Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Danny Milano
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
 |
|
On Jul 16, 11:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Danny Milano wrote:
I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
Lets see,
A relativist says c+c = c
an anti-relativist usually says c+c = 2c.
The logical function of the relativist has been broken.
The anti-relativist is simply trying to keep things logical.
Now.
What side of logic are you on?
The illogical side, or the logical side.
|
More sophisticated Minkowski geometry puts constrain
on the speed of anything and it can do jedi mind trick
too. So c is the same in all inertial frames. This is the
magic of math. And since math plus the ensouling
primordial energy create reality. SR and GR may be
correct for all intent and purposes. Since QM is
also correct and it is not compabitle with the formers.
A third theory will encompass the rest and the third
theory may directly deal with the math realm where
the creative energy has its being. The Large
Hadron Collider will show us the way. Encompass
truth or be left behind in medieval newtonian dungeon.
I'll return again after 6 hours to wake you up from
your sleep in your lonely newtonian cave.
D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 10:37 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Danny Milano wrote:
I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
Lets see,
A relativist says c+c = c
|
No he doesn't.
A physicist doesn't use _ + _ for velocities. He uses ( _ + _ )/(1 +
_*_/c^2).
You say that's silly, and that like combined with like should ALWAYS
be just +, and you say that's "basic math".
Physicists say that's simply wrong, no matter what Spaceman thinks
should be.
| Quote: |
an anti-relativist usually says c+c = 2c.
The logical function of the relativist has been broken.
The anti-relativist is simply trying to keep things logical.
Now.
What side of logic are you on?
The illogical side, or the logical side.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 11:28 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:37 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
Lets see,
A relativist says c+c = c
No he doesn't.
A physicist doesn't use _ + _ for velocities. He uses ( _ + _ )/(1 +
_*_/c^2).
(c+c)/(1 + c*c/c^2) = ????
You love that sad assed math huh?
|
Nothing sad assed about it. It actually works when you try to use it
and compare the result to something *measured*. The one that doesn't
work (and here _ + _ doesn't work so good) is the one that's sad-
assed. Your "basic math" works fine for adding apples and dollars and
Spaceman screw-ups. It just doesn't work fine for velocities. Oh,
sure, you can ADD 50,000 mph to 30,000 mph to get a NUMBER that is
80,000 mph. But it won't correspond to what is *measured*.
| Quote: |
LOL
You say that's silly, and that like combined with like should ALWAYS
be just +, and you say that's "basic math".
Again PD thinks a + sign means combined in basic math
instead of add.
LOL
Physicists say that's simply wrong, no matter what Spaceman thinks
should be.
Relativists use the limited math of your silly transform to
prove the basic math is wrong.
Again, the "proof" is wrong since it is based upon
the math that is proven wrong by the proof.
LOL
Poor PD..
He still does not get how stupid that actually is.
Brainwashed beyond help.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 12:56 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
Nothing sad assed about it. It actually works when you try to use it
and compare the result to something *measured*. The one that doesn't
work (and here _ + _ doesn't work so good) is the one that's sad-
assed. Your "basic math" works fine for adding apples and dollars and
Spaceman screw-ups. It just doesn't work fine for velocities. Oh,
sure, you can ADD 50,000 mph to 30,000 mph to get a NUMBER that is
80,000 mph. But it won't correspond to what is *measured*.
LOL
Poor PD, he does not get that if an object is moving 50,000 miles + 30,000
miles within one hour. It is 80,000 miles per hour.
|
Why, no, no it's not, Spaceman. Direct measurement of the velocities
shows this is NOT the case.
No amount of your saying, "But... but... but... it HAS to be!" changes
those measurements.
| Quote: |
And such is true about any such "additions" of miles "per" hour.
Poor PD, he actually does think the basic math is wrong.
and also thinks "basic math" proves the basic math is wrong.
ROFLOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 4:16 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Yes, you wrote that, but I added to the scenario that
Stan asked Tom to also measure the length of the train by
using the ruler on the train itself. Then, Tom found
600 m.
The ruler that Tom used was a ruler on the train itself. It yielded
400 m from where he was standing to the brush on the train, and 400 m
from where he was standing to the other brush on the train. I am
reporting to you what he *observed*.
|
This is not possible in Tom's rest frame.
| Quote: |
You are not *adding* to the scenario. You are *changing* the scenario.
The observations that are in my scenario are consistent with setups
and results in equivalent experiments recorded in the literature. The
*altered* scenario you just proposed is inconsistent with experimental
results in the literature.
|
It is nevertheless interesting, because it gives you the
opportunity to show that the addition c + v (v being the
the velocity of the train) must be rejected.
| Quote: |
But just to bring us back on track, the key thing is that, according
to the observations made, the yellow and green flashes are
simultaneous for Stan but not for Tom, and the yellow and red flashes
are simultaneous for Tom but not for Stan.
|
Yes, that's the main point. I am looking forward to reading
the following episode.
Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Danny Milano wrote:
| Quote: |
Without relativistic corrections. Do you know how many error would
the GPS introduce? How many inches, meters or miles? I remember
Baird saying that GPS folks use the relativity equations just to make
them feel "in" and pure newtonian equation is as accurate as it gets.
If the differences is only a few inches. Then GPS is not proof of SR
at all.
|
GNSS don't work worth a shit without accounting for relativistic
effects.
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and
on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have
gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully
accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work. This paper
discusses the conceptual basis, founded on special and general relativity, for navigation
using GPS. Relativistic principles and effects which must be considered include the
constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence principle, the Sagnac effect, time
dilation, gravitational frequency shifts, and relativity of synchronization. Experimental
tests of relativity obtained with a GPS receiver aboard the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite will
be discussed. Recently frequency jumps arising from satellite orbit adjustments have been
identified as relativistic effects. These will be explained and some interesting
applications of GPS will be discussed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Danny Milano wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 11:00 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
Without relativistic corrections. Do you know how many error would
the GPS introduce? How many inches, meters or miles? I remember
Baird saying that GPS folks use the relativity equations just to make
them feel "in" and pure newtonian equation is as accurate as it gets.
If the differences is only a few inches. Then GPS is not proof of SR
at all.
GNSS don't work worth a shit without accounting for relativistic
effects.
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and
on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have
gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully
accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work. This paper
discusses the conceptual basis, founded on special and general relativity, for navigation
using GPS. Relativistic principles and effects which must be considered include the
constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence principle, the Sagnac effect, time
dilation, gravitational frequency shifts, and relativity of synchronization. Experimental
tests of relativity obtained with a GPS receiver aboard the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite will
be discussed. Recently frequency jumps arising from satellite orbit adjustments have been
identified as relativistic effects. These will be explained and some interesting
applications of GPS will be discussed.
Hope Eric can directly address this. I mean. He really said in the
book
GPS uses relativity just to be in the fashion but newtonian
calculation
is enough. The book is in the car and can't find the quotes now.
Come on. Eric, defend what you said there.
D.
|
Don't be stooopid, Danny... who gives a shit what Baird says? Do a bit
of self education, Danny.
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Danny Milano wrote:
| Quote: |
I'm not Eric. I think Eric just lacks imagination. We may
be living inside a simulation rule by math of some kind
for all we know.
D.
|
And it wouldn't hurt you do so some self education about
various branches of applied mathematics, Danny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 9:00 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
They only compared the *actual flight clock data* to the
ground clock before and after the flight.
"Flight data" means data obtained from the clocks in flight,
not readings measured on the ground.
|
Nonsense. They don't sat "flight data," they say "flight clock data" --
dtat from the clock that was used in the flight. They say *explicitly*
that the flight clock data was "compared to the ground clock before
and after the flight," and, in fact, that "during the AT3 flight tests
we had no ability to measure the flight clock behavior during the
actual flight."
I take it you haven't looked at this...
"The actual data before flight and after flight can be seen in Figure 44
with the direct side-by-side clock comparison represented by the solid line..."
Steve Carlip |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Danny Milano wrote:
| Quote: |
I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
|
Lets see,
A relativist says c+c = c
an anti-relativist usually says c+c = 2c.
The logical function of the relativist has been broken.
The anti-relativist is simply trying to keep things logical.
Now.
What side of logic are you on?
The illogical side, or the logical side.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Danny Milano wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 11:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
Lets see,
A relativist says c+c = c
an anti-relativist usually says c+c = 2c.
The logical function of the relativist has been broken.
The anti-relativist is simply trying to keep things logical.
Now.
What side of logic are you on?
The illogical side, or the logical side.
:)
More sophisticated Minkowski geometry puts constrain
on the speed of anything and it can do jedi mind trick
too.
|
<snipped rest of parrot babble>
Danny has lost logic and turned into a parrot also now.
Sorry Dan.
That was partially my fault you have become a parrot.
LOL
You might want to "re-check" your logic cpu.
It seems to have lost it's functionality.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Danny Milano wrote:
| Quote: |
I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
schrizophrenic or it is the relativists. But since relativists
are more in number, perhaps the other parties are the ]
schrizophrenic? I mean one can't know when one is crazy
unless compared to the rest. But then there are more
Christians than Relativists so the analogy may not hold
(Christians who believe in a God with two hands and two
feet that can cry and emote and talk and created the
universe is really out of his mind, aren't they).
|
Not sure where you get this idea that Baird "studies relativity
more than anyone". And just who are these "anti-relativists" you
speak of.
It's interesting that special relativity has been around
for more than a hundred years--as much of a "law" of
physics an any other law. It has been confirmed literally
thousands of experiments and observations, is essential
in the designs of advance technology, such as particle
accelerators.
What's to question about it?
Granted, the person in the street doesn't understand it,
but many of the less scientifically educated can't tell you
the difference between an atom and a molecule either.
So authors like Eric Baird, take advantage of the situation
and make some money! As far as I can tell Baird does NOT
understand relativity at all.
Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Einsteins original 1905 papers are accessible... give'm a read.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
Danny, there has never been a prediction of relativity that was
contradicted by an observation. Relativity has been an accurate
model of physical reality on the macro and cosmic scales for more
than a hundred years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 10:37 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Danny Milano wrote:
I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
Lets see,
A relativist says c+c = c
No he doesn't.
A physicist doesn't use _ + _ for velocities. He uses ( _ + _ )/(1 +
_*_/c^2).
|
(c+c)/(1 + c*c/c^2) = ????
You love that sad assed math huh?
LOL
| Quote: |
You say that's silly, and that like combined with like should ALWAYS
be just +, and you say that's "basic math".
|
Again PD thinks a + sign means combined in basic math
instead of add.
LOL
| Quote: |
Physicists say that's simply wrong, no matter what Spaceman thinks
should be.
|
Relativists use the limited math of your silly transform to
prove the basic math is wrong.
Again, the "proof" is wrong since it is based upon
the math that is proven wrong by the proof.
LOL
Poor PD..
He still does not get how stupid that actually is.
Brainwashed beyond help.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 16, 2:48 pm, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 4:16 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, you wrote that, but I added to the scenario that
Stan asked Tom to also measure the length of the train by
using the ruler on the train itself. Then, Tom found
600 m.
The ruler that Tom used was a ruler on the train itself. It yielded
400 m from where he was standing to the brush on the train, and 400 m
from where he was standing to the other brush on the train. I am
reporting to you what he *observed*.
This is not possible in Tom's rest frame.
|
Yes it is. As I told you, and according to the plan of attack agreed
upon, I am telling you what the *observations* ARE. These observations
turn out to be completely consistent with the actual documented
observations in real, equivalent experiments done by real people and
recorded in real articles in real journals in real libraries.
What I am going to do NEXT is show you that this *observation*, as
surprising as it is to you, is completely consistent with the laws of
physics.
Moreover, it appears that you've already lost a grip on the train of
thought. Let me see if I can recap for you:
1. Stan knows that the yellow flash marks the back of the train, and
the green and red flashes both mark the front of the train. But he
chooses the green flash because *he* says the yellow and green flashes
are simultaneous, and using *simultaneous* marks is essential to the
definition of physical length. He could use the location of the red
flash, but that wouldn't satisfy the definition of length because the
red and yellow flashes are not simultaneous. So for him, the green and
yellow flashes are the simultaneous marks that mark the length of the
train.
2. Tom agrees that the yellow flash marks the back of the train, and
that the green and red flashes both mark the front of the train. But
he uses the red flash, because *he* says the yellow and red flashes
are simultaneous, and using simultaneous marks is essential to the
definition of physical length. He could use the location of the green
flash, but that wouldn't satisfy the definition of length because the
green and yellow flashes are not simultaneous. So for him, the red and
yellow flashes are the simultaneous marks that mark the length of the
train.
So you see, what you say is "impossible" is quite possible, given what
they actually *observe*, given the *definition* of simultaneity, and
given the *definition* of physical length. Start with what they
*observe* as given FACTS, and then think through the conclusions of
that, rather than starting off by insisting what is possible or
impossible in your head.
The FACTS (the observations) as I stated them are FACTS. They echo
what is actually seen in equivalent experiments. Start with those as
GIVENS, and find out what consequences follow from that. GIVEN those
observations, and using the *definitions* of simultaneity, then one
cannot escape the fact that different sets of flashes are simultaneous
for Stan and Tom. And then given that fact, and the *definition* of
length, then it is immediately obvious that the length of the train
will be different for Stan and Tom, because they're using different
flashes to mark the ends of the train simultaneously.
Let's see if you have any questions about this again, before we go on
to show that the FACTS (observations) are consistent with the laws of
physics.
| Quote: |
You are not *adding* to the scenario. You are *changing* the scenario.
The observations that are in my scenario are consistent with setups
and results in equivalent experiments recorded in the literature. The
*altered* scenario you just proposed is inconsistent with experimental
results in the literature.
It is nevertheless interesting, because it gives you the
opportunity to show that the addition c + v (v being the
the velocity of the train) must be rejected.
But just to bring us back on track, the key thing is that, according
to the observations made, the yellow and green flashes are
simultaneous for Stan but not for Tom, and the yellow and red flashes
are simultaneous for Tom but not for Stan.
Yes, that's the main point. I am looking forward to reading
the following episode.
Marcel Luttgens |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
Nothing sad assed about it. It actually works when you try to use it
and compare the result to something *measured*. The one that doesn't
work (and here _ + _ doesn't work so good) is the one that's sad-
assed. Your "basic math" works fine for adding apples and dollars and
Spaceman screw-ups. It just doesn't work fine for velocities. Oh,
sure, you can ADD 50,000 mph to 30,000 mph to get a NUMBER that is
80,000 mph. But it won't correspond to what is *measured*.
|
LOL
Poor PD, he does not get that if an object is moving 50,000 miles + 30,000
miles within one hour. It is 80,000 miles per hour.
And such is true about any such "additions" of miles "per" hour.
Poor PD, he actually does think the basic math is wrong.
and also thinks "basic math" proves the basic math is wrong.
ROFLOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| 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
