Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 14:50:49 GMT
:::: If and only if they are separated can it be that "each is younger
:::: than the other".
::: Yes, that's what will be interesting to confirm.
:: It might be interesting to confirm that reality can be accurately
:: modeled by such a formalism. But there's no need to "confirm" that
:: that the condition "each older than the other" is a consistent,
:: logical, abstract-state-of-being. Just as there's no need to go out
:: and cut strings lay out measuring rods and build pyramids to
:: "confirm" that right triangles are possible.
: tsar@ix.netcom.com
: It's (as you put it) the "modeling of the formalism confirms reality"
: that I think is the interesting part. Don't you?
It is not the only interesting part. But I agree it is interesting.
But again, we were talking about what SR predicts, and whether two
clocks are predicted to each have less elapsed time than the other when
separated and brought back together. This has absolutely nothing
to do with whether this happens to real clocks or not. The question
of whether it happens to real clocks or not is *interesting*, but
the conversation simply didn't have anything to do with whether this
happens to real clocks or not (until tsar brought it up as a
non-sequitur in the exchange above).
:: Remember, we're talking about WHAT SR PREDICTS, and observations
:: cannot possibly be of any use in determining this. It cannot
:: possibly be "confirmed" by observation. Observation be useful in
:: discovering if what SR predicts is ACCURATE, but as to what the
:: prediction IS, reality has absolutely no bearing.
: Not really. This is where you are in error. What SR predicts is
: interesting, but reality is primarily interesting.
Yes? And what does this have to do with what I just said?
Was I talking about whether the prediction, or the reality,
was "interesting", or which was more interesting than the other?
No, I was not. So how does asserting that this or that is
"interesting" have anything to do with tsar's claim that I
am "in error"? Let's read on:
: There may be some merit to the position that it cannot possible be
: confirmed by observation, but there's no basis to suppose it cannot be
: unconfirmed by observation.
Ah, this at least is vaguely relevant. But it's nonsense.
What SR predicts is what it predicts. You can observe
up a storm, and you will never, NO BLOODY WAY, "unconfirm" what
SR predicts. You can unconfirm that it correctly models reality,
but that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion,
which was, does SR model two clocks, separated and brought back
together again, as each having less elapsed time than the other.
( So as not to keep folks in suspense: no, SR does not predict
this, never has, never will, and no observation of clocks being
moved around will change this. )
Look. I play "Karnak". I take an envelope, put it to my forehead,
adopt a posture of faux-concentration, and then proclaim "in this
envelope, is a note saying ``foo''!" Now, that's what I predict.
Actually opening the envelope and reading the note has nothing
to do with what I predict, and cannot possibly change it.
Just so with (some subset of) tsar's "vexations". Tsar claims
SR predicts thus-and-so, when it does not; tsar in effect claims
that I've predicted "bar" above. But the prediction is "foo",
not "bar", and no amount of observation of reality changes this fact.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Is epistemology a science?
From: Patrick Reany
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 07:54:13 -0700
Brian J Flanagan wrote:
>
> >
> > The concept of "projections onto the presumed external world" was first
> > made a hot topic in Natural Philosophy by Galileo, who asked his
> > contemporaries in Natural Philosophy to consider taking a more
> > scientific view of human experience by differentiating between primary
> > and secondary qualities of physical objects. A primary quality is an
> > objective quality that is presumed to exists apart from human
> > consciousness, such as the mass of an object. A secondary quality is one
> > which has been anthropomorphically projected onto the object by a human,
> > such as ascribing "color" to objects, or saying that sugar "is" sweet,
> > which confuses the intrinsic property of sugar's molecule structure with
> > a subjective experience of it.
> >
> BJ: This is quite correct, tho' Galileo et al., were mistaken. I.e.,
> sugar, in some sense, *is* sweet, just as it *is* a collection of
> molecules with a characteristic geometry. I would argue that sugar
> "projects" its sweetness onto our sensory mechanisms in close analogy
> with the way a golden sphere projects a golden disk onto our retinas.
I believe that what Galileo wanted to get at is a "best measure of
qualities." And he regarded humans as a poor instrument for making these
measures. I agree with that. Of course humans experience sweetness in
sugar and thus sweetness is associated with sugar in some fashion, but
this is not good enough for Galileo. He wanted science out of the
dominion of the vagaries of human sense perception. Indeed, because of
hypnosis or a bad association or even by a quirk of birth, a particular
person's sense of sugar may be completely opposite to my sense of it.
What is sweet to one may be bitter to another.
All Galileo wanted is that any unqualified use of "is this" or "is that"
would be relegated to instruments and not to the vagaries of human
perceptions.
Although humans may differ among themselves on how they preceive the
world, they may also universally "mis-measure" some world events due to
illusion. I can offer the ordinary desert mirage as an example, but an
even better one is the so-called "moon-illusion." When the moon looms
just above the horizon it appears to be unreasonably larger than when it
is at zenith. The theory predicts that the opposite should be the case,
and indeed measuring instruments agree with the classical theory. Thus
humans aren't very good at making even classical measurements consistent
with theory.
Patrick
Subject: Einstein Quotes v.5
From: cfbd@southern.co.nz (Colin Douthwaite)
Date: 14 Sep 1996 15:24:26 GMT
==========================================================================
EINSTEIN QUOTATIONS v 5.O 14 Sep 1996
==========================================================================
There's a wonderful family named Stein,
There's Ep, there's Gert, and there's Ein.
Ep's statues are junk,
Gert's poems are bunk,
And nobody understands Ein.
mMNM&%w
mkMH$MUMFPM,NM#Z%%
:!.:x )!!X)$MMWWMM$**$$Nx~~`
!!)X?~(
~-!#@\~/!!!@$$$$$$$$$$$R! `-!%.
.!!"X !XXM$$$$$$$$$$$R!! !X!!i"~ `:
:!t! <: !?X***$$$$$$$***~! ??>X `
' `!~~: ~x. !R$$$$* . x W` - >
~! ::" `L?X#$F.uC"L" . $ `n
% ~<%!.#mT$"<$k"$$Q?:xW " '
~ 4BhU@$W$?!$$ "$$WdN"'.
R$$$$$$* $$k'$$$$$ !&!x
Albert !T$$$$6n'$$$ $$$(T .?"
Einstein @!M$$$$ec.")d$$$$! `.
!!8$f"` " `^T$!~
!!R$ :xxox..o:d"
" #@!$WN@W$$$~" \
"~R$$$$$$" N.
. "#"""" :X `Wmu.
'<: ~ .-` `% XxU@$R~ ~: . ^*$M"$$B$$$"$!:Mm
m!!!!!M8X! :`.:L ~UT?8$F .!-.x!: "N `9$$$":"$LFDSA
HDFB. I heard this second hand and I don't know if
the story has ever been published...
-S K Franz-
If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.
-- Albert Einstein, in New Statesman, 16 April 1965
Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)
If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often
think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in
terms of music. ... I get most joy in life out of music.
``What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester
Viereck,'' for the October 26, 1929 issue of _The Saturday
Evening Post_.
[ If anyone has any information on George Sylvester Viereck, who
coauthored ``Autobiography of the Wandering Jew'' and was an
America-Firster (at least before Pearl Harbor) please post. He
seems a interesting character. I recommend the _Saturday Evening
Post_ article referenced above for other Einstein quotes. ]
Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)
I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.
Imagination encircles the world.
``What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester
Viereck,'' for the October 26, 1929 issue of _The Saturday
Evening Post_.
Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)
Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a
simplified and intelligible picture of the world; he then tries to
some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of
experience, and thus to overcome it. This is what the painter, the
poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientists do,
each in his own fashion. Each makes this cosmos and its
construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in
this way peace and security which he can not find in the narrow
whirlpool of personal experience.
_Ideas and Opinions_, (Dell, Pinebrook, N.J., 1954).
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already
earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,
since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace
to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at
command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance,
how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I
would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action!
It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing
but an act of murder."
Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It
is the source of all true art and science.
- Quoted on pg. 289 of _Adventures of a Mathematician_, by S. M.
Ulam (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1976). Apparently these
words also occur somewhere in _What I Believe_ (1930).
The most beautiful thing we can have is the mysterious.
-- Albert Einstein, in Living Philosophies, 1931
"The only source of knowledge is experience"
" I want to know God's thought,..... the rest are details.."
- A. Einstein
" The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion
which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any
religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism...."
- A. Einstein
Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the
human race. - Albert Einstein
When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the
conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any
talent for abstract, positive thinking .- Albert Einstein
:x<:> ?%$xx!:i:`MHbLX
:*:!!:nM.~!~`<!!X?!!!!!!!!!!...!~.
: ' >!~ '!! ! .!XMM8$$$$$@$$$R888HMM!!XXHWX$8$RM$MR5$8MMMMR$$@MMM!!!< ~
! ' ! ~!! :!:XXHXMMMR$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8$$$$8$$$MMR$M$$$MMMMMM$$$MMM!!!!
~ !! !Mf x@#"~!t?M~!$$$$$RMMM?Xb@!~`??MS$M@MMM@RMRMMM$$$$$$RMMMMM!!!!
! '!~ !XMMMMMMMMXMM!!:!MM$MMMBRM$$$$8MMMM~
`?H!M$R>'MMMM?MMM!MM6!X!XM$$$MM$MM$$$$MX$f
`MXM$8X MMMMMMM!!MM!!!!XM$$$MM$MM$$$RX@"
~M?$MM !MMMMXM!!MM!!!XMMM$$$8$XM$$RM!`
!XMMM !MMMMXX!XM!!!HMMMM$$$$RH$$M!~
'M?MM `?MMXMM!XM!XMMMMM$$$$$RM$$#
`>MMk ~MMHM!XM!XMMM$$$$$$BRM$M"
~`?M. !M?MXM!X$$@M$$$$$$RMM#
`!M !!MM!X8$$$RM$$$$MM#`
!% `~~~X8$$$$8M$$RR#`
!!x:xH$$$$$$$R$R*`
~!?MMMMRRRM@M#` -Sushil-
`~???MMM?M"`
``~~
[ From a birthday photograph of Einstein ]
==========================================================================
Other sources:
1) In Message-ID:
dated 10 Jun 1996 bob@pupress.princeton.edu (Robert Brown) wrote:
>...there's a book forthcoming *The Quotable Einstein*, ed. Alice
> Calaprice (Princeton University Press, 1996), which will
> present the largest verifiable collection in one place. All
> were gathered from Einstein's own papers by the person who
> has been copyediting them over the years.
2) Judy's Einstein Collection:
http://stripe.colorado.edu/~judy/einstein.html
==========================================================================
Subject: Re: I just don't get it ...
From: Jim Kelly
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:11:13 -0500
Brad J Cadle wrote:
>
> In article <51db4a$odi@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> >...
> >
> >Since I have neither been abusive or argumentive I don't understand
> >the vacillation of personnel in this group to comment or discuss the
> >material that I have offered up for just that purpose. Now I doubt
> >seriously that every person that have read these posts totally agreed
> >with both the contents or methods. For those that have responded
> >I have tried to be responsive and clear as to both my position and
> >reason for same. It was through the expected discourse that I had
> >hoped to expand on the material or find hidden flaws in same (you
> >know sometimes one can't see the forest for the trees). To date,
> >those who have taken the time to study the material have
> >commented that the equations appear to hold up to the scrutiny.
> >In every case where there has been a response, I have attempted to
> >provide sufficient retort and supporting information such that
> >anyone could at least see why I came to the conclusion stated.
> >
> >So here the question (and I guarantee I will not be argumentive),
> >given that I believe I have provided sufficient evidence in the form
> >of both derivations and correlations to meet the requisite burden of
> >proof (at least for cursory consideration) why has there been so
> >little response? Is the physics communtiy so jaded as to be
> >contemptuous of all material offered for review in this medium, and
> >if so why. I don't expect to hear "well most of the messages that
> >are posted here are superfluous or cranks". Because this, whether
> >true or not, do not negate the serious posts or posters. One thing
> >that appears to be seriously lacking from this medium is a decorum
> >of professionalism that one should expect of serious practitioners
> >in any such field.
> >
> >I thank you for your consideration.
> >
> >Paul Stowe
>
> I am affraid I didn't even read your post. Could you please repost
> it.
>
> -Brad
Actually. I didn't see it either. :-)
Often though, news servers don't work right.
Some posts make it to usenet, some don't.
Myself, when I'm looking at posts,
I tend to skip the long ones. Short and
to the point. Much of this stuff is complex
and to tackle a long screed is work.
Bite sized concepts are great. But to
discuss an issue pages long tends to put
a real drain on my brain. I'm not going to
burn much glucose looking for the good parts.
So I skip the whole muther.
Subject: Re: IS MAN AS OLD AS COAL?
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 14 Sep 1996 15:23:57 GMT
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>Is man indeed as old as coal? If so, it obviously would shake the very
>foundation of evolutionary theory about our origin and ancestry.
>Claims are being made that petrified human bones have been discovered
>in Carboniferous strata between anthracite veins in Pennsylvania.
>The scientific establishment, well aware of the dire consequences, is
>going all out to deny and dismiss the evidence.
>Open-minded individuals can form their own opinion by calling up:
>> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
Collections of inconceivably huge refrigerated Federal cream sumps are
buried in Arizona and New Mexico safeguarding us agaisnt the extortionate
demands of space aliens from 47 Ursae Majoris B who threaten to
confiscate our Sun unless we continue paying a planetary ransom in
butterfat. Old storage depots in Nevada are easily seen from the air as
mammoth ciruclar depressions in the desert where transdimensional
butterfat transfer has resulted in catastrophic topographic subsidence.
Said depressions are hot with long-lived nuclear radiation an rich with
constitutionally and isotopically variant lanthanide elements. Shocked
quarts. coesite, and stishovite lay mute testimony to the violence of the
act.
GOT MILK?
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/ (best of + new)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm (lots of + new)
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 14 Sep 1996 15:28:23 GMT
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
[snip]
>Conclusive evidence of life after death actually has been available
>for more than a quarter-century.
>
>This opinion is shared by two of the world's foremost authorities on
>death and dying, Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and Dr. Bruce Greyson.
>They agree that the proof had been provided by a pair of Pennsylvania
>coal miners who, back in 1963, revealed that Pope John XXIII had
>appeared to both of them at the same time during their 14-day
>entombment following an underground cave-in near Hazleton, Pa.
[merciful snip]
I heard it was Rumplestilskin who appeared. The rescued miners made a
fortune spinning straw into gold. Authorities are probing the
disappearance of their first born children.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/ (best of + new)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm (lots of + new)
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: SR Unproved, Unproveable but not Inconsistent
From: kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:48:20 GMT
bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones) wrote:
>kenseto@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote [in part]:
>>The Galilean trnsforms is based on macroscopic objects moving relative
>>to each other.The proposal I made is based on the assumption that
>>there is an stationary aether occupying space. Lights are waves in
>>this aether. Physical systems (detectors) also have motion in this
>>aether. With this proposal of the state of the universe and your
>>proposed experiment there is no c+v.
>Essentially, you are correct. There is certainly an "effective" æther
>"out there."
>By this I mean that all light rays always travel as though there were
>an absolutely stationary medium for them.
>But light rays do this without needing an actual medium. There is one
>reason why all light rays always propagate in space at the same
>absolute rate, and this reason is light's source independency.
>Obviously, if the motion of the light source has no effect upon the
>speed (absolute) of the emitted light, then all light rays will travel
>thru space at the same absolute speed.
>As anyone can see, this is equivalent to an absolutely stationary
>æther situation.
Correct.
>So, one can get away with saying that there is an æther if one wishes
>to do so.
Again correct.
>However, it is clear that if a detector itself MOVES thru this
>"æther," then light's measured speed by using a moving detector must
>reflect this motion, and the result will be not c but c - V, where V
>is the detector's absolute speed. There is no way to get c unless one
>sets one's clocks to cause this, as did Einstein.
Einstein did not merely set the clock. He used the on board slow
second (compared to earth second) in combination with contracting rod
(an assumption because of Lorantz Invariant in all frame) to get 'c'.
There is another way to get 'c' and it is a combination of on board
slow second in combination with slower lightspeed.
>In other words, if you move at half the speed of light, and you meet a
>light ray head-on, you and it will meet (physically) at 1.5
>lightspeed. No other view is possible. However, IF you wish to
>MEASURE this "meeting" (or closing) speed, the way your clocks have
>been set obviously must come into play.
The way you set your experiment (both clocks in the same inertial
frame), it is not possible to have c+v.
The only way to detect and quantify absolute motion in the same frame
is as follows: Introduce light bullets into the aether at a known rate
and detect light bullets at a different rate. Past experiments
detected absolute motion (but not quantified) are as follows: The
Compton Effect Experiment, the Photoelectric Experiment and the Double
-Slit Experiment.
>If I set my clocks an hour apart, I cannot expect to measure true time
>intervals, including the time for a light ray to pass between two of
>my clocks. Only if my two clocks have been truly (or absolutely)
>synchronized can I expect to record the correct time, resulting in the
>correct speed measurement, namely c + V in the above head-on case.
Again your experiment is conducted in the same frame. There is no c+v.
>All if the above is simple common sense, with no relativstic
>hocus-pocus or confusion.
That's true.
>Hope you can understand it.
I believe that I have explained my view clearly.
Subject: Re: Question re: FLIGHT OF THE INTRUDER; sonoluminescence
From: mexitech@netcom.com (Patrick)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:38:16 GMT
Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: FLIGHT OF THE INTRUDER 1991 Quite a good movie for it portrays the two
: lead sargeants in another movie PLATOON. Perhaps these two actors are
: making Vietnam movies their forte. Good movies both, and I think
: PLATOON is the best Vietnam movie.
Alian three with Sigourney Weever (sp) and the space Marine platoon was
more accurate as far as movies go than Platoon. This movie offends the
shit out of me. In fact, Oliver Stonehead offends the shit out of me!
He has all these people worldwide thinking he represents the Vietnam
legacy. He is worse than Phil Coleman, he has a semblence of a brain and
a pulpit to use it.
I picked up 3 movies last week
: suspecting they were all B movies-- IRON TRIANGLE, GO TELL THE
: SPARTANS, PRIVATE WAR. But all three were rather good. IRON TRIANGLE
: was very good.
: I have the hunch that since the US lost the Vietnam War,
Speaking of hunches; I have a hunch that Dartmouth doesn't see much of
you in History classes. S. Vietnam lost their war, not the U.S.
Its all movies, play time, acting, role playing, etc. The best of them
is the BOYS IN COMPANY C.
I want to see Puff the Magic Dragon fly over Gardena myself. No movie
magic, no special effects, the real thing, full metal jacket, GE gatlings,
going for the gold!
--
Patrick
mexitech@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Q: rotating black body
From: lpurple@netcom.com (Lance Purple)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 16:32:19 GMT
root@barbarian.tamu.edu (root) asks:
>> Say that you've got an ideal black body at some temperature T.
>> It's rotating. Nearby is another black body, at some different
>> temperature T', which is not rotating. Let them reach thermodynamic
>> equilibrum with each other and whatever isotropic radiation field
>> you want to add. Question: does the other black body start to rotate?
Raymond C. Gelinas wrote:
>I find this question interesting. Photons have energy-momentum, so two
>non-rotating, face-to-face black bodies would be repulsed due to mutual
>radiation pressure. But could the photons transfer angular momentum from
>one a rotating black body to an non-rotating black body? I don't think
>so. Radiation pressure is caused by the photon momentum and does not
>carry information about the mechanical state of the source.
Wouldn't the emitted black-body radiation from one side of the rotating
object be slightly blue-shifted, and the other side red-shifted? This
difference in energies ought to exert torque on the other object, until
they have equal angular kinetic energy (so that the red/blue-shifts are
cancelled out in the other object's now-rotating reference frame).
T0 /'''\ ==blue==> /'''\
/ ,-> \ / . \
\ \_/ / \ ' /
\.../ -red-> \.../
T1 /'''\ ==blue=> /'''\
/ ,-> \ / ,-> \
\ \ / \ \ /
\.../ --red-> \.../
------------------------------
L. Purple (lpurple@netcom.com)
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: tsar@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:49:01 -0700
David L Evens wrote:
>
> tsar@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> : Edward A Gedeon wrote:
>
>
> : > Time dialation exists; it's been measured in labs, aboard Apollo
> : > spacecraft returning from the moon, and is used every day by the
> : > Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites.
>
> : To be accurate experiments have confirmed that moving clocks run slower
> : than "stationary" clocks.
>
> Which is, of course, something that can only happen when the rate of time
> flow changes.
>
Really? So if you take a pendulum clock into a spacecraft and use it to time
your journey, whatever readings you get from the pendulum clock are indicative
of the flow of time locally? The premise that what clocks do time must do is
not only unconfirmed, but ridiculously wrong for obvious cases.
W$
Subject: Re: The Concept of TIME
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:01:47
In article Ilja
Schmelzer wrote:
>Any noncircular theory has unexplained basic notions. The
>uncircular basic notion in SR/GR is proper time.
The circularity of the phrase "proper time" is that it refers to
the "time" of a given clock of a given system. Should have been
called "proper rate", because that's what it measures. Tho all
clocks of a given system do run at the same rate, those of
differently moving systems run at different rates than each other.
Their ratio of rates is given by the expression @t'/@t which, in
the Lorentz transformations, is equal to sqrt(c²-v²). Lorentz
called it "the general time" of the given system, kept by its
origin clock. All other clocks of that system (say x,y,z;t) have
the indications of their hands offset by -vx/c² seconds compared to
the general time of the origin clock of the given system itself.
E-synching clocks inserts such offsets into the clocks [by hand],
without knowing nor needing to know the value of the only physical
operator involved in Einstein's process: The absolute v of the
moving system itself.
glird
Subject: Re: The Concept of TIME
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:05:48
In article Ilja
Schmelzer wrote:
>Any noncircular theory has unexplained basic notions. The
>uncircular basic notion in SR/GR is proper time.
The circularity of the phrase "proper time" is that it refers to
the "time" of a given clock of a given system. Should have been
called "proper rate", because that's what it measures. Tho all
clocks of a given system do run at the same rate, those of
differently moving systems run at different rates than each other.
Their ratio of rates is given by the expression @t'/@t which, in
the Lorentz transformations, is equal to sqrt(c²-v²). Lorentz
called it "the general time" of the given system, kept by its
origin clock. All other clocks of that system (say x,y,z;t) have
the indications of their hands offset by -vx/c² seconds compared to
the general time of the origin clock of the given system itself.
E-synching clocks inserts such offsets into the clocks [by hand],
without knowing nor needing to know the value of the only physical
operator involved in Einstein's process: The absolute v of the
moving system itself.
glird
Subject: Re: What is the Theory of Relativity?
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:05:56
In article Matt McIrvin
wrote:
>They also manifest a preoccupation with the very big picture;
>their authors miss the trees for the forest. They will go on at
>great length about the true nature of space, time, infinity, and
>reality, without producing anything in the way of a testable
>prediction about, say, the cross section for a scattering process.
Let's say a neutron is moving on X toward a nucleus. Let's say
the "cross section" is on the YZ plane. As a finite body moves, it
displaces the continuous material filling the local field. A shock
wave boundary always accompanies such moving bodies. Let's say that
this shock wave interacting with the nucleus is what the "cross
section" actually denotes and measures. If, then, the physical
cross sectional size of the neutron remained constant regardless of
its local velocity, but the shock wave grew larger and further away
as the velocity increased, then it might be expected that the
interactive "cross section" would grow ever larger as a function of
the velocity of the bombarding neutrons.
If, on the other hand, the YZ size of the neutron DECREASED as
its velocity increased, at relatively slow speeds the shock wave
would still get "bigger" and the interactive cross-section would
increase; BUT, as the velocity of the neutron beam increased and
its YZ size began to meaningfully decrease, the shock wave
cross-section would decrease accordingly, as a function not only of
the speed but of the YZ size of the neutron.
THAT - said J. Carr - is exactly what does experimentally happen.
If we denote the degree of deformation of a unit-length of a
moving system by the symbol "phi", and insert the value needed to
convert Y,Z measurements by say a coordinate system attached to the
nucleus into those of a system attached to the shrinking neutron,
then the corrective factor is denoted by "phi(v).
The interesting aspect of the above experimental fact is that it
proves that contrary to the equations of relativity,
phi(v)=/=1,
wherefore the Lorentz transformations are experimentally invalid.
>
> The big picture is fun to think about, but in a very real sense,
>it isn't where the action is; even cosmologies stand or fall on
>niggling details of specific observations and experiments.
From your keyboard to God's ear. and man's.
Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
"Complexity is but the many faces of simplicity.
The road to complexity consists of just a bunch of simple steps.
They only look enormous if you skip the littlest ones."
Subject: Re: What is the Theory of Relativity?
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:06:15
In article <51c7lo$n03@www.oracorp.com> Daryl McCullough wrote:
>If an object is travelling in a way such that it experiences no
>forces, then its path will trace out a straight line.
If the object is being accelerated by internal forces due to a
permeating gravitational field, then we get rid of both the forces
and the accelerations by calling the field a "spacetime" continuum,
allowing that this continuum is "curved" as a function of proximity
to a "mass" (in this case the source and center of the
gravitational field), and then saying, "the body inertially moves
in a geodesic line in this curved spacetime".
It's a silly way to do Physics. It denies the physical existance
of the very realities the equations of physics map. {The map is NOT
the territory. Despite Minkowski's STR .}
Noting that I am in agreement with what you said in the snipped
portion, let's look at what followed:
>Now, I think you would object that, whether there is any way
>to know it or not, there is a *real* answer to the question
of whether A preceded B, or not.
Whether there is an "answer" or not is irrelevant. The point is,
independently of anyone or any coordinate system at all, either A
did or did not precede B.
>
>In other words, you believe that out of all the possible ways that
>one could give time coordinate to events, there is one which is
>the *true* label.
Nope. ALL coordinate systems are mathematical abstractions. In
relativity, each carries its own unique "spacetime" continuum
around within itself. Each differently moving such imaginary system
has a differently structured "metrical space" and "metrical time"
than the others. NONE of them has any "*true*" label, and any such
label in a given system is "true" in that given system.
What I am talking about isn't "metrical spacetime" at all. It is
(unmeasured and non-metrical) physical duration and extension in
the Universe, not in any coordinate system. IN REALITY and
independently of ANY coordinate systems or their "labels" events
either do or do not happen at the same physical instant.
Relying exclusively on the "time" per coordinate system, and
evidently unaware of the difference between physical time and space
(which is what we measure) and metrical time and space (which is
what we measure them with), Physics thinks ONLY coordinate labels
exist insofar as "space" and "time" and "spacetime" are concerned.
They define "reality(whateverthatmeans)" as NOTHING BUT the
labels, the measured metrical-values; none of which is more "true"
than someone elses. Indeed, as Einstein once said, The notion of
"true" or "false" has no role in mathematics [or physics]. It's
just a matter of the rules of the game [theoretical mathematical
physics]. {Barrow, teacher of Newton who knew how to think as well
as measure, totally disagreed. Well in advance .}
...
>The offsets of the Lorentz transformations simply reflect two
>different choices as to labelling these time coordinates.
The "offsets" I refer to exist in the clocks of a given moving
system itself. They don't depend on the Lorentz transformations.
Quite the opposite: The Lorentz - and the infinity of other
transformation groups that satisfy every requirement of relativity
- depend on the offsets. Without using the offset local time per
successive clock as measuring tools, no reciprocal metrical Lorentz
length or rate changes would be found. Without real and physical
Lorentz deformation coupled with local-time offsets, no measured
Lorentz deformations would exist, as viewed by a differently moving
system.
glird
Subject: Re: What is the Theory of Relativity?
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:06:26
In article <842644782@sheol.org> Wayne Throop wrote:
>: glird@gnn.com (glird)
>: The (truly mythical) "rest frame" is simply Einstein's empty
>:space, the one in which light has a definite velocity c.
>
>Except of course that Einstein said no such thing; he said light
>has a definite velocity c in coordinate systems as set up per
>definition of time interval given earlier in the paper.
As usual, Throop, you misquote and/or misrepresent Einstein. As
you have repeatedly been told, HE said:
"[We will] introduce another postulate ... namely, that light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c]
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
AFTER introducing his method of setting clocks (to measure the
speed of light as c) he then said,
"The following relexions are based on the principle of relativity
[postulate 1] and on the constancy of the velocity of light
[postulate 2]. These two principles we now define as follows:--
... Hence velocity = (light path)/(time interval) WHERE TIME
INTERVAL IS TO BE TAKEN IN THE SENSE OF THE DEFINITION IN #1."
How come, Throop, you ALways omit Einstein's qualifying clause.
{That's a rhetorical question, since i already know the answer:
Because being a Minkyite, you don't know what it meant, namely,
that light has "the DETERMINED velocity c" as measured in the
moving system if and only if the system's clocks have the timelag
offsets compared to each other, hand inserted by Einstein's method
of setting them to measure c' = c-v = c+v = c. Since Minkymath
doesn't mention its essential ingredient, the local time offsets,
out of sight became out of mind, in Minkyland .}
Since it is useless to argue with someone who consistently and
deliberately twists his leader's words in order to prove his own
misconceptions "right", i will answer another of your comments,
here, and then argue with you no more.
>: Btw, IF the plane of the disk does distort, the local observers
>:will be able to measure that distortion and, from that alone,
>:calculate the absolute rate of rotation and from that, their own
>:inertial velocity.
>Wrong again. The disk disorts WRT the rest frame. It is an
>ordinary disk WRT the co-moving frame. Which is exactly why it
>Einstein-synchs the clocks.
Siggghhh... the spinning disk is LINEARLY moving with the
observers' frame but is NOT at rest "WRT the co-moving frame".
Try to understand what you read before trying to characterize it.
oh well why expect a Minkyite to do that? After all, Minky
himself tried to characterize Lorentz's deformations as "a gift
from above" without having read Lorentz's paper, which based them
on the forces of electromagnetic attraction and repulsion in a
moving system. Instead, Minky attributed them to the way we measure
"space and time" AND NOTHING ELSE. {A gift from below .}
glird
Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
"Complexity is but the many faces of simplicity.
The road to complexity consists of just a bunch of simple steps.
They only look enormous if you skip the littlest ones."
Subject: Re: What is the Theory of Relativity?
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:06:36
In article <51ci8d$306@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> Jim Carr wrote:
>... and then there are those such as
>glird@gnn.com (glird) writes:
>> Minky-math has raised it's blindfolded head! The Lorentz
>>Transformations are not rotations.
>that reject a generalization of the concept like rotation beyond
>that used in high school algebra class, bemoaning such a radical
>idea.
Throop:
>Uh... glird? The "skew" IS the local time offset. If there was a
>"gap", it certainly wan't due to any "local time offsets" being
>"hidden".
And then there are those who USE their radical mathematics
without realizing that the real and physically inserted local time
offsets are buried in their skewed generalized "rotations". Such
people claim that the offsets "are only as viewed by a differently
moving system".
And then, of course, there are those who don't care (or know)
what physical reality is, because they think their own measurements
are the ONLY kind of "reality(whateverthatmeans" that exists.
Maybe high school algebra is better. It doesn't hide reality
beneath a barrage of false semantics, such as Einstein's
"synchronism" denoting clocks offset his Minkowski-skewed way.
From a posting by Jan B.:
>< Since Einstein failed to derive the Lorentz transformations,
>
>You have never produced any support for this. Moreover, this
>statement can actually be *proven* false.
You got the book. It mathematically proves the claim. You have
NEVER - in the many months since you got it - refuted any of my
mathematical proofs. As i've repeatedly asked you, How come?
>
>
>And "physically mean" still remains an undefined ghost.
In Minkyville, of course. To an average person it's a common and
automatically understood phrase.
Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
"Complexity is but the many faces of simplicity.
The road to complexity consists of just a bunch of simple steps.
They only look enormous if you skip the littlest ones."
Subject: Re: SR Unproved, Unproveable but not Inconsistent
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:06:50
In article Ilja
Schmelzer wrote:
>Probably not as easy, you have to synchronize the clocks before
>and to compare them after, you have to make a lot of accurate
>calculations about the trajectory of Mir and the influence of
>other variables.
oh it's much easier than that:
Hello, Mir. What time is it up there? Two o'clock. Good, we just
set our Earth clock to "two o'clock." [Since this initial setting
of the ground clock already included time-in-transit of the Mir
report, this delay is already factored into the setting of the
ground-clock. Four months later]: Hello, Mir. What time is it up
there? It's 3:12:09. [The earthlings look at THEIR watch and it
says 3:12:12"] Hello, Mir. Your clock is running slow. q.e.d.
In article <51cino$833@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> Brian D. Jones
wrote:
> There is no way to get c unless one sets one's clocks to cause
>this, as did Einstein.
oh there's another way. The real way. Set the local clocks, in
your room, using light signals. Since the luminiferous medium (in
this case air) is at rest in your room, then as M&M; etc. found out,
the speed of light really is c in all directions - other than with
regard to Earth's rotation in the Solar matter-unit's
earth-penetrating configuration. Therefore your clocks will be
truly synchronous. Despite Einstein and the kinetic atomic theory.
Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
"Complexity is but the many faces of simplicity.
The road to complexity consists of just a bunch of simple steps.
They only look enormous if you skip the littlest ones."
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: tsar@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:59:24 -0700
Keith Stein wrote:
>
> Tsar wrote:-
>
> >Going by the posted results of H&K; the clocks readings were pretty much
> >in agreement with the predicted results. Mind you I don't claim this confirms
> >time dilation, only that moving atomic clocks in a field run slower than
> >stationary clocks in the same field.
> >
> >The experts (which I won't qualify here) assert that the above taken together
> >will all of the other claimed confirmations of the theory indicate that the
> >experiment confirms time dilation. I assert that the reasoning (giving the
> >experts their due) confirms a "probability" of time dilation, but not proof.
> >
> >If you have reason to believe my statement above is inaccurate, with respect
> >to moving clocks slowing in a field please post it. Also I've not seen any
> >independent analysis that discredits the actual results of H&K; Keith, only
> >discussions wrt what's actually confirmed. I'd appreciate a look at any
> >material you might know of in that vein.
>
> There was an excellent thread on this on sci.physics some months back.
>
> "Hafele and Keating test fudged... (Kelly's real paper)".
>
> The conclusion, (which no one on sci.physics disputed at that time),
> was that an independent analysis of H&K;'s raw data showed that Mssrs H&K;
> had found no evidence for the reality of the predicted time dilations !
I wish I'd seen the thread ... or the paper. Any guesses where I can find it?
>
> Now i know that 'no evidence for' is not the same as 'evidence for no',
> but IMHO, time dilations of the H&K; type simply could not occur, and
> it's on the record that i was expressing doubt about H&K; result for
> quite some time before the discrediting of H&K; appeared on sci.physics.
>
Well, I'd be inclined to "guess" there may well be some effect on clocks
moving through a field such that they run at different rates as compared
to stationary clocks in the field; but this does not establish that what
clocks do time must do.
W$