Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
 |
|
On 18 jun, 20:28, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83049ebb-a632-4529-8089-9601f9b22804@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
...
We have disagreement about which is the
essential point in this thread.
Right, what the OP asked, versus the direction you want to go.
I'm getting off at this port, Mr. Pirate.
Really easy for you to start your own thread, appropriately
titled, which will attract the attention of those qualified to
argue with you about how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin.
David A. Smith
|
Strange behavior. I put out my opinion about the essential topic of
this thread and accepted yours. And now you refuse to talk about your
own contribution?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvallshg:
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53cc0ac9-956c-45d6-9d99-5182f06adc48@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On 18 jun, 20:28, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83049ebb-a632-4529-8089-9601f9b22804@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
...
Really easy for you to start your own thread,
appropriately titled, which will attract the
attention of those qualified to argue with you
about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin.
Strange behavior. I put out my opinion about the
essential topic of this thread and accepted yours.
And now you refuse to talk about your own
contribution?
|
Let's splice yours back in:
| Quote: |
Taking into account that in Euclidean
geometry the distance from A to B is the same
distance from B to A,
|
.... problem with Euclidean ...
| Quote: |
and that by definition light spends the same time
to travel in both directions,
|
.... a fact that cannot be in evidence in *this* Universe, without
instantaneous signalling ...
| Quote: |
then c is the same in both directions, nothing in
common with your "average speed over a two-way
path of light in vacuum".
|
You missed the "two-way" part, didn't you? You cannot measure
OWLS in this Universe, you can only look for anisotropy. All
"light speed" measurements are TWLS.
| Quote: |
I am not saying that you are wrong or not in that,
I am only saying that this is not what Einstein says.
|
That is not what Einstein says, that is what you inferred from
what Einstein said.
| Quote: |
About the (c+v) and (c-v) expressions that you
refer, I remember you that in the same Einstein's
paper (paragraph 3, derivation of Lorentz
transform) we have about 8 expressions of this
type. The important point here is to know that
you can add vectorially any velocities (even with
one or the two being light ones) if both refer to
the same frame, and not confuse this with the
relativistic composition of velocities derived by
Einstein in paragraph 5 that refer to velocities
that belong to different frames.
|
This is not at issue. The v is either source velocity (if you
"believe" in ballistic light), or detector velocity (if you
"believe" in aether). And Nature does not care either way,
unless you look at "conservation of momentum".
And is still going afield of the OP's question.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 19 jun, 19:48, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53cc0ac9-956c-45d6-9d99-5182f06adc48@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 18 jun, 20:28, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83049ebb-a632-4529-8089-9601f9b22804@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com....
...
Really easy for you to start your own thread,
appropriately titled, which will attract the
attention of those qualified to argue with you
about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin.
Strange behavior. I put out my opinion about the
essential topic of this thread and accepted yours.
And now you refuse to talk about your own
contribution?
Let's splice yours back in:
Taking into account that in Euclidean
geometry the distance from A to B is the same
distance from B to A,
... problem with Euclidean ...
(First of all, very happy for your decision to continue our talking. I |
remember you in this group always as a very polite person).
… problem with 1905 Einsteinean… Re-read my post where I begin showing
1905 Einstein’s literal words {…by the employment of rigid standards
of measurement and the method of Euclidean geometry and can be
expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates}
| Quote: |
and that by definition light spends the same time
to travel in both directions,
... a fact that cannot be in evidence in *this* Universe, without
instantaneous signalling ...
In my opinion, this is precisely the cause why Einstein {establish BY |
DEFINITION that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B
equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A}. It is a very
essential part of the new model created by him.
| Quote: |
then c is the same in both directions, nothing in
common with your "average speed over a two-way
path of light in vacuum".
You missed the "two-way" part, didn't you? You cannot measure
OWLS in this Universe, you can only look for anisotropy. All
"light speed" measurements are TWLS.
I don’t think I missed something here. I refer explicitly to your |
“average speed over a two-way path of light in vacuum”, and also to
the relevant literal words of Einstein DEFINING time between events
that occur in different points of an EUCLIDEAN space. For me has no
sense at all to demand a measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
| Quote: |
I am not saying that you are wrong or not in that,
I am only saying that this is not what Einstein says.
That is not what Einstein says, that is what you inferred from
what Einstein said.
You can be right. Make explicit where you think I am doing a wrong |
inference and why. I am open to consider any other different
inference. Tell me what you think Einstein said.
| Quote: |
About the (c+v) and (c-v) expressions that you
refer, I remember you that in the same Einstein's
paper (paragraph 3, derivation of Lorentz
transform) we have about 8 expressions of this
type. The important point here is to know that
you can add vectorially any velocities (even with
one or the two being light ones) if both refer to
the same frame, and not confuse this with the
relativistic composition of velocities derived by
Einstein in paragraph 5 that refer to velocities
that belong to different frames.
This is not at issue. The v is either source velocity (if you
"believe" in ballistic light), or detector velocity (if you
"believe" in aether). And Nature does not care either way,
unless you look at "conservation of momentum".
The first post of this thread refers to 1905 Einstein’s Relativity. In |
that context any reference to “ballistic light” or “aether” is totally
out of place. In the introduction of his 30 Jun 1905 paper Einstein
writes {The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
superfluous…}. I remain considering very important to distinguish the
algebraic vectorial adding of velocities (that belong to the same
frame) from the relativistic composition of velocities (that belong to
different frames). In my opinion this is a very common source of
confusion, perhaps the one of Socratus not understanding that even two
light rays can have a relative velocity different (or not) from c
(measured in some frame), and at the same time have each of them the
same velocity c measured in any frame. By the way, momentum is
conserved in any interacting body set, measured in any frame {…in
which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good}(referring again
to 1905 Einstein literal words).
| Quote: |
And is still going afield of the OP's question.
David A. Smith- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 19 jun, 16:29, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 19, 2:04 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
The readings of the clocks and the corresponding delays among them are
unique. This is the answer of Nature to our question (as in any other
real experiment). You say that the ECI is a “convenient” frame and I
am suspecting that it is unique.
...because you are an old crackpot. Nothing can be done, your
Alzheimer is too advanced.
ry to find another (different from
ECI) inertial frame than can predict with similar accuracy the
measured clock time delays.
Easy, use the CMBR. Many mainstream physicists use it. You didn't know
that, did you?
Do you consider the CMBR an inertial frame?
Soon you will be convinced that this “less
convenient” inertial system can’t exist at all. See the following
paragraph (between “ ”) taken from the link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
“The problem encountered with measuring the difference between a
surface clock and one on an aircraft is that neither location is
really an inertial frame. If we take the center of the earth as an
approximation to an inertial frame, then we can compute the difference
between a surface clock and the aircraft clock.”
The centre of mass inertial system corresponding to any body set is
unique, and the motion of this centre of mass is totally independent
of any interactions among that bodies. This was known long before
Relativity and continue being valid after it. By the way, Einstein
wrote a paper in this topic (“The principle of conservation of the
centre of gravity movement and the inertia of energy”, Annalen der
Physik 20( :627-633, 1906).
good, you sometimes read mainstream physics.
What a surprise!. You saying that I read mainstream Physics?
Remember the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment.
Yes, I remember it , what does it have to do with your ignorance old
fart?
In the 1971 H&K experiment Nature gives us a unique specific reading
in the involved atomic clocks, what suggest a unique inertial frame.
No, it doesn't. I see that you follow the same exact line of thinking
as the other old fart, Marcel Luttgens.
I don’t know that person.
He's an old fart, very much like you.
Present an inertial system different from
ECI making similar predictions for the H&K experiment to support your
assertion (I suggest you to refer the Solar System one, or the Galaxy
one).
See above , old fart.
See above the question about CMBR. Please, don’t forget to answer it.
No , old fart. The computation used BOTH SR AND GR. For the westward
plane, the GR effect dominates the SR effect by a factor of 2.
Of course that GR computations are included (is a real experiment,
gravitation can’t be put off).
..but you just denied it in your previous post, this is why I
corrected you. How quickly you forget. Oh, it is a manifestation of
your Alzheimer, I see.
You made the wrong inference that the use of SR implies the not use of |
GR.
| Quote: |
In the link I gave you above we can
find sufficient details. Comparing GR and SR effects is totally
irrelevant for our point, the kinematic SR effect strongly dependent
on the inertial frame used.
How stooopid are you? really.....this one doesn't even deserve an
answer.
It seems you continue making wrong inferences.
But what inertial system was selected to make
computations?
ECI as well. You didn't know that?
Of course that I know it.
You are not only stoopid, you are also lying. Until yesterday you
didn't even know what ECI was, I just showed you.
Again a very wrong inference. That you introduced the ECI for first |
time in our dialog has no relation at all with my previous knowledge
about it. I am a fan of centre of mass inertial systems, even
suspecting that they are the unique real and valid ones. If you
accepted that I read sometimes mainstream Physics, how can you think
that I know nothing about the unique inertial system used in GPS with
a huge associated experimental evidence?
| Quote: |
Can you mention any other inertial system
“less convenient” than ECI that can be used?
Few ideas but fixed. CMBR, old fart.
Go to the above question about CMBR.
You are rambling idiocies. How advanced is your Alzheimer?
I am only referring to the historical facts. I don’t know about the
use of any real inertial system different from the centre of mass
ones. You know about something?
Yes, you are an ignorant fart. No question about it.
I was expecting here a new reference to the CMBR. You know if it has a |
centre of mass? Maybe you don't, being the cause for your omission
here.
| Quote: |
How come the the Securidad is letting you converse on the internet? Is
this because you are trying to bash the "capitalistic
science" (relativity)? Is that because you are a colonel in the
Securidad ?
Please, Physics is sufficiently complex already. Why to mix it with
political topics?
But I want to know. What is you rank in the Securidad? Colonel? Major?
Do you also have a KGB rank?- Ocultar texto de la cita -
So, what is your KGB rank? Polkovnik?- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 20, 8:53 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Easy, use the CMBR. Many mainstream physicists use it. You didn't know
that, did you?
Do you consider the CMBR an inertial frame?
|
Not only me, quite a few mainstream authors.
| Quote: |
Physik 20(:627-633, 1906).
good, you sometimes read mainstream physics.
What a surprise!. You saying that I read mainstream Physics?
|
Yes, you read it . Unfortunately, you don't understand it .
| Quote: |
No , old fart. The computation used BOTH SR AND GR. For the westward
plane, the GR effect dominates the SR effect by a factor of 2.
Of course that GR computations are included (is a real experiment,
gravitation can’t be put off).
..but you just denied it in your previous post, this is why I
corrected you. How quickly you forget. Oh, it is a manifestation of
your Alzheimer, I see.
You made the wrong inference that the use of SR implies the not use of
GR.
|
No, I didn't. But your Alzheimer is way too advance so your short term
memory is all shot, old fart.
| Quote: |
So, what is your KGB rank? Polkovnik?-
|
Why do you refuse to give your rank in the Securidad, Rafaelshito? Are
you a retired colonel, dabbling in relativity? You know, there are
REAL scientists in Cuba, that do REAL physics. Why don't you spend
some of your free time enrolling in a class and LEARNING something
instead of posting antiscientific garbage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
dlzc
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvallshg:
On Jun 20, 6:03 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On 19 jun, 19:48, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53cc0ac9-956c-45d6-9d99-5182f06adc48@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 18 jun, 20:28, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83049ebb-a632-4529-8089-9601f9b22804@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com....
...
Taking into account that in Euclidean
geometry the distance from A to B is
the same distance from B to A,
... problem with Euclidean ...
(First of all, very happy for your decision
to continue our talking. I remember you in
this group always as a very polite person).
|
First, I appreciate that you have insisted I *be* polite. That
helps. We had been visited by those that will not consider reasoned
argument, and are in general abusive. It seems to be infective.
| Quote: |
… problem with 1905 Einsteinean… Re-read
my post where I begin showing 1905
Einstein’s literal words {…by the employment
of rigid standards of measurement and the
method of Euclidean geometry and can be
expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates}
|
Your "short cut" inherently blocks considerations of other "schools of
thought". Such assertions prevent discussion, except of one's
starting point. Better to let it naturally fall out in the
derivation, as Maxwell's aether falls out.
| Quote: |
and that by definition light spends
the same time to travel in both
directions,
... a fact that cannot be in evidence
in *this* Universe, without
instantaneous signalling ...
In my opinion, this is precisely the cause
why Einstein {establish BY DEFINITION that
the “time” required by light to travel
from A to B equals the “time” it requires
to travel from B to A}.
|
I disagree, else he would not have had the c+v and c-v in his initial
derivation. Maxwell (laws of physics, postulate 1) provides that it
is always c, as a *result*, not a postulate.
| Quote: |
It is a very essential part of the new
model created by him.
|
I disagree that it is a part that originate with him, but with
Maxwell.
| Quote: |
then c is the same in both directions,
nothing in common with your "average
speed over a two-way path of light in
vacuum".
You missed the "two-way" part, didn't
you? You cannot measure OWLS in this
Universe, you can only look for anisotropy.
All "light speed" measurements are TWLS.
I don’t think I missed something here. I
refer explicitly to your “average speed over
a two-way path of light in vacuum”, and also
to the relevant literal words of Einstein
DEFINING time between events that occur in
different points of an EUCLIDEAN space.
|
But you disallow other models by your applied limitations. There is
no need to apply this at this time.
| Quote: |
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
|
There are many here that disagree with you. Better to allow it, and
let Nature be the arbiter.
| Quote: |
I am not saying that you are wrong
or not in that, I am only saying
that this is not what Einstein says.
That is not what Einstein says, that is
what you inferred from what Einstein said.
You can be right. Make explicit where you
think I am doing a wrong inference and why.
|
Done. You cannot force someone to change their mind. Nature either
will, or She will "break their legs".
| Quote: |
I am open to consider any other different
inference. Tell me what you think Einstein
said.
About the (c+v) and (c-v) expressions
that you refer, I remember you that
in the same Einstein's paper
(paragraph 3, derivation of Lorentz
transform) we have about 8 expressions
of this type. The important point here
is to know that you can add
vectorially any velocities (even with
one or the two being light ones) if
both refer to the same frame, and not
confuse this with the relativistic
composition of velocities derived by
Einstein in paragraph 5 that refer
to velocities that belong to
different frames.
This is not at issue. The v is either
source velocity (if you "believe" in
ballistic light), or detector velocity
(if you "believe" in aether). And
Nature does not care either way, unless
you look at "conservation of momentum".
The first post of this thread refers to
1905 Einstein’s Relativity.
|
Here is what was said:
<QUOTE>
The speed of Light quantum is constant: c=1,
no matter how the source or the observer moves.
/ Michelson’s experiment. 1881. SRT. 1905. /
<END QUOTE>
| Quote: |
In that context any reference to
“ballistic light” or “aether” is
totally out of place.
|
No. It clearly is not. MMX showed one type of aether did not exist.
SR (essentially) defines a class of aethers, and non-aether, that
agrees with experiment.
| Quote: |
In the introduction of his 30 Jun 1905
paper Einstein writes {The introduction
of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to
be superfluous…}. I remain considering
very important to distinguish the
algebraic vectorial adding of velocities
(that belong to the same frame) from the
relativistic composition of velocities
(that belong to different frames). In my
opinion this is a very common source of
confusion, perhaps the one of Socratus
not understanding that even two light
rays can have a relative velocity
different (or not) from c (measured in
some frame),
|
Only if the frame is accelerating. Which is not SR. Please don't
wander off again...
| Quote: |
and at the same time have each of them
the same velocity c measured in any
frame. By the way, momentum is
conserved in any interacting body set,
|
Not with MMX performed with light from a relatively moving source.
The light must arrive at either c+v or c-v, and "bounce" at c-v or c+v
respectively. Best to let other's models fail on their merits.
| Quote: |
measured in any frame {…in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold
good}(referring again to 1905 Einstein
literal words).
|
... or at least to your interpretation of them. Again, it is much
later than 1905 now, we can move on to things (and clarity) we have
here and now.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:10 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 20 jun, 11:03, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 20, 8:53 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
Easy, use the CMBR. Many mainstream physicists use it. You didn't know
that, did you?
Do you consider the CMBR an inertial frame?
Not only me, quite a few mainstream authors.
You say that CMBR and ECI are equivalent inertial frames. OK. Explain |
then to me why if CMBR can be used to describe the Sun movement (or
the one corresponding to any other entity of our Universe), ECI can’t
be used for that.
| Quote: |
Physik 20(:627-633, 1906).
good, you sometimes read mainstream physics.
What a surprise!. You saying that I read mainstream Physics?
Yes, you read it . Unfortunately, you don't understand it .
I will suppose that you read mainstream Physics, but understanding |
it.
| Quote: |
No , old fart. The computation used BOTH SR AND GR. For the westward
plane, the GR effect dominates the SR effect by a factor of 2.
Of course that GR computations are included (is a real experiment,
gravitation can’t be put off).
..but you just denied it in your previous post, this is why I
corrected you. How quickly you forget. Oh, it is a manifestation of
your Alzheimer, I see.
You made the wrong inference that the use of SR implies the not use of
GR.
No, I didn't. But your Alzheimer is way too advance so your short term
memory is all shot, old fart.
You were the first mentioning GR here, writing “The computation used |
BOTH SR AND GR”. And after my writing “You made the wrong inference
that the use of SR implies the not use of GR”, you reply “No, I
didn’t”. As I only wrote about the use of SR, your correction of me
was evidently based on the wrong inference that you really made and
now negate.
| Quote: |
So, what is your KGB rank? Polkovnik?-
Why do you refuse to give your rank in the Securidad, Rafaelshito? Are
you a retired colonel, dabbling in relativity? You know, there are
REAL scientists in Cuba, that do REAL physics. Why don't you spend
some of your free time enrolling in a class and LEARNING something
instead of posting antiscientific garbage?
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 25, 12:10 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
You say that CMBR and ECI are equivalent inertial frames. OK. Explain
then to me why if CMBR can be used to describe the Sun movement (or
the one corresponding to any other entity of our Universe), ECI can’t
be used for that.
|
It can be used, it is just less convenient, old fart.
| Quote: |
I will suppose that you read mainstream Physics, but understanding
it.
|
Still the same old fart, tovarisch polkovnik.
| Quote: |
You were the first mentioning GR here, writing “The computation used
BOTH SR AND GR”.
|
Because this IS the case , old fart. You missed the GR contribution.
| Quote: |
So, what is your KGB rank? Polkovnik?-
Why do you refuse to give your rank in the Securidad, Rafaelshito? Are
you a retired colonel, dabbling in relativity? You know, there are
REAL scientists in Cuba, that do REAL physics. Why don't you spend
some of your free time enrolling in a class and LEARNING something
instead of posting antiscientific garbage?
|
You ARE retired from the KGB, otherwise Raoul and Fidel wouldn't let
you use the internet, fartso. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 20 jun, 11:13, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvallshg:
On Jun 20, 6:03 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 jun, 19:48, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53cc0ac9-956c-45d6-9d99-5182f06adc48@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com....
On 18 jun, 20:28, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83049ebb-a632-4529-8089-9601f9b22804@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
...
Taking into account that in Euclidean
geometry the distance from A to B is
the same distance from B to A,
... problem with Euclidean ...
(First of all, very happy for your decision
to continue our talking. I remember you in
this group always as a very polite person).
First, I appreciate that you have insisted I *be* polite. That
helps. We had been visited by those that will not consider reasoned
argument, and are in general abusive. It seems to be infective.
Total agreement.
… problem with 1905 Einsteinean… Re-read
my post where I begin showing 1905
Einstein’s literal words {…by the employment
of rigid standards of measurement and the
method of Euclidean geometry and can be
expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates}
Your "short cut" inherently blocks considerations of other "schools of
thought". Such assertions prevent discussion, except of one's
starting point. Better to let it naturally fall out in the
derivation, as Maxwell's aether falls out.
Well, I consider that the topic in this thread was put in the 1905 |
Relativity context. I have my reasons to separate it with great care
from the following development of Relativity and the rest of Physics.
But this doesn’t imply any blocking at all of other “schools of
thought” . Indeed, my principal interest is precisely to determine in
what extend 1905 Relativity remains being valid in our days, what can
be considered in it obsolete (or wrong) and what not.
| Quote: |
and that by definition light spends
the same time to travel in both
directions,
... a fact that cannot be in evidence
in *this* Universe, without
instantaneous signalling ...
In my opinion, this is precisely the cause
why Einstein {establish BY DEFINITION that
the “time” required by light to travel
from A to B equals the “time” it requires
to travel from B to A}.
I disagree, else he would not have had the c+v and c-v in his initial
derivation. Maxwell (laws of physics, postulate 1) provides that it
is always c, as a *result*, not a postulate.
Refer to the original Jun30 1905 paper. Einstein’s definition for time |
between events separated in space is in paragraph 1, the c±v
expressions appears in paragraphs 2 and 3. If you consider this a
contradiction, those are major words. I am afraid that you are
confusing the algebraic vector addition of velocities that belong to
the same frame (used freely many times by Einstein in those
paragraphs) with the relativistic composition of velocities that refer
to different frames, derived in paragraph 5. Check by yourself what I
am saying. Einstein takes for granted Maxwell laws, including of
course the vacuum light speed derivation. That result of Maxwell is
used then by Einstein to develop a new concept about what time is,
introducing his light postulate.
| Quote: |
It is a very essential part of the new
model created by him.
I disagree that it is a part that originate with him, but with
Maxwell.
See my previous comment. That c is vacuum light speed is not the new |
thing Einstein introduced. Before Einstein vacuum light speed was c
only in the privileged absolute space and time Newtonian frame. After
Einstein that privileged frame disappears, being vacuum light speed c
in ALL the frames {in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold
good}(using Einstein’s own words).
| Quote: |
then c is the same in both directions,
nothing in common with your "average
speed over a two-way path of light in
vacuum".
You missed the "two-way" part, didn't
you? You cannot measure OWLS in this
Universe, you can only look for anisotropy.
All "light speed" measurements are TWLS.
I don’t think I missed something here. I
refer explicitly to your “average speed over
a two-way path of light in vacuum”, and also
to the relevant literal words of Einstein
DEFINING time between events that occur in
different points of an EUCLIDEAN space.
But you disallow other models by your applied limitations. There is
no need to apply this at this time.
Of course that we can’t be at the same time using different |
approaches. If you think that the original one (1905 Relativity) must
be abandoned, you must specify the causes, what you consider wrong or
inadequate in it.
| Quote: |
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
There are many here that disagree with you. Better to allow it, and
let Nature be the arbiter.
You said before that only TWLS measurements are possible. Then, how |
can we know about the Nature decision if it is a constant vacuum light
speed in any inertial frame? (Einstein second postulate). Anyway, it
is a common scientific practice to evaluate theories by experiment of
its predictions, not making direct experiment of its postulates, more
ever taking into account that in this case the last alternative seems
to be impossible.
| Quote: |
I am not saying that you are wrong
or not in that, I am only saying
that this is not what Einstein says.
That is not what Einstein says, that is
what you inferred from what Einstein said.
You can be right. Make explicit where you
think I am doing a wrong inference and why.
Done. You cannot force someone to change their mind. Nature either
will, or She will "break their legs".
Yes, we cannot force 1905 Einstein mind to be as we would want today. |
This is why I am so careful trying to use always as possible the
literal writings. By the way, what Einstein’s literal words you
consider wrong or obsolete? Or what wrong inference from my part you
consider that violate the 1905 epoch context?
| Quote: |
I am open to consider any other different
inference. Tell me what you think Einstein
said.
About the (c+v) and (c-v) expressions
that you refer, I remember you that
in the same Einstein's paper
(paragraph 3, derivation of Lorentz
transform) we have about 8 expressions
of this type. The important point here
is to know that you can add
vectorially any velocities (even with
one or the two being light ones) if
both refer to the same frame, and not
confuse this with the relativistic
composition of velocities derived by
Einstein in paragraph 5 that refer
to velocities that belong to
different frames.
This is not at issue. The v is either
source velocity (if you "believe" in
ballistic light), or detector velocity
(if you "believe" in aether). And
Nature does not care either way, unless
you look at "conservation of momentum".
The first post of this thread refers to
1905 Einstein’s Relativity.
Here is what was said:
QUOTE
The speed of Light quantum is constant: c=1,
no matter how the source or the observer moves.
/ Michelson’s experiment. 1881. SRT. 1905. /
END QUOTE
Yes, vacuum light speed was considered in Einstein’s second postulate |
independent of source movement and the same in all frames (I identify
here observer with frame). I interpret SRT 1905 as 1905 Relativity. In
1881 light speed was considered c only in the aether.
| Quote: |
In that context any reference to
“ballistic light” or “aether” is
totally out of place.
No. It clearly is not. MMX showed one type of aether did not exist.
SR (essentially) defines a class of aethers, and non-aether, that
agrees with experiment.
SR defining a class of aethers? Surely this is not 1905 Relativity. |
Repeating Einstein’s literal words in the Introduction: {The
introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous…}..
I don’t care here about any post-1905 opinions (including Einstein’s
ones).
| Quote: |
In the introduction of his 30 Jun 1905
paper Einstein writes {The introduction
of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to
be superfluous…}. I remain considering
very important to distinguish the
algebraic vectorial adding of velocities
(that belong to the same frame) from the
relativistic composition of velocities
(that belong to different frames). In my
opinion this is a very common source of
confusion, perhaps the one of Socratus
not understanding that even two light
rays can have a relative velocity
different (or not) from c (measured in
some frame),
Only if the frame is accelerating. Which is not SR. Please don't
wander off again...
I don’t know what accelerating frame are you referring (all what I |
wrote has nothing to be with any accelerated frame). Maybe are you
referring to the gravitational accelerated clock at the rotating
Earth’s equator mentioned by Einstein at the end of paragraph 4? By
the way, you can see in that example (the unique real one in all the
paper) that a Lorentz Transform is being applied between an inertial
frame (the same ECI of today GPS!) and an accelerated frame (rotating
Earth’s surface). We are in agreement about that this is not today SR,
but surely it is 1905 Relativity! I will suppose that you don’t
pretend now to change 1905 Einstein’s mind, but maybe you can think
that all of this is today already obsolete. Let me know.
| Quote: |
and at the same time have each of them
the same velocity c measured in any
frame. By the way, momentum is
conserved in any interacting body set,
Not with MMX performed with light from a relatively moving source.
The light must arrive at either c+v or c-v, and "bounce" at c-v or c+v
respectively. Best to let other's models fail on their merits.
Are you assigning to a light ray a c+v or c-v velocity? This is by |
sure not today SR (neither 1905 Relativity). By the second postulate
light has always c velocity in any frame, before and after any
“bounce”, no matter how the source is moving. You must find first that
Relativity can’t explain MMX in order to introduce an alternative
theory.
| Quote: |
measured in any frame {…in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold
good}(referring again to 1905 Einstein
literal words).
... or at least to your interpretation of them. Again, it is much
later than 1905 now, we can move on to things (and clarity) we have
here and now.
Yes, of course we are now in 2008. But until now you haven’t proved |
anything wrong in 1905 Relativity (or any interpretation of me). Make
an effort, refer to something that you consider the more easy or
evident to prove wrong. Maybe the 1905 Einstein’s Principle of
Relativity? Or the Conservation of Energy Principle used by Einstein
in his Sep27 1905 paper? Or the Universal mass-energy equivalence
derived in it?
| Quote: |
David A. Smith- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 25 jun, 14:34, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 25, 12:10 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
You say that CMBR and ECI are equivalent inertial frames. OK. Explain
then to me why if CMBR can be used to describe the Sun movement (or
the one corresponding to any other entity of our Universe), ECI can’t
be used for that.
It can be used, it is just less convenient, old fart.
Are you saying that ECI can be used to describe the Sun movement? The |
inertial system where the Earth’s centre is at rest used to describe
the Sun movement? Are you trying to vindicate Ptolomeus? Even the
catholic church recognizes today that Galileo was right! This is the
greatest non-sense that I had read in this group!
| Quote: |
I will suppose that you read mainstream Physics, but understanding
it.
Still the same old fart, tovarisch polkovnik.
I retire my assertion about you understanding what you read. You |
proved me already that you are able to read about CMBR or ECI
understanding nothing.
| Quote: |
You were the first mentioning GR here, writing “The computation used
BOTH SR AND GR”.
Because this IS the case , old fart. You missed the GR contribution.
I never said that this is not the case.You made the wrong inference |
that mentioning me only the SR contribution implies that I don’t know
about the GR one, or that I missed it. The SR contribution is the
unique relevant to the topic in this thread, the one related with
inertial systems and velocities.
| Quote: |
So, what is your KGB rank? Polkovnik?-
Why do you refuse to give your rank in the Securidad, Rafaelshito? Are
you a retired colonel, dabbling in relativity? You know, there are
REAL scientists in Cuba, that do REAL physics. Why don't you spend
some of your free time enrolling in a class and LEARNING something
instead of posting antiscientific garbage?
You just had broken all records about antiscientific garbage saying |
that the Sun movement can be described in the ECI system where the
Earth’s centre is at rest, proving your total ignorance about what is
a real inertial system.
| Quote: |
You ARE retired from the KGB, otherwise Raoul and Fidel wouldn't let
you use the internet, fartso.
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 25, 2:13 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Are you saying that ECI can be used to describe the Sun movement?
|
Of course it can, it is just that the equations will be a little more
complicated than when expressed in CMBR. How many times do you need to
be told in order to understand?
| Quote: |
Are you trying to vindicate Ptolomeus? Even the
catholic church recognizes today that Galileo was right!
|
No , old fart, any inertial reference frame is as good as any other.
| Quote: |
Still the same old fart, tovarisch polkovnik.
I retire my assertion about you understanding what you read. You
proved me already that you are able to read about CMBR or ECI
understanding nothing.
|
You forgot to take your pills today.
| Quote: |
You were the first mentioning GR here, writing “The computation used
BOTH SR AND GR”.
Because this IS the case , old fart. You missed the GR contribution.
I never said that this is not the case.
|
You forgot your Alzheimer pills today....
| Quote: |
You ARE retired from the KGB, otherwise Raoul and Fidel wouldn't let
you use the internet, fartso.
|
How are your friends at Securidad treating you, fartso? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
dlzc
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 25, 12:47 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On 20 jun, 11:13,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:> Dear rvallshg:
...
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
There are many here that disagree with
you. Better to allow it, and let Nature
be the arbiter.
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
|
As I have already said, we can't. All we can do is look for
anisotropy.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 25 jun, 17:46, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 25, 12:47 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 jun, 11:13,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:> Dear rvallshg:
...
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
There are many here that disagree with
you. Better to allow it, and let Nature
be the arbiter.
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
As I have already said, we can't. All we can do is look for
anisotropy.
We are evaluating the supposed impossibility to measure an OWLS in |
very different ways. For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein’s second postulate, but for me it is precisely
the contrary, an argument in favour of the presence of that postulate.
This is not a new type of problem in Physics. Since Newton’s
“Principia…” he considered the existence of the absolute space and
time as a pre-condition assumed valid, like a postulate, even
accepting him that it is out of any possible experimental measurement.
By the way, if we go to history, the first measurements of light speed
were OWLS, Römer and Bradley astronomical ones. Resuming, possible or
not an OWLS, this is not for me a valid argument against 1905
Einstein’s Relativity theory.
(I notice that you skip many things of my last post, considered by me
very important ones, but I respect your decisions).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 25 jun, 16:36, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 25, 2:13 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that ECI can be used to describe the Sun movement?
Of course it can, it is just that the equations will be a little more
complicated than when expressed in CMBR. How many times do you need to
be told in order to understand?
I am very curious about the Sun’s trajectory around the Earth’s centre |
at rest. Don’t forget to describe it for me in your next post!
| Quote: |
Are you trying to vindicate Ptolomeus? Even the
catholic church recognizes today that Galileo was right!
No , old fart, any inertial reference frame is as good as any other.
You will be very famous for your contribution about Ptolomeus system |
being an inertial one!
| Quote: |
Still the same old fart, tovarisch polkovnik.
I retire my assertion about you understanding what you read. You
proved me already that you are able to read about CMBR or ECI
understanding nothing.
You forgot to take your pills today.
You were the first mentioning GR here, writing “The computation used
BOTH SR AND GR”.
Because this IS the case , old fart. You missed the GR contribution.
Make a GPS in the Moon, including of course GR contribution. Surely |
you will select for it the Moon’s centre inertial system as the more
“convenient”, forgetting that it is an accelerated one respect the
Earth (you made already that type of decision when you classified the
accelerated ECI around the Sun as an inertial one). Let me know your
final decision about how to design a GPS in the Moon (or in Mars,
Mercury, or in any other place of our Universe).
| Quote: |
I never said that this is not the case.
You forgot your Alzheimer pills today....
You ARE retired from the KGB, otherwise Raoul and Fidel wouldn't let
you use the internet, fartso.
How are your friends at Securidad treating you, fartso?
Please, don’t forget the Sun’s trajectory around the Earth’s centre at |
rest in your next post, maybe you will obtain a new revision of
Galileo’s process!
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:03 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 27, 6:42 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
I am very curious about the Sun’s trajectory around the Earth’s centre
at rest. Don’t forget to describe it for me in your next post!
|
No, old imbecilic fart, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.
You asked if you could USE a frame of reference (ECI) tied to the
Erath in order to describe the relative motion between the Earth and
the Sun. Yes, you can, imbecile.
| Quote: |
Are you trying to vindicate Ptolomeus? Even the
catholic church recognizes today that Galileo was right!
No , old fart, any inertial reference frame is as good as any other.
You will be very famous for your contribution about Ptolomeus system
being an inertial one!
|
And you are already a very famous imbecile, Rafaelshito!
| Quote: |
Make a GPS in the Moon, including of course GR contribution. Surely
you will select for it the Moon’s centre inertial system
|
Stop, you cretin. If the GPS transmitter is on the moon, and this is a
GPS for the Earth, you still need to use the frame of reference
attached to the Earth (ECI) if you want an easy descrption of the
phaenomenat. What a cretin!
You ARE retired from the KGB, otherwise Raoul and Fidel wouldn't let
you use the internet, fartso. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
