| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John Ryskamp" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2005 01:33:46 AM |
| Object: |
What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
The Italian and French translations of the following Einstein text,
alter his German, but Lawson's translation of this passage of
RELATIVITY, is accurate:
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events
A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be
the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just
when the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the
diagram with the velocity v of the train.
We know from Einstein's introduction to this passage that he assumes a
Euclidean definition of the coincidence of points: a point. Note that
a problem arises if the term is simply dropped. He also assumes that
two parallel Cartesian coordinate systems coincide in one such
system, so that if we simply drop the "naturally" (the original
German is "fallt zwar...zusammen"), we have a contradiction, because
Einstein has told us to assume two coordinate systems, and by
dropping the "naturally" we have one such system.
The question is: where does Einstein give a meaning to a point which
"naturally" coincides with another? And please try to find it in
EINSTEIN, not in your own ideas.
John Ryskamp
philneo2001@yahoo.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
24 Feb 2005 01:55:16 PM |
|
|
"John Ryskamp" <philneo2001@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:421d835a$1_2@127.0.0.1...
The Italian and French translations of the following Einstein text,
alter his German, but Lawson's translation of this passage of
RELATIVITY, is accurate:
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events
A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be
the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just
when the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the
diagram with the velocity v of the train.
We know from Einstein's introduction to this passage that he assumes a
Euclidean definition of the coincidence of points: a point. Note that
a problem arises if the term is simply dropped. He also assumes that
two parallel Cartesian coordinate systems coincide in one such
system, so that if we simply drop the "naturally" (the original
German is "fallt zwar...zusammen"), we have a contradiction, because
Einstein has told us to assume two coordinate systems, and by
dropping the "naturally" we have one such system.
The question is: where does Einstein give a meaning to a point which
"naturally" coincides with another? And please try to find it in
EINSTEIN, not in your own ideas.
John Ryskamp
philneo2001@yahoo.com
The German word "zwar" translates to English as "indeed"
and could be also replaced with "in fact" or "all by itself"
or "naturally" or "of course". Pick anything.
The best Dutch translation of "zwar" would be "zowaar"
(the words are obviously related), but "automatisch" or
even "natuurlijk" would be perfect as well.
Is your mothertongue Dutch or German? Or English?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Feb 2005 05:11:54 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EiqTd.20104$SB6.2584683@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"John Ryskamp" <philneo2001@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:421d835a$1_2@127.0.0.1...
The Italian and French translations of the following Einstein text,
alter his German, but Lawson's translation of this passage of
RELATIVITY, is accurate:
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events
A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be
the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just
when the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the
diagram with the velocity v of the train.
We know from Einstein's introduction to this passage that he assumes a
Euclidean definition of the coincidence of points: a point. Note that
a problem arises if the term is simply dropped. He also assumes that
two parallel Cartesian coordinate systems coincide in one such
system, so that if we simply drop the "naturally" (the original
German is "fallt zwar...zusammen"), we have a contradiction, because
Einstein has told us to assume two coordinate systems, and by
dropping the "naturally" we have one such system.
The question is: where does Einstein give a meaning to a point which
"naturally" coincides with another? And please try to find it in
EINSTEIN, not in your own ideas.
John Ryskamp
philneo2001@yahoo.com
The German word "zwar" translates to English as "indeed"
and could be also replaced with "in fact" or "all by itself"
or "naturally" or "of course". Pick anything.
The best Dutch translation of "zwar" would be "zowaar"
(the words are obviously related), but "automatisch" or
even "natuurlijk" would be perfect as well.
Is your mothertongue Dutch or German? Or English?
Dirk Vdm
To John...
Actually, there is another context in which the Dutch word
"zowaar" and the German word "zwar" are used, and perhaps
that is even more appropriate.
From a purely linguistic point of view, leaving the context
entirely out of it, you could translate a sentence like
"... und X fallt zwar zusammen mit Y ..."
as
"... and, TaDaaaa... it turns out that X coincides with Y ..."
or as
"... and, lo and behold, we find that X coincides with Y ..."
which just *states* the fact that they coincide but without
*qualifying* or providing reasons for the coincidence.
Those who are interested, can find further qualifications
and/or the reasons elsewhere.
See what I mean?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
27 Feb 2005 07:25:43 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:421f0885$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EiqTd.20104$SB6.2584683@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"John Ryskamp" <philneo2001@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:421d835a$1_2@127.0.0.1...
The Italian and French translations of the following Einstein text,
alter his German, but Lawson's translation of this passage of
RELATIVITY, is accurate:
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment. But the events
A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be
the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just
when the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the
diagram with the velocity v of the train.
We know from Einstein's introduction to this passage that he assumes a
Euclidean definition of the coincidence of points: a point. Note that
a problem arises if the term is simply dropped. He also assumes that
two parallel Cartesian coordinate systems coincide in one such
system, so that if we simply drop the "naturally" (the original
German is "fallt zwar...zusammen"), we have a contradiction, because
Einstein has told us to assume two coordinate systems, and by
dropping the "naturally" we have one such system.
The question is: where does Einstein give a meaning to a point which
"naturally" coincides with another? And please try to find it in
EINSTEIN, not in your own ideas.
John Ryskamp
philneo2001@yahoo.com
The German word "zwar" translates to English as "indeed"
and could be also replaced with "in fact" or "all by itself"
or "naturally" or "of course". Pick anything.
The best Dutch translation of "zwar" would be "zowaar"
(the words are obviously related), but "automatisch" or
even "natuurlijk" would be perfect as well.
Is your mothertongue Dutch or German? Or English?
Dirk Vdm
To John...
Actually, there is another context in which the Dutch word
"zowaar" and the German word "zwar" are used, and perhaps
that is even more appropriate.
From a purely linguistic point of view, leaving the context
entirely out of it, you could translate a sentence like
"... und X fallt zwar zusammen mit Y ..."
as
"... and, TaDaaaa... it turns out that X coincides with Y ..."
or as
"... and, lo and behold, we find that X coincides with Y ..."
which just *states* the fact that they coincide but without
*qualifying* or providing reasons for the coincidence.
Those who are interested, can find further qualifications
and/or the reasons elsewhere.
See what I mean?
Dirk Vdm
Amazing silence...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
24 Feb 2005 05:54:17 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"John Ryskamp" <philneo2001@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message news:421d835a$1_2@127.0.0.1...
The Italian and French translations of the following Einstein text,
alter his German, but Lawson's translation of this passage of
RELATIVITY, is accurate:
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous
with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at
the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A -> B of the embankment. But the
events
A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M'
be
the mid-point of the distance A -> B on the travelling train.
Just
when the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the
diagram with the velocity v of the train.
We know from Einstein's introduction to this passage that he
assumes a
Euclidean definition of the coincidence of points: a point. Note
that
a problem arises if the term is simply dropped. He also assumes
that
two parallel Cartesian coordinate systems coincide in one such
system, so that if we simply drop the "naturally" (the original
German is "fallt zwar...zusammen"), we have a contradiction,
because
Einstein has told us to assume two coordinate systems, and by
dropping the "naturally" we have one such system.
The question is: where does Einstein give a meaning to a point
which
"naturally" coincides with another? And please try to find it in
EINSTEIN, not in your own ideas.
John Ryskamp
philneo2001@yahoo.com
The German word "zwar" translates to English as "indeed"
and could be also replaced with "in fact" or "all by itself"
or "naturally" or "of course". Pick anything.
The best Dutch translation of "zwar" would be "zowaar"
(the words are obviously related), but "automatisch" or
even "natuurlijk" would be perfect as well.
Is your mothertongue Dutch or German? Or English?
Dirk Vdm
........ALL of which, in this case, translate to AE "I need this
completely unfounded assumption"...in ANY language.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
24 Feb 2005 06:08:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"John Ryskamp" <philneo2001@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message news:421d835a$1_2@127.0.0.1...
The Italian and French translations of the following Einstein text,
alter his German, but Lawson's translation of this passage of
RELATIVITY, is accurate:
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous
with
respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at
the
places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the
mid-point M of the length A -> B of the embankment. But the
events
A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M'
be
the mid-point of the distance A -> B on the travelling train.
Just
when the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally
coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the
diagram with the velocity v of the train.
We know from Einstein's introduction to this passage that he
assumes a
Euclidean definition of the coincidence of points: a point. Note
that
a problem arises if the term is simply dropped. He also assumes
that
two parallel Cartesian coordinate systems coincide in one such
system, so that if we simply drop the "naturally" (the original
German is "fallt zwar...zusammen"), we have a contradiction,
because
Einstein has told us to assume two coordinate systems, and by
dropping the "naturally" we have one such system.
The question is: where does Einstein give a meaning to a point
which
"naturally" coincides with another? And please try to find it in
EINSTEIN, not in your own ideas.
John Ryskamp
philneo2001@yahoo.com
The German word "zwar" translates to English as "indeed"
and could be also replaced with "in fact" or "all by itself"
or "naturally" or "of course". Pick anything.
The best Dutch translation of "zwar" would be "zowaar"
(the words are obviously related), but "automatisch" or
even "natuurlijk" would be perfect as well.
Is your mothertongue Dutch or German? Or English?
Dirk Vdm
........ALL of which, in this case, translate to AE "I need this
completely unfounded assumption"...in ANY language.
Jim G
c'=c+v
So far--A.Einstein has been empirically right every time!
c' != c+v
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
26 Feb 2005 06:00:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Jim G
c'=c+v
|v - c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))| ~~ 6 microns/second for v = 3 km/second.
Therefore, the addition rule
c/2 ln((c+v1)/(c-v1)) + c/2 ln((c+v2)/(c-v2)) = c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))
is identical to v1 + v2 = v, for any ordinary velocities.
Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be able to tell us which one
actually holds -- without actually having access to things (like
elementary particles in a particle accelerator) that actually go that
fast!
While, at the same time, others have, who DO have access to such
technology that can tell the difference.
Yet, you claim to know that one is valid while the other is not; and
even claim to know enough to tell those who have actually found
otherwise (in the real world, rather than the Einstein-strawmanized
fantasy realm of your imagination) that the former holds, rather than
the latter -- that THEY are the ones who are wrong?!
I DON'T THINK SO. You're not psychic!
Oh yeah. That's right. I forgot. Those big time technological
contraptions are part of the Military-Industrial Complex, which is that
Evil Big Brother; and therefore is automatically wrong on everything,
since they're also covering up Roswell; and chanelling all the money in
the nation to rich people.
That's the real reason you're griping. Not because you think
Relativity is wrong (even though you have absolutely no way, in your
ordinary life, of being able to tell the difference between the two
laws stated above; and no access to such technology that can); but
because you have a (typically Socialist/Communist, Democrat) gripe
against big science, just because it does violence to your petty
landlubbing flatworld painfully parochial experience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
26 Feb 2005 10:27:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
Jim G
c'=c+v
|v - c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))| ~~ 6 microns/second for v = 3 km/second.
Therefore, the addition rule
c/2 ln((c+v1)/(c-v1)) + c/2 ln((c+v2)/(c-v2)) = c/2 ln((c+v)/(c-v))
is identical to v1 + v2 = v, for any ordinary velocities.
Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be able to tell us which one
actually holds -- without actually having access to things (like
elementary particles in a particle accelerator) that actually go that
fast!
While, at the same time, others have, who DO have access to such
technology that can tell the difference.
Yet, you claim to know that one is valid while the other is not; and
even claim to know enough to tell those who have actually found
otherwise (in the real world, rather than the Einstein-strawmanized
fantasy realm of your imagination) that the former holds, rather than
the latter -- that THEY are the ones who are wrong?!
I DON'T THINK SO. You're not psychic!
Oh yeah. That's right. I forgot. Those big time technological
contraptions are part of the Military-Industrial Complex, which is
that
Evil Big Brother; and therefore is automatically wrong on everything,
since they're also covering up Roswell; and chanelling all the money
in
the nation to rich people.
That's the real reason you're griping. Not because you think
Relativity is wrong (even though you have absolutely no way, in your
ordinary life, of being able to tell the difference between the two
laws stated above; and no access to such technology that can); but
because you have a (typically Socialist/Communist, Democrat) gripe
against big science, just because it does violence to your petty
landlubbing flatworld painfully parochial experience.
Galaxy M87 with jets >>>c ??????? You don't suspect that this TRIVIAL
observation decapitates SR? You don't suspect, that as this OBJECT
is obviously and patently NOT shortened , that "The Theory" is stuffed?
You have the choice to believe the "math"- you can run, but you can't
avoid the truth.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
26 Feb 2005 10:32:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Galaxy M87 with jets >>>c ??????? You don't suspect that this TRIVIAL
observation decapitates SR? You don't suspect, that as this OBJECT
is obviously and patently NOT shortened , that "The Theory" is stuffed?
You have the choice to believe the "math"- you can run, but you can't
avoid the truth.
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter24/24f09.html
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter24/24f10.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
27 Feb 2005 08:00:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 27 Feb 2005 04:32:52 GMT
<U3cUd.61539$tl3.6450@attbi_s02>:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
Galaxy M87 with jets >>>c ??????? You don't suspect that this TRIVIAL
observation decapitates SR? You don't suspect, that as this OBJECT
is obviously and patently NOT shortened , that "The Theory" is stuffed?
You have the choice to believe the "math"- you can run, but you can't
avoid the truth.
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter24/24f09.html
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter24/24f10.html
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/superlum/superlum.html
might be a better reference, as it goes into more detail on why
the jet appears superluminal -- assuming that v is just a little
more than c.
The existence of such near-luminal-velocity jets in the first
place is probably a more interesting problem anyway. :-)
There is another simpler explanation:
http://members.rogers.com/laserstars/news/M87.html
though I for one don't know if it fits all the facts.
If there is a "laser star" it will have to move with the
same velocity as the distant galaxies, to confuse us --
and we would probably be able to find other such jet
examples with no such motion.
It's getting downright weird out there. :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ryskamp" |
|
| Title: re:What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
24 Mar 2005 11:34:22 PM |
|
|
However the word "zwar" is translated, its logical consequence in the
argument is that it somehow modifies the concept of coincidence. The
problem is that nowhere IN EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT is this modified
concept defined.
There are lots of meanings WE can give it, but that does not answer
the objection that there is no definition IN EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT. So
anyone who wishes to address the issue, should find support IN
EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT. My own feeling is that this simply does not
exist.
Furthermore, we cannot simply write it out of the argument. Because
if we do that, we get a simple coincidence of two parallel Cartesian
coordinate systems. I think everyone can agree that that is what
happens if we knock the "zwar" out of the sentence. And the problem
with the coincidence of the two Cartesian systems is that IN
EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT, that leaves us with only one Cartesian
coordinate system, when we are supposed to assume two such systems.
That is a contradiction--I think everyone can agree on that as well.
In my opinion, the notion of a "zwar" coincidence of two points simply
represents a contemporary "feeling" about geometry, or representation,
or something, which was so widely shared among Einstein's readers that
they simply granted it without inspecting it, and moved on.
However, again, whatever it is supposed to represent, does not find
expression IN EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT.
People who wish to consider my objection, and feel it is not a valid
objection, should return to the text itself and look for authority
there. I can think of answer which would represent a better use of
Einstein's own works. If you examine the 1905 paper, you will see
that the "zwar" coincidence of points is nowhere mentioned. However,
I think if you compare the train experiment to the 1905 formulation of
the relativity of simultaneity, you will see that the "zwar"
coincidence is there implicitly even in the algebraic formulation of
the argument. In other words, you do not avoid the undefined
concept, simply because it is formulated another way.
John Ryskamp
Posted at: http://www.groupsrv.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: re:What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Mar 2005 06:19:21 AM |
|
|
"John Ryskamp" <philneo2001@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:4243a2de$1_1@127.0.0.1...
However the word "zwar" is translated, its logical consequence in the
argument is that it somehow modifies the concept of coincidence. The
problem is that nowhere IN EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT is this modified
concept defined.
There are lots of meanings WE can give it, but that does not answer
the objection that there is no definition IN EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT. So
anyone who wishes to address the issue, should find support IN
EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT. My own feeling is that this simply does not
exist.
Are you autistic as well?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3d0c70450e877449?dmode=source
| The German word "zwar" translates to English as "indeed"
| and could be also replaced with "in fact" or "all by itself"
| or "naturally" or "of course". Pick anything.
| The best Dutch translation of "zwar" would be "zowaar"
| (the words are obviously related), but "automatisch" or
| even "natuurlijk" would be perfect as well.
| Is your mothertongue Dutch or German? Or English?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/38302585979fed79?dmode=source
| Actually, there is another context in which the Dutch word
| "zowaar" and the German word "zwar" are used, and perhaps
| that is even more appropriate.
| From a purely linguistic point of view, leaving the context
| entirely out of it, you could translate a sentence like
| "... und X fallt zwar zusammen mit Y ..."
| as
| "... and, TaDaaaa... it turns out that X coincides with Y ..."
| or as
| "... and, lo and behold, we find that X coincides with Y ..."
| which just *states* the fact that they coincide but without
| *qualifying* or providing reasons for the coincidence.
| Those who are interested, can find further qualifications
| and/or the reasons elsewhere.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/765652f3f746ebb5?dmode=source
| Amazing silence...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: re:What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Mar 2005 08:28:16 AM |
|
|
John Ryskamp wrote:
However, again, whatever it is supposed to represent, does not find
expression IN EINSTEIN'S ARGUMENT.
People who wish to consider my objection, and feel it is not a valid
objection, should return to the text itself and look for authority
there. I can think of answer which would represent a better use of
Einstein's own works. If you examine the 1905 paper, you will see
that the "zwar" coincidence of points is nowhere mentioned. However,
I think if you compare the train experiment to the 1905 formulation
of
the relativity of simultaneity, you will see that the "zwar"
coincidence is there implicitly even in the algebraic formulation of
the argument. In other words, you do not avoid the undefined
concept, simply because it is formulated another way.
About a year & a half ago the centennial of the Wright Brothers' 1st
flight at Kitty Hawk was underway. In preparation a number of groups
had for some time been carefully building exact replicas for the
primitive aircraft, and in the process they all generally discovered
that it was of rather unstable design. It was even asserted by
aeronautical engineers that they couldn't, in good conscience,
reccommend that anyone pilot the damn thing, because they'd be at
considerable risk of being killed.
SUPPOSE that it was demonstrated unequivocally that the Wrights'
original aircraft was not only risky, but also utterly unflyable,
exposing them as a couple of the biggest frauds in history. What would
be the implication to the aerospace industry today? Such impact would
be absolutely ZERO. Even if, hypothetically, the conventional history
of flying machines turns out to be a myth, what matters is that today
we do know how aerodynamics works. We do know today how to build
reliable airplanes. That's what we're really interested in.
SO SUPPOSE, hypothetically, that someone finds some subtlety in
Einstein's original German language article on special relativity which
seems to contradict the theory's modern incarnation. So what? BFD. All
*I* care about is having a perfectly good, working theory of nature *in
hand*, today. Discovering that Einstein himself may have meant
something other than the way we now understand it would be interesting,
but ultimately irrelevant.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Mar 2005 08:42:27 AM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
About a year & a half ago the centennial of the Wright Brothers' 1st
flight at Kitty Hawk was underway. In preparation a number of groups
had for some time been carefully building exact replicas for the
primitive aircraft, and in the process they all generally discovered
that it was of rather unstable design. It was even asserted by
aeronautical engineers that they couldn't, in good conscience,
reccommend that anyone pilot the damn thing, because they'd be at
considerable risk of being killed.
In 1903 it was not clear what a plane even ought to look like. If you
see pictures of the Langley Aerodrome, the Wrights closest competitor,
it looks like something out of a Jules Verne novel. It has wings and
things and doodads. Only one trouble. Even if it could fly (it couldn't
because it was grossly underpowered) it could not be controlled. The
Wrights greatest contribution was the warped wing equivalent to paired
aerlerons. To turn the plane a co-ordinate bank and rudder manuever is
necessary. This is very counter intuitive to people who were used to
slow ships and boats. As the pilots say, away from the string and into
the ball.
It is interesting to note that Langley was funded by the U.S. Congress
to the tune of $50,000 (1900) dollars. That is over a half million
dollars current value. The Freres Wright did their thing for about $1200
of -their own money- and with a lot of brains and hard work. Dr. Langley
who was a PhD chemist did not think to build a wind tunnel to test
airfoil characteristics. The Freres Wright who were bicycle designers
and practical engineers did. They effectivel invented the modern
discipline of aeronautical design, which is 30 per cent science, 50
percent art and 20 percent good luck an prayer.
There are Old Pilots and there are Bold Pilots, but there are no Old
Bold Pilots.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Mar 2005 08:55:15 AM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
"There are Old Pilots and there are Bold Pilots, but there are no Old
Bold Pilots."
-V.I.N.CENT., from Disney's "The Black Hole"
:)
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Mar 2005 01:52:08 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
"There are Old Pilots and there are Bold Pilots, but there are no Old
Bold Pilots."
-V.I.N.CENT., from Disney's "The Black Hole"
So YOU'RE the one who saw that movie!!!
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Mar 2005 02:26:49 PM |
|
|
In article <1111780328.483455.128730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
tadchem <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote:
So YOU'RE the one who saw that movie!!!
Js is.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Galen, you fell for the bot!" -- smeg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Mar 2005 07:32:16 PM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
"There are Old Pilots and there are Bold Pilots, but there are no
Old
Bold Pilots."
-V.I.N.CENT., from Disney's "The Black Hole"
So YOU'RE the one who saw that movie!!!
Yep, the very one. But Disney still turned a profit. My theater ticket
cost me $4.0 x 10^7.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Einstein's "natural" coincidence? |
25 Mar 2005 08:35:08 AM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
About a year & a half ago the centennial of the Wright Brothers' 1st
flight at Kitty Hawk was underway. In preparation a number of groups
had for some time been carefully building exact replicas for the
primitive aircraft, and in the process they all generally discovered
that it was of rather unstable design. It was even asserted by
aeronautical engineers that they couldn't, in good conscience,
reccommend that anyone pilot the damn thing, because they'd be at
considerable risk of being killed.
And they were right! In 1908 a pilot using a Wright Flyer crashed and
was killed. It had to happen sooner or later. Anyone who is more than 30
feet off the deck and unsupported is in the Ranks of Death.
Given the materials of which flyers were constructed, the most stable
design is the puller not the pusher. If thrust does not go through the
center of mass there is a torque on the flyer that has to be continually
fought. The Wright Plane is not "hands off" stable.
Be that as it may. it was the Freres Wright that solved the -main
problem- of flight, that is, control. Others saw lift and thrust as the
problem and their model of control was the boat in the water, which
works o.k for lighter than air flyers(floaters?). The Freres Wright
being bicyclists knew better. One turns with a bike by leaning into the
turn. And that is how they came up with three axis control, which model
is the very same one used in all planes today regardless of the
confuguration.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ryskamp" |
|
| Title: Those experimental results |
25 Mar 2005 11:34:26 AM |
|
|
It is easy to answer the response that the experimental results
confirm relativity theory:
The problem with saying that experimental results confirm relativity
theory is that in order to justify the claim, you must relate those
results to the theory itself. If there is no theory, to what are you
relating the results? If you cannot relate the results to the theory,
they may indeed be results, although you would also need to supply the
theory of which they are the results. At any rate, they would not be
the results of relativity theory.
On different grounds I would take issue with the results provided by
contemporary physics. I was appalled to read Pickering's
Constructing Quarks. Obviously he had no doubts about the soundness
of relativity theory: he had not gone back and revisited settled
questions. Nevertheless, the unending renormalization to which
post-War physicists subjected physical concepts, makes everything
they did, and do, suspect--which is Pickering's point.
Having found this discrepancy in Einstein, I may go back to
Pickering's book again with a different idea: that, more or less
subconsciously, they were trying to "correct" or "address" an error
they felt, but could not identify. In any event, Feynman called
renormalization "a shell game" in QED. Feynman did not discover
Einstein's error either, although he had a close encounter with it
when, also in QED, he discussed infinity in relation to geometry.
His comment was not the objection to Einstein's undefined
modification of Euclidean concepts, although it is an interesting
gloss on the objection, a sort of sociological insight. In any
event, he seems to have understood the faulty thinking involved in
contemporary physics.
This, to me, is why physics is no longer the center of any
intellectual activity in the world. It has entered its phase of
decadence, with ever more bizarre theories and ever more
administrative power--its Stalinist phase, if you like. This
condition seems to be to be often, historically, both a sign of
problems in the underlying theory, and part of the process of
exposing those faulty ideas. I think we can call this degenerate
situation, also one of the experimental results of contemporary
physics.
There is one further point: I strongly urge readers to read Alejandro
Garciadiego's BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC
'PARADOXES.' I have not investigated the relationship of the
set-theoretic 'paradoxes' to the various paradoxes alleged for
relativity. However, the point of the book is that the supposed
paradoxes of set theory are not paradoxes at all: they are
meaningless formulations. This has important consequences. For
example, for Godel, Richard's 'paradox' means that truth in number
theory cannot be defined in number theory. However, as Garciadiego
documents, Richard himself pointed out to Poincare how to reduce the
'paradox' to meaninglessness. Godel, a sloppy reader, never figured
this out, even though it destroys the logical basis for
distinguishing truth from provability. Godel combined his idea about
Richard's 'paradox,' with the idea that provability in number theory
can be defined in number theory, and concluded that if all the
provable formulae are true, there must be some true but unprovable
formulae. It is my contention that this latter statement is without
logical content.
There are further consequences. Brouwer introduced the idea of an
infinite ordinal number believing that Cantor had proved
well-ordering of the ordinal numbers. But as Garciadiego shows, not
only did Cantor not prove that, but also, he never said he had done
so, and never used the term infinite ordinal number. This undermines
the logical basis for intuitionism and the probabilistic and
combinatorial theory which proceed from it.
In general, Brouwer, Hilbert and Russell--and their followers Carnap,
Tarski, Turing, Curry and Ramsey--set themselves the task of
"avoiding" the "paradoxes." However, again, Garciadiego shows that
there were no "paradoxe" to avoid. This vitiates most of
twentieth-century mathematics.
It remains to be seen the extent to which Einstein himself was
directing his ideas toward avoiding the "paradoxes."
In sum, I think it is clear that we have achieved a distance from
twentieth-century ideas which will only grow greater. Those ideas
are clearly in the past--that they are in the past is one of their
elements.
John Ryskamp
John Ryskamp
John Ryskamp
Posted at: http://www.groupsrv.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Those experimental results |
25 Mar 2005 04:07:19 PM |
|
|
John Ryskamp wrote:
It is easy to answer the response that the experimental results
confirm relativity theory:
The problem with saying that experimental results confirm relativity
theory is that in order to justify the claim, you must relate those
results to the theory itself. If there is no theory, to what are you
relating the results? If you cannot relate the results to the theory,
they may indeed be results, although you would also need to supply the
theory of which they are the results. At any rate, they would not be
the results of relativity theory.
On different grounds I would take issue with the results provided by
contemporary physics.
[snip crap]
Fine. Turn off your computer since it cannot work by your own
assertion.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
What part of the foregoing is incorrect? Site a reproducible
observation in support of your ignorant spew.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
