The simplest
method, of course, is to use light, and incur a delay
L/c, where L is the distance between clock and observer.
Since the clock is moving additional complications ensue,
as L changes with respect to time -- and the observer
and clock are already temporally separated; good luck
in getting them to agree what time "it" is when the
observation is in progress.
Were one in possession of an "instantaneous ray", which
would be faster than light, one might be able to see a
moving clock running slow thereby. However, the best
we can do is photons, at least AFAIK.
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 09:47:02 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot....each SR observer sees the same thing. Each SR observer
will say that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and this
assertion of SR places each SR observer in a preferred frame. You
really need to learn what SR says.
Ken seto
Time dilation occurs with the relative motion between frames
is non-zero. <- Period! The equations of SR correctly predict
the magnitude of the dilation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 05:00:07 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:47:02 GMT
<G5PVg.185878$FQ1.17605@attbi_s71>:
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot....each SR observer sees the same thing. Each SR observer
will say that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and this
assertion of SR places each SR observer in a preferred frame. You
really need to learn what SR says.
Ken seto
Time dilation occurs with the relative motion between frames
is non-zero. <- Period! The equations of SR correctly predict
the magnitude of the dilation.
Pedant Point:
The clocks *cannot* always be observed to be running
slow, because the observations are using lightspeed,
which injects a rather nasty factor into the observations.
It turns out that the ratio is
sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
for a light source moving away from the observer with
speed v > 0, and
sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
for a light source moving towards him with speed v > 0.
The derivation of these from the Lorentz is left to the
interested reader; it's fairly straightforward.
Were an observer capable of instantaneous observation,
one might be able to see the time dilation directly,
but because the observation of a clock L units away (as
determined by the observer) has a delay of L/c, one gets
the above equations, not something like
1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
as one might naively expect.
This is regardless of absolute motion of both observer
and light source, of course.
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
10 Oct 2006 09:21:05 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot....each SR observer sees the same thing. Each SR observer
will say that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and this
assertion of SR places each SR observer in a preferred frame. You
really need to learn what SR says.
Ken seto
Time dilation occurs with the relative motion between frames
is non-zero. <- Period! The equations of SR correctly predict
the magnitude of the dilation.
Hey idiot runt.....between A and B in relative motion whose clock is
doing the time dilation????????????????
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 09:41:19 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 01:40:08 PM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 02:50:23 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
Holy Cow! NO "not moving"! Seto, you finally understand that motion
is completely relative!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 02:40:55 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
Well, there you have it. Seto finally recants absolute rest and thus
absolute velocity. No possible logic admits the latter without the
former.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 04:31:52 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
And that there's no way to distinguish between a
sodium source moving wrt my apparatus, and one
which isn't?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 08:50:32 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
And that there's no way to distinguish between a
sodium source moving wrt my apparatus, and one
which isn't?
The way to distinguish between a moving sodium source and a sodium
source that is staionary with you is by the frequency shift and the
cause of the frequency shift is due to the varying speed of the
incoming sodium light and the varying speed of the incoming light is
due to your absolute motion wrt the incoming light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 10:41:12 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
Yes. And I said that therefore everybody could use a stationary
(with respect to their apparatus) sodium source to calibrate their
diffraction grating, and that they would then all have the same
calibration on their grating.
Got it? We're talking about everybody doing the same experiment
with stationary sodium (in their frame). It doesn't matter if the
experimenters are in motion relative to each other. The laws of
physics are the same.
Now what I then said, that seems to puzzle the hell out of you,
is that if they then use this grating to measure emission from
sodium which is IN MOTION RELATIVE TO the apparatus,
they will measure a different value for the wavelength of the
moving source.
The important parameter is velocity of the sodium RELATIVE TO
the grating. Everybody measures 589 nm when that RELATIVE
velocity is zero. Everybody measures something different from
589 nm when that RELATIVE velocity is nonzero.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 05:41:10 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160235672.924438.296300@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while
they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted
that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
Yes. And I said that therefore everybody could use a stationary
(with respect to their apparatus) sodium source to calibrate their
diffraction grating, and that they would then all have the same
calibration on their grating.
Got it? We're talking about everybody doing the same experiment
with stationary sodium (in their frame). It doesn't matter if the
experimenters are in motion relative to each other. The laws of
physics are the same.
Now what I then said, that seems to puzzle the hell out of you,
is that if they then use this grating to measure emission from
sodium which is IN MOTION RELATIVE TO the apparatus,
they will measure a different value for the wavelength of the
moving source.
The important parameter is velocity of the sodium RELATIVE TO
the grating. Everybody measures 589 nm when that RELATIVE
velocity is zero. Everybody measures something different from
589 nm when that RELATIVE velocity is nonzero.
- Randy
And if it be so, all that you say is made dependably so because of a
certain particular independent and its certain independence.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 06:18:15 PM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:OemdnVVGBPZisbXYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160235672.924438.296300@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates
while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted
that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do
you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
Yes. And I said that therefore everybody could use a stationary
(with respect to their apparatus) sodium source to calibrate their
diffraction grating, and that they would then all have the same
calibration on their grating.
Got it? We're talking about everybody doing the same experiment
with stationary sodium (in their frame). It doesn't matter if the
experimenters are in motion relative to each other. The laws of
physics are the same.
Now what I then said, that seems to puzzle the hell out of you,
is that if they then use this grating to measure emission from
sodium which is IN MOTION RELATIVE TO the apparatus,
they will measure a different value for the wavelength of the
moving source.
The important parameter is velocity of the sodium RELATIVE TO
the grating. Everybody measures 589 nm when that RELATIVE
velocity is zero. Everybody measures something different from
589 nm when that RELATIVE velocity is nonzero.
- Randy
And if it be so, all that you say is made dependably so because of a
certain particular independent and its certain independence.
GLB
I should not have narrowed it down so much. If it be so, all that you say
is made dependably so because of certain particular independents [in] and
[via] their certain independence.
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 06:38:38 PM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:lpWdnbM1cpwyqLXYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:OemdnVVGBPZisbXYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160235672.924438.296300@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates
while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you
insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do
you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
Yes. And I said that therefore everybody could use a stationary
(with respect to their apparatus) sodium source to calibrate their
diffraction grating, and that they would then all have the same
calibration on their grating.
Got it? We're talking about everybody doing the same experiment
with stationary sodium (in their frame). It doesn't matter if the
experimenters are in motion relative to each other. The laws of
physics are the same.
Now what I then said, that seems to puzzle the hell out of you,
is that if they then use this grating to measure emission from
sodium which is IN MOTION RELATIVE TO the apparatus,
they will measure a different value for the wavelength of the
moving source.
The important parameter is velocity of the sodium RELATIVE TO
the grating. Everybody measures 589 nm when that RELATIVE
velocity is zero. Everybody measures something different from
589 nm when that RELATIVE velocity is nonzero.
- Randy
And if it be so, all that you say is made dependably so because of a
certain particular independent and its certain independence.
GLB
I should not have narrowed it down so much. If it be so, all that you say
is made dependably so because of certain particular independents [in] and
[via] their certain independence.
GLB
...their peculiarly certain independence.
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
10 Oct 2006 09:49:30 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
Yes. And I said that therefore everybody could use a stationary
(with respect to their apparatus) sodium source to calibrate their
diffraction grating, and that they would then all have the same
calibration on their grating.
Got it? We're talking about everybody doing the same experiment
with stationary sodium (in their frame). It doesn't matter if the
experimenters are in motion relative to each other. The laws of
physics are the same.
Right....that's the reason why I said that the wavelength of sodium is
defined to be a universal constant by all observers.
Now what I then said, that seems to puzzle the hell out of you,
is that if they then use this grating to measure emission from
sodium which is IN MOTION RELATIVE TO the apparatus,
they will measure a different value for the wavelength of the
moving source.
It didn't puzzle me at all. Your assume the observed frequency shift is
due to wavelength change and I said that frequency shift of incoming
light is due to varying speed of incoming light. What I said is more
valid. Why? Because there is nothing that can change the
wavelength.....OTOH the speed of the incoming light is affected by the
absolute motion of the observer.
You are going to argue that : But the wavelength of the incoming light
is measured to be changed. This arguement is bogus. What you are doing
is defining a wavelength for a new light source (the incoming light) in
your frame.
The important parameter is velocity of the sodium RELATIVE TO
the grating. Everybody measures 589 nm when that RELATIVE
velocity is zero. Everybody measures something different from
589 nm when that RELATIVE velocity is nonzero.
589 nm is a universal constant for sodium. It doesn't change. Frequency
shift of the incoming sodium light is due to the absolute motion of the
detect wrt the sodium light in the ether.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
10 Oct 2006 10:19:01 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
Yes. And I said that therefore everybody could use a stationary
(with respect to their apparatus) sodium source to calibrate their
diffraction grating, and that they would then all have the same
calibration on their grating.
Got it? We're talking about everybody doing the same experiment
with stationary sodium (in their frame). It doesn't matter if the
experimenters are in motion relative to each other. The laws of
physics are the same.
Right....that's the reason why I said that the wavelength of sodium is
defined to be a universal constant by all observers.
And that statement is still incorrect.
However, a STATIONARY sodium source *could* be used as
a length standard to calibrate a grating. It would not be
as accurate as other methods. That's why your statement
is not correct, because it isn't in fact used that way.
But the problem is that you then want to claim that when
sodium is moving, the calibration procedure will force
the wavelength measurement to STILL be about 589 nm.
That's utterly ridiculous, and perhaps connected to
your inability to keep it straight when I say "this is
moving, this is not moving".
Now what I then said, that seems to puzzle the hell out of you,
is that if they then use this grating to measure emission from
sodium which is IN MOTION RELATIVE TO the apparatus,
they will measure a different value for the wavelength of the
moving source.
It didn't puzzle me at all. Your assume the observed frequency shift is
due to wavelength change
You observe the wavelength change.
There is no frequency measurement with a diffraction
grating. I measure an angle, and I calculate a wavelength
from it. I make no assumptions about speed or frequency
in doing that. A given angle corresponds to a given
wavelength.
When the sodium is in motion, the angle changes.
That is impossible without a wavelength change.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
10 Oct 2006 03:13:13 PM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
Yes. And I said that therefore everybody could use a stationary
(with respect to their apparatus) sodium source to calibrate their
diffraction grating, and that they would then all have the same
calibration on their grating.
Got it? We're talking about everybody doing the same experiment
with stationary sodium (in their frame). It doesn't matter if the
experimenters are in motion relative to each other. The laws of
physics are the same.
Right....that's the reason why I said that the wavelength of sodium is
defined to be a universal constant by all observers.
And that statement is still incorrect.
No the statement is perfectly correct.
However, a STATIONARY sodium source *could* be used as
a length standard to calibrate a grating. It would not be
as accurate as other methods. That's why your statement
is not correct, because it isn't in fact used that way.
It is not used as standard. The distance between the gratings (d) is
used as standard. That distance is measured with a physical ruler. The
grating is used to define the wavelength of all light sources at rest
wrt you......including the incoming light. Once you determined the
wavelength of the incoming light then you go to the spectrum and
identify the source of that light Once you identied the source then
you would know the orginal wavelength and from that you determine the
speed of the incoming light.
But the problem is that you then want to claim that when
sodium is moving, the calibration procedure will force
the wavelength measurement to STILL be about 589 nm.
There is no problem......a wave of sodium light is defined to be a
universal constant be all observers. Since there is nothing that
changes this wavelength therefore the observed frequency change nust be
due to different speed of incoming light and the different speed of the
incoming light is due to the absolute motion of the detector wrt the
incoming light.
That's utterly ridiculous, and perhaps connected to
your inability to keep it straight when I say "this is
moving, this is not moving".
Not at all.....it is ridiculus to assume that the wavelength of the
incoming light is changed rather than that the speed of the incoming
light is changed.
Now what I then said, that seems to puzzle the hell out of you,
is that if they then use this grating to measure emission from
sodium which is IN MOTION RELATIVE TO the apparatus,
they will measure a different value for the wavelength of the
moving source.
It didn't puzzle me at all. Your assume the observed frequency shift is
due to wavelength change
You observe the wavelength change.
There is no frequency measurement with a diffraction
grating. I measure an angle, and I calculate a wavelength
from it. I make no assumptions about speed or frequency
in doing that. A given angle corresponds to a given
wavelength.
As I told you above the grating is used to define a light source at
rest wrt you. Once you identified the source of the incoming light you
must use its orginal wavelength to determine the speed of the incoming
light.
When the sodium is in motion, the angle changes.
That is impossible without a wavelength change.
Not at all.....it is impossible that the wavelength of the incoming
light is changing to maintain the same speed for the incoming light.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
07 Oct 2006 09:39:34 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Uh, that is a known result of SR.
Uh that means that they were running at different rates while they were
apart.
Yes Ken, we all know that.
Nothing new here.
Sure there is something new here........before this you insisted that
they are running at the same rate.
You really CAN'T keep straight the difference between
"moving" and "not moving", can you?
You really don't understand that there is NO "not moving".....do you?
You really think there's no such thing as "a sodium source
that is stationary relative to my apparatus"?
So what? Your apparatus that is stationary with your sodium source will
define a wavelength for sodium in your frame.
And that there's no way to distinguish between a
sodium source moving wrt my apparatus, and one
which isn't?
The way to distinguish between a moving sodium source and a sodium
source that is staionary with you is by the frequency shift and the
cause of the frequency shift is due to the varying speed of the
incoming sodium light and the varying speed of the incoming light is
due to your absolute motion wrt the incoming light.
o Choose a frame of reference
o Observer stationary - Light source moving away at v
o Light source stationary - Observer moving away at v
o Identical Doppler shift.
o Speed of light remains a constant c for all observations
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
06 Oct 2006 04:34:00 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
We are going around in circle.
We?
Does an SR observer says that in his
"Does an observer says..."?
There are only observers. None of them are SR observers.
rest frame he sees all the clcoks moving wrt him are running slow?
No. It says, for one thing, that, for _any_ arbitrary pair of
observers selected from all of them that are moving hither and yon, in
the moment of passing, where the component of motion along the line
between them is zero, each observer will see the other's clock as
running slower than his. This surprises naive observers.
When that component along the line joining them is non-zero it gets
slightly more complicated and each can observe the other's clock as
running slower or faster than his own due to the Doppler effect but
slower than they would expect if they didn't know about SR. If they
are zooming toward each other, each will see the other's clock ticking
faster (by the same amount) but not as fast as they would expect if
they didn't know about SR.
If
yes what is the rest frame of the observer mean if it not a state of
absolute rest?
The situation is observationally symmetric regardless of the motion of
the two observers with respect to _any_ other. If they both see the
same thing looking at each other regardless of the pair chosen, which
among all of them is at your absolute rest?
Why does it matter where I learn SR. What is important is: What I said
is correctly describe what SR implies.
"What I said is correctly describe..."? Did you learn English the
same place you learned SR?
You would have to know what SR says to know what it implies. You have
never demonstrated that knowledge. Your misconceptions lead to
misimplications.
An observer up at the GPS location would measure the SR effect on the
ground clcok to be running fast.
Do you think that is what SR says? Should you read and work through
it you will be surprised to find that it says that the "SR effect"
will make it look always to be running slower than it would without it.
Try to limit your examples to ones that SR can actually apply to.
It applies to the GPS.
Sure does but you don't know how to apply it.
SR says: At the rest frame of the observer he sees all the clcoks
moving wrt him are running slow.
No it doesn't.
Clearly what that imply is that the
observer is in the absolute rest frame.
"...what that imply..."?
What it actually does say doesn't imply that at all, clearly or
otherwise. You don't have a clue what it actually says.
You are too indontinated to learn.
What's "indontinated"?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: The reason why SR is incomplete |
30 Sep 2006 12:13:41 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Unread and snipped babble by Ken Seto
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
-----
Sue...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
