 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2004Re: On the Similarities and Differences between Lorentz 1904 (LET) and Einstein 1905 (SR)
Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message > greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:... > > GRADinc <gradinc@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:20041216091322.11861.00001945@mb-m16.aol.com... > > > For those of us who don't own copies of Lorentz's works can you > > > tell us what equation 5 is? > > > > t' = t / beta - beta v x / c^2 (equation 5, 1904). > > (SR gives t' = t / beta.) > > Thanks. > > What is beta for Lorentz in 1904? Isn't it v/c No. Lorentz' definition of beta is: beta^2 = c^2 / (c^2 - v^2) {snip erroneous equations from bad assumption} > > (SR gives t' = t / beta.) > .......... > > > > >Under LET, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's > > > >ruler is *longer*. > > > > > > Then LET is wrong. > > > > I accept your admission that you were ignorant about LET. > > You wouldn't consider the atlernative that you misunderstand LET? > You do seem to misunderstand a lot. *I've* actually read Lorentz' work. It is open upon my desk right now. *You* haven't read it. *You* refuse to read it. *You* make pronouncements about a work you haven't read. I'd say that you are much more likely not to understand Lorentz work. > > > It makes erroneous predictions. > > > > Really? Kindly point out the experiment that actually measures the > > length of rulers from an astronaut moving at significant fractions > > of the speed of light. Relative to another astronaut. > > This nth repetition of an empty reply is not worth an answer. But you never answered it. Your pathetic claim is an admission that you have no experimental basis for your view. > .......... > > > I'm not interested in "all the successful predictions" of SR. Only the > > theoretical difference between LET and SR. > > I thought you were interested in astronauts moving at signficant > fractions of light speed. The usual Relativist snip-and-avoid. > ............................ > > > > I can hardly wait for google to get all those source books on line. > > > I can't imagine Lorentz was so stupid as to hold the theory you > > > ascribe to him. I'm sure a reading of his papers would show that > > > this is not how he applied his equations. > > > > Do I detect a bit of an attitude, here? Remember, Lorentz created his > > theory *BEFORE* Einstein. So there is no way that he could be blamed for > > not knowing Einstein's work. > > I don't blame Lorentz for your mistakes in interpretation. As noted above, *you* have never read Lorentz work. You simply assert that my reading of Lorentz must be incorrect, because it conflicts with SR. > > Second, there has never yet been an experiment > > that differentiates between SR and LET. We simply assume that Einstein > > was correct. > > Then definitely you are misinterpreting LET if you think it makes the > above predictions about rulers. As noted above, *you* have never read Lorentz work. You simply assert that my reading of Lorentz must be incorrect, because it conflicts with SR. > [delete sniping] > ............ LOL! > > > >There is never a limit on adjusting a clock (resetting a zero). > > > > > > Well you can make even a broken clock read correctly if you > > > constantly reset it. > > > > I see you couldn't dispute the point. Your attempt at evasion is > > breached. > > Dispute by sarcasm. Never encountered it before? Sure. It's a dead giveaway that you've run out of real physics. > Have you ever seen the little adjustment screws on clocks? > Can you turn it to make it run 50% slow? 50% fast? It depends on the clock designer. The GPS designers quite frankly didn't care. All they needed was a reliable tick rate. Software changes that into a reading. > [re GPS] More Relativist snip-and-avoid. > > > They had to design for certain bandwidth possibilities. > > > > Which has nothing whatsoever to do with SR, GR or LET predictions. > > How do you think they designed it? > By casting dice? [Sarcasm] More dead giveaway that you've run out of real physics. > ........................... > > > > >True, but irrelevant. It really doesn't matter what the inherent or > > > >observed rate of "ticks" is, in GPS clocks. The system was designed > > > > to allow for any conversion between tick rate and position. The > > > > amount actually used is based on historical feedback to the 4 > > > > base stations. > > > > > > Please provide a citation for this. > > > > I alread did -- using your own citation. Below. > > I see it is the one I think it is, you misread it. The usual Relativist snip-and-avoid. > .................. > > > I see you couldn't dispute the point. Your attempt at evasion is > > breached. > > Do you do this tiresome repitetion on purpose? Of course. Because your assertions are tiresome and repetitive. > You must be about to quit this thread. Well, you have reached simple snip-and-ignore. There is not much to be gained by either of us, here. > .......................... > [Snip down to where greywold stops using the tiresome phrase] Well, if you stop the tiresome assertions........ > > > Sagnac was the last hurrah of the etherists. It is easy to understand > > > and predict in an absolute space/time picture, but much more subtle > > > in relativity (easier in GR). So etherists get a point for > > > predicting Sagnac but have been essentially scoreless ever since. > > > > Thank you for admitting that SR was disproven. > > You really have a reading comprehension problem. Simple logic. You admit that aetherists predicted the Sagnac experiment results (and Relativists did not). And relativists now must incorporate "Sagnac corrections" to avoid disproof of predictions by SR or GR. That *is* disproof -- in the scientific method. > .......... > > > The articles you present as demonstrating that SR/GR was not used > > > actually do prove that it was used! > > > > Just not as predicted. Anything can be "used" after the fact. > > The article said it was as predicted to within the accuracy of > the cesium clock. What amazing interpretations you spin. Then why did you feel the need to snip the extracted quote from your own reference? -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail} "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message > Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message > > > > >There is never a limit on adjusting a clock (resetting a zero). > > > > Well you can make even a broken clock read correctly if you > > > > constantly reset it. > > > I see you couldn't dispute the point. Your attempt at evasion is > > > breached. > > Dispute by sarcasm. Never encountered it before? > Sure. It's a dead giveaway that you've run out of real physics. > > Have you ever seen the little adjustment screws on clocks? > > Can you turn it to make it run 50% slow? 50% fast? > It depends on the clock designer. The GPS designers quite frankly didn't > care. All they needed was a reliable tick rate. Software changes that into > a reading. They certainly had to design their receivers to have adequate bandwidth to receive the ticks. And even software must take into account maximum values that are to be expected. As I recall a Patriot missile software problem involving clocks killed people during Gulf War I. Do you really think the GPS designers had no idea about what the limits of clock variability would be? ...... I see that the greywolf phrase du jour is: > The usual Relativist snip-and-avoid. ........... > > Do you do this tiresome repitetion on purpose? > Of course. Because your assertions are tiresome and repetitive. > > You must be about to quit this thread. > Well, you have reached simple snip-and-ignore. There is not much to be > gained by either of us, here. I would tend to agree. ............................ > > > > Sagnac was the last hurrah of the etherists. It is easy to understand > > > > and predict in an absolute space/time picture, but much more subtle > > > > in relativity (easier in GR). So etherists get a point for > > > > predicting Sagnac but have been essentially scoreless ever since. > > > Thank you for admitting that SR was disproven. > > You really have a reading comprehension problem. > > Simple logic. You admit that aetherists predicted the Sagnac experiment > results (and Relativists did not). And relativists now must incorporate > "Sagnac corrections" to avoid disproof of predictions by SR or GR. That *is* > disproof -- in the scientific method. You really have no idea about what the scientific method is, do you? Relativity explains the Sagnac effect just fine. Relativity when properly used gives the correct magnitude for the Sagnac effect. Relativity does not have to bring in ether to explain the Sagnac effect. No one thought to analyze a rotatiing system properly until Sagnac made his measurement. .......... > > > > The articles you present as demonstrating that SR/GR was not used > > > > actually do prove that it was used! > > > Just not as predicted. Anything can be "used" after the fact. > > The article said it was as predicted to within the accuracy of > > the cesium clock. What amazing interpretations you spin. > Then why did you feel the need to snip the extracted quote from your own > reference? The quote is available on google. Long posts are tiresome. Is your memory so short? Tom Clarke > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message > > Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message > > > Have you ever seen the little adjustment screws on clocks? > > > Can you turn it to make it run 50% slow? 50% fast? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They certainly had to design their receivers to have > adequate bandwidth to receive the ticks. Once again, the irrelevant diversion into redshift. Which has nothing to do with clock tick rate, SR, GR -- or anything else. > And even software must take into account maximum values > that are to be expected. Why? > As I recall a Patriot missile > software problem involving clocks killed people during > Gulf War I. And simple misapplication of software calculations destroyed a Mars probe. What's your point? > Do you really think the GPS designers had no idea > about what the limits of clock variability would be? They didn't rely on "knowing." They simply made sure the system worked. > ...... > I see that the greywolf phrase du jour is: > > > The usual Relativist snip-and-avoid. Well, it *is* -- when you keep snipping lost arguments. > ........... > > > Do you do this tiresome repitetion on purpose? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I would tend to agree. > ............................ {snip higher levels} > > > You really have a reading comprehension problem. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You really have no idea about what the scientific method is, do you? > Relativity explains the Sagnac effect just fine. Except that "Relativity" is not used in the explanation of the "Sagnac effect." Relativists simply claim that SR does not apply. Then they apply "Sagnac corrections" to all their calculations. > Relativity when properly > used gives the correct magnitude for the Sagnac effect. Reference? > Relativity > does not have to bring in ether to explain the Sagnac effect. No one > thought to analyze a rotatiing system properly until Sagnac > made his measurement. By "properly", you mean in a way that lets SR off the hook? > .......... > > > > > The articles you present as demonstrating that SR/GR was not used [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Long posts are tiresome. > Is your memory so short? And the quote makes your reply look like a distortion. ;) -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail} "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message > > Relativity when properly > > used gives the correct magnitude for the Sagnac effect. > Reference? Check any of dozens of discussions on usenet. Tom Clarke > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message > > > > You admit that aetherists predicted the Sagnac experiment > > > > results (and Relativists did not). And relativists now must incorporate > > > > "Sagnac corrections" to avoid disproof of predictions by SR or GR. That > > > > *is* disproof -- in the scientific method. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Except that "Relativity" is not used in the explanation of the "Sagnac > > effect." Relativists simply claim that SR does not apply. Then they apply > > "Sagnac corrections" to all their calculations. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Check any of dozens of discussions on usenet. I already understand your view. However, as a rule, generic discussions are not a good reference material -- unless a specific post provides a "real" reference within. Looking for Sagnac and prediction I came up with the following: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/153103aef125d 8ce What's your view on the Selleri Paradox approach, Thomas? Spacetime helix, or c+v, c-v? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a600fa1b48fad 448 -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail} "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message > Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message > > > > Relativity when properly > > > > used gives the correct magnitude for the Sagnac effect. > > > Reference? > > Check any of dozens of discussions on usenet. > I already understand your view. However, as a rule, generic discussions are > not a good reference material -- unless a specific post provides a "real" > reference within. > Looking for Sagnac and prediction I came up with the following: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/153103aef125d > 8ce You shouldn't look for "prediction". I said "gives correct magnitude" so "explain" "retrodict" etc would be appropriate. Here is a non-usenet reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > What's your view on the Selleri Paradox approach, Thomas? Spacetime helix, > or c+v, c-v? > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a600fa1b48fad > 448 I don't know the Selleri paradox and I can't find reference to it, or any paradox for that matter, at that URL. Tom Clarke Hey Greywolf, remember one year ago? Then you refused to believe that Lorentz contraction + time dilation results in the moving observer (thinking to be in rest) determining a stationary rod as shortened . I made a calculation example and you can find it in my recent thread "length contraction" according to Lorentz and Poincare - An example. Best regards, Harald > Thomas Clarke <tclarke@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message > > greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:... [quoted text clipped - 185 lines] > ubi dubium ibi libertas > {remove planet for return e-mail} > Hey Greywolf, remember one year ago? Then you refused to believe that > Lorentz contraction + time dilation results in the moving observer > (thinking to be in rest) determining a stationary rod as shortened . You mean this one? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/87d941a38f3c8be1 And I didn't say that the observer couldn't come up with that answer. What I said was: "The point is that you keep coming up with objections that explicitly require the PoR, e-synching and SR. You just aren't aware of it, because you have accepted SR as 'the way it must be.' If you really think that all measurements must be made with light, then we can discuss this more rationally. But your arguments so far have all contained unstated assumptions." > I made a calculation example and you can find it in my recent thread > "length contraction" according to Lorentz and Poincare - An example. But your calculation once again requires that all measurements be made with light. I never had a problem with the math that you used. -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail} > > Hey Greywolf, remember one year ago? Then you refused to believe that > > Lorentz contraction + time dilation results in the moving observer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But your calculation once again requires that all measurements be made with > light. I never had a problem with the math that you used. Indeed I used e-synching, if that's what you meant with "all measurements". That's what's done in practice. I suppose that to convince you I'd also have to reproduce the calculation of the effect of "slow" clock transportation on clocks that are in fast motion. I have those in "raw" condition somewhere on my hard disk, and I agree that it's useful to add those, sometime next month. Would that do it for you? Harald > > > Hey Greywolf, remember one year ago? Then you refused to believe that > > > Lorentz contraction + time dilation results in the moving observer [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > require the PoR, e-synching and SR. You just aren't aware of it, because > > you have accepted SR as 'the way it must be.' If you really think that all > > measurements must be made with light, then we can discuss this more > > rationally. But your arguments so far have all contained unstated [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "raw" condition somewhere on my hard disk, and I agree that it's useful > to add those, sometime next month. Would that do it for you? It won't matter, Harry. The point is that measurements do not need to be made with light. Nor do they need e-synching. If you insist on e-synching, you'll get one answer all the time -- regardless of what the rest of the universe is actually doing. -- greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas {remove planet for return e-mail} |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.