Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
 |
|
On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
[snip babble]
|
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 1:40 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
[snip babble]
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens
|
Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bryan Olson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 5, 4:13 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
Luttgens:
Two persons, A and B, are both 1.60 m tall when their
height is mesured in the same room.
After some jogging, the distance between A and B is
x meters, and A will claim that B measure 0.80 m, whereas
B will observe that A measures 0.80 m.
|
Them's some freekin' stupid joggers.
| Quote: |
Of course, both
are right,
|
They're really not.
| Quote: |
but this doesn't change the intrinsic height of
A and B, i.e. 1.60 m.
(cut) Both A and B will still claim that both A and B are 1.6
meters tall, unless both A and B are slithering along the ground like
snakes. A will measure B as relatively thinner, and likewise B will
measure A as thinner, but since height is not in the direction of
motion, no change will be detected- A. McIntire
My scenario is a simple illustration of perspective,
an optical phenomenon, which was well known by painters
since many centuries.
|
It's an illustration of you not knowing what you're talking about.
--
--Bryan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bryan Olson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Shubee wrote:
| Quote: |
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
Shubee wrote:
Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug
This from a thoroughly delusional incompetent who's spent more than
five years unsuccessfully trying to derive the basic SR transformation
that relates frame-dependent quantities.
Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
ever conceived.
|
Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
"... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."
--
--Bryan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bryan Olson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Shubee wrote:
| Quote: |
Stuart Ray wrote:
Are you that much smarter than EVERY other person in the world?
Sci.physics.relativity is infamous for the number of cranks that are
attracted to relativistic physics but who can't do math on any level.
You obviously fit the profile.
|
Gee Shubee, in a thread where you call Einstein's emphasis
self-contradictory", bemoan what "sadly, physicists believe"
and proclaim your own superior results while citing only your
own web pages, you might be better off not bringing up the
"crank" issue.
Or maybe you're doing the group a favor. Since many readers do
not have the background to spot the errors in your work, you
offer other clues.
Ah, good one.
--
--Bryan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 12:02 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 1:40 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
[snip babble]
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens
Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10
|
H&K said themselves that their experiment couldn't be
statistically interpreted, see their original paper,
p. 170: "However, the number of measured values is too
small for a good statistical analysis."
But 'textbook experts' like you have no clue about
experimental errors.
And why do you repeat the obvious fact that relativistic
effects on clocks are *observable*. Once again, you are
implying -without proof- that observable effects are real.
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 5, 11:37 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com
wrote:
You have no idea about the endorsements that I've received.
You're quite right about that. What endorsements have you received?
|
There are acknowledgments that can be interpreted as an endorsement on
some level. Thus, the nicest endorsement that I've received was from
Eugene V. Stefanovich in his paper, A Hamiltonian Approach to Quantum
Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019).
| Quote: |
Has anyone ever made what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"?
Yes. Earlier versions of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
were too difficult for Nobel Laureates to understand. I believe that
problem has been fixed.
Hmmm... so the only criticisms you've received have been that it was
too "difficult"?
|
You asked for valid criticisms. That is correct. It has been the only
valid criticism.
| Quote: |
I was thinking that perhaps some individuals might
have actually suggested your "derivation" quite simple to understand,
but tragically misguided and lacking in any cognitive content.
|
Then you're at odds with Eric Gisse who has been a 3rd year physics
student at the University of Alaska for the last 4 years now. His
incessant whining has been that my approach doesn't generalize but
offers no proof of his assertion.
| Quote: |
The commonality is the great number of buffoons ... who argue idiotically
that my derivation is invalid because it only derives the Lorentz transformation
in one spatial dimension.
Hmmm... I would say that is among the least of its problems. But if
that has been the most common response, have you dealt with it by
showing how it can be extended to all dimensions?
|
I don't jump through hoops for trolls. The next section to be written
will add the required axioms to make time dilation computations
possible. It will include an insightful solution to exercise 1 and 2
of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
Exercise 1 has been recently solved on this newsgroup and verified by
a mathematician. That endorsement had finally silenced Dono, who had
hounded me for 6 months on every thread I posted to, regardless of the
topic, with his incessant idiocy that my nonlinear transformations
were not invertible.
Shubee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:46 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 12:02�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:40�am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:27�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
[snip babble]
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens
Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10
H&K said themselves that their experiment couldn't be
statistically interpreted, see their original paper,
p. 170: "However, the number of measured values is too
small for a good statistical analysis."
|
Reading what you want to read, Marcel?
This is the ENTIRE paragraph:
"The agreement between the mean of the measured values and the
predicted values in Table 1 is very satisfactory. In addition, the
consistency among measured values is striking. For the westward trip,
the standard deviation is less than 5 percent of the mean. According
to the statistical theory of error, the standard deviation is a valid
indicator of the precsion of the measurement. However, the number of
measured values is too small for a good statistical analysis".
Sure doesn't support your case _nearly_ as much when taken into
context, now does it? All H&K were claiming was that modern error
analysis needs a lot more data points for the statistics to be "good"
in the modern sense of the word.
Now go back and repeat another argument from the retired electrical
engineer who doesn't know fuck all about physics.
| Quote: |
But 'textbook experts' like you have no clue about
experimental errors.
|
Yea, my eyes always glaze over error bars.
Since when do _you_ care about experiment? You've done nothing but
shit over experiments that disagree with your preconceived notions of
how the universe works.
| Quote: |
And why do you repeat the obvious fact that relativistic
effects on clocks are *observable*. Once again, you are
implying -without proof- that observable effects are real.
Marcel Luttgens
|
So how come muon and pion beams exist? How come the Sagnac effect is
real? How come Compton scattering works? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 4:46Â pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:02�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:40�am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:27�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
[snip babble]
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens
Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10
H&K said themselves that their experiment couldn't be
statistically interpreted, see their original paper,
p. 170: "However, the number of measured values is too
small for a good statistical analysis."
Reading what you want to read, Marcel?
This is the ENTIRE paragraph:
"The agreement between the mean of the measured values and the
predicted values in Table 1 is very satisfactory. In addition, the
consistency among measured values is striking. For the westward trip,
the standard deviation is less than 5 percent of the mean. According
to the statistical theory of error, the standard deviation is a valid
indicator of the precsion of the measurement. However, the number of
measured values is too small for a good statistical analysis".
Sure doesn't support your case _nearly_ as much when taken into
context, now does it? All H&K were claiming was that modern error
analysis needs a lot more data points for the statistics to be "good"
in the modern sense of the word.
|
Gisse, you are contradicting yourself!
There is no "modern" statistical analysis!
You 'need' enough points to draw conclusions valid
at some chosen probability.
| Quote: |
Now go back and repeat another argument from the retired electrical
engineer who doesn't know fuck all about physics.
|
My argument was not from Kelly, but from H&K.
And you are rather stupid to think that a retired
engineer is unable to point up logical and statistical
errors in a paper.
| Quote: |
But 'textbook experts' like you have no clue about
experimental errors.
Yea, my eyes always glaze over error bars.
|
And your brain has no clue about their interpretation.
| Quote: |
Since when do _you_ care about experiment? You've done nothing but
shit over experiments that disagree with your preconceived notions of
how the universe works.
And *you* know how it works!
And why do you repeat the obvious fact that relativistic
effects on clocks are *observable*. Once again, you are
implying -without proof- that observable effects are real.
Marcel Luttgens
So how come muon and pion beams exist? How come the Sagnac effect is
real? How come Compton scattering works
|
What a mix!
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 6:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 1:40 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens
Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10.
|
Without Sagnac and local gravitational effects, clocks
or any other mechanism subject to gravito-inertial
fields, violates the relativity principle if it is
affected by motion. So you can't have it both ways.
Either H&K is misinterpreted, or the principle of
relativity was violated.
"The relativity principle?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 11:24 am, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com
wrote:
What endorsements have you received?
There are acknowledgments that can be interpreted as an endorsement on
some level. Thus, the nicest endorsement that I've received was from
Eugene V. Stefanovich in his paper, A Hamiltonian Approach to Quantum
Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019).
If that is indeed the nicest endorsement you and/or your "derivation"
have received, then I'm afraid you have not received any favorable
endorsements at all. First, Mr. Stefanovich is a known lunatic, so
receiving an "endorsement" from him is like getting a character
recommendation from Charles Manson. Second, he did not refer at all to
your "derivation", which is what we were discussing. (If you thought I
was asking for general character endorsements, I'm sorry for not
making this more clear.) All we have is a well-known crackpot (Mr.
Stefanovich) saying in one of his idiotic pseudo-papers on HIS idiotic
crackpot theory that he had "helpful online discussions" with you.
This does not in any way constitute an endorsement of (or even a
comment on) your "derivation". Which brings me back to the original
question: Has ANY human being (or any other creature) who has
examined your "derivation" concluded that it was valuable? If, as
seems to be the case, the answer is No, then what do you conclude from
this? Is everyone else in the world really so much dumber than you
are?
|
On Jul 6, 11:24 am, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com
wrote:
What endorsements have you received?
There are acknowledgments that can be interpreted as an endorsement on
some level. Thus, the nicest endorsement that I've received was from
Eugene V. Stefanovich in his paper, A Hamiltonian Approach to Quantum
Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019).
If that is indeed the nicest endorsement you and/or your "derivation"
have received, then I'm afraid you have not received any favorable
endorsements at all.
|
Since your profile says that this is the only thread you have posted
to, you are very likely just an idiot sock puppet. Acting like the
degenerate Androcles is no proof that you are smarter than he is. Till
now, you have only demonstrated the behavior of a shit-throwing
chimpanzee. Since you believe that you have superior abilities to
Eugene V. Stefanovich, let's see you prove your worth. Let's see you
simplify Dono's embarrassingly large, inelegant algebraic expression
[1] to the final answer, which I have arrived at directly and simply,
in two different ways. [2][3].
Don't obscure your obvious inability to do high school algebra like
the dullards Dono and Gisse. Why did you ignore the independent proof
that my nonlinear solution set to the Shubertian clock model of
spacetime is a mathematical group and that it was confirmed by a
mathematician to be isomorphic to the Lorentz group?
Shubee
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/jerks
2. http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=969
3. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/09e32c49e1a6a766 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 3:17 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Gee Shubee, in a thread where you call Einstein's emphasis
self-contradictory", bemoan what "sadly, physicists believe"
|
Here's an idea: On one of the days when you "understand relativity
perfectly" solve a *quantitative* exercise, one where you have to
apply your understanding to compute something specific.
Only until you can prove that you are worthy to criticize me, and not
a troll, then I'll listen to your criticisms.
Shubee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 2:59 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Shubee wrote:
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
Shubee wrote:
Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug
Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
ever conceived.
Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
"... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."
|
Wow, a professional shit-throwing chimpanzee.
Shubee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 10:31 am, Shitbert <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Why did you ignore the independent proof
that my nonlinear solution set to the Shubertian clock model of
spacetime
|
Shitbert,
You ran out of medication again. Try a cold shower, might calm down
your vivid delusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 2:09 pm, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
| Quote: |
Shubee wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:45 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
Shubee wrote:
Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug
Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
ever conceived.
I'm still waiting to see you demonstrate that the "weakest axiom set
ever conceived" for deriving the Lorentz Transformation, is
inconsistent with the Galilean Transformation. Can you do that,
Shooby? Sorry, Shooby, dumb question. What I meant is, do you have a
good excuse for not being able to do it?
|
The Galilean transformation is widely understood to be a Lorentzian
transformation with a very specific spacetime structure constant.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
There is no derivation for the fundamental constant.
| Quote: |
Unfortunately, the misguided competition still believes the false
assumption that homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations
must be presupposed in order to derive the Lorentz transformation.
What are "homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations", Shooby?
|
A very misleading concept, I assure you. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3398
for example.
Shubee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
