FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
SR F.O.P.I
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [12 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
DJINGATTILA
science forum addict


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:18 am    Post subject: Re: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Quote:
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1153278386.910728.194940@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SR F.O.P.I.

The imbecile troll is back:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RiedtTroll.html

Dirk Vdm

and Kfc Dirk is lurking in the shadows as always.

Peter Riedt
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject: Re: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

Peri of Pera wrote:
Quote:

Pd, thank you for using arguments rather than invective to reply to SR
F.O.P.I.
Some of your arguments are quite good but not all of them.

Peter Riedt

There's something I want to be sure you understand. I did not attempt
to make solid arguments. I told you that at the outset. Truth in
physics is not determined by how compelling the argument is.

There is an enormous myth that Einstein established the truth of
relativity by means of argument and thought experiment. That is deeply
and fundamentally wrong. Einstein used thought experiments merely to
explain more fully what he thought was correct. The correctness of what
he thought was determined *solely* on the basis of testing with
experiment. This is how physics is done. An idea is proposed to explain
some phenomenon, and the explanation (which is quite often not obvious
and nonintuitive) is expected to explicitly predict other phenomena. If
checking on those phenomena shows that the explanation predicted them
correctly, then we take the explanation to be correct. The
intuitiveness of the explanation or the strength of the argument have
NOTHING to do with the truth determined by actually checking against
nature.

The best thing you can do for your understanding of relativity is to
re-read whatever you have read, and instead of worrying about whether
you understand or believe the arguments that are made, concentrate on
understanding precisely what experimental predictions are made by this
theory and then go look up what was actually observed in nature.

PD
Back to top
Harry
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:27 am    Post subject: Re: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153344681.357077.138520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

SNIP
Quote:
If the equipment is indeed
subject to contraction, the effect of all five actual motions on the
dimensions of the equipment will be unpredictable.

Not unpredictable at all. In fact, what one can say pretty reliably is
that four out of the five motions do not change appreciably during the
interval of the experiment, and so that their effect on the result is
simple and cancellable. I don't know why you think tracking five
motions makes the motion over a short interval intractably complex.

Of course limited complexity doesn't mean unpredictable; but their effects
on what was expected to be measured turns out to be more complex and rather
different from what M&M assumed, as determined in more thorough analyses -
and it took one century before such complex analyses were done.
In particular, a "drift" is to be expected on top of a nearly (but not
quite) sinusoidal signal. Most analyses of the past neglected that fact (as
it turned out, the interval of the experiment was too long to fully neglect
those effects).

Harald
Back to top
DJINGATTILA
science forum addict


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:24 am    Post subject: Re: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
SR F.O.P.I.

Since this is fairly laughable, I will laugh at it.
Note I will not take the opportunity to correct these misconceptions in
detail. There is no point in teaching a pig to sing.


Two men on the planet Superstition wondered about the nature of light.
How was it transmitted from its sources? To answer their curiosity,
they used a device called interferometer in an experiment which later
was called MMX, the Magic Mystery Experiment. The interferometer had
two arms of equal length at a right angle to each other. Light was sent
along both arms, reflected by a mirror at the end of each arm and
returned to a common point where it was assumed the two light beams
would interfere. It should prove that all space was filled with
something like invisible honey, a substance that vibrated as light
passed through it.

The two men set up the experiment in their laboratory, positioning one
of the arms in a direction parallel to the motion of the planet through
space and the other arm perpendicularly to it. The light travelling
over the parallel arm was believed to take a longer time than the light
travelling over the perpendicular arm. This was because the mirror at
the end of the parallel arm moved away from the light that was chasing
it while the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm remained at the
same distance. When the experiment was conducted, the light took the
same time to arrive at the ends of both arms. No honey! Everybody who
had knowledge of these things was upset. Some wise old men then said if
the honey didn't work, it didn't exist. They came up with a clever
ruse to explain the absence of the honey. It was too bizarre to be true

Actually, it's not that bizarre at all. Especially since nature seems
to work that way. I don't know why some would deign to say that *we*
dictate how nature behaves, and not the other way around.

but those who supported it were appointed to important posts and given
honours. The wise men said the length of the parallel arm had shortened
'in the direction of motion' through space and proportionally to
the speed of the interferometer to equalise with the length of the
other arm. This was called contraction. Likewise, time affecting the
device had to slow down. This was called time dilation. Contraction
allowed light to cover different distances in the same time because the
longer distance always reduced automatically to the smaller dimension.
This was called the principle of the constancy of light. In this way,
the wise men pronounced that contraction explained the null result of
the magic mystery experiment.

Contraction however required the interferometer to move strictly in a
straight line at all times to produce the exact amount of contraction
necessary to equalise the length of the two arms. But stationary
locations on earth are subject to five different motions through space:
rotation of the earth, planetary motion, stellar motion, galactic
motion and universe expansion motion. If the equipment is indeed
subject to contraction, the effect of all five actual motions on the
dimensions of the equipment will be unpredictable.

Not unpredictable at all. In fact, what one can say pretty reliably is
that four out of the five motions do not change appreciably during the
interval of the experiment, and so that their effect on the result is
simple and cancellable. I don't know why you think tracking five
motions makes the motion over a short interval intractably complex.

This fact was
ignored by the wise men.

Factually incorrect. It was accounted for by the experimenters.

They stubbornly insisted 'the direction of
motion' is invariably a straight line and contraction applies only to
the parallel arm in the exact amount.

That also is incorrect. The analysis that you've read makes that
simplification, but the full analysis does not require that.


Furthermore, decreeing that only contraction of the parallel arm would
explain the null result of MMX was arbitrary. The same result could be
achieved if instead of contraction of the parallel arm an expansion of
the perpendicular arm had been stipulated. In either case, the length
of the two arms would be equal and the time of the light to travel over
the two arms would be the same as indeed the experiment had shown,
albeit for different reasons. If the formula 'sqrt(1-vv/cc)'
applied to the parallel arm were to be replaced by the formula
'sqrt(1+vv/cc)' and applied to the perpendicular arm, the
experiment would have shown the same result but with different
implications. Instead of parallel arm contraction, time dilation and
mass increase, perpendicular arm expansion, time contraction and mass
decrease would have ensued. But all this was ignored by the wise men.
They didn't even think of it.

That is also incorrect. First of all, following the prescription above
would *not* result in the same predicted effect, as a little bit of
algebra will show. Secondly, the formula with the minus sign was not ad
hoc but was *derived* from two basic assumptions, that the laws of
physics are the same in any inertial reference frame and that the speed
of light is the same in any inertial reference frame. There is no
comparable set of simple assumptions from which you can *derive* the
formula with the plus sign.


Furthermore, contraction and time dilation dictated that the speed of
light had to be constant under any condition.

Actually, this is backwards, too. Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics
dictate that the speed of light had to be constant under any condition,
and length contraction and time dilation are *conclusions* from that
statement, not the other way around.

As an example, starting
from the same point in the universe and moving in the same direction,
two spaceships travelling at 50000m/sec and 100000m/sec respectively
would be overtaken at the same time by a light beam sent after them
some time later.

It certainly does not mean that. There is no reference frame in which
that observation would occur. Your misunderstanding of what SR says is
not a critique of SR.

This paradox was explained that 'at the same time'
did not mean 'at the same time', using circular arguments.

The findings of the magic mystery experiment were applied to every
object in the universe. The length and clock rate of every object
depended on its speed. The observed dimensions and times however never
changed if the observer had the same speed as the observed object
because his measuring rods and clocks would also change with the new
speed. If however the object was measured by an observer travelling at
a different speed, this observer would measure the dimensions of and on
the other object according to his own rods and the clock rate according
to his own clocks.

Anybody doubting the decrees of the wise old men was excluded from
Sanctus Religio, the Faith Of Pure Illogic, SR F.O.P.I.

Actually, that's incorrect, too. Relativity's introduction was met with
decades of skepticism and extremely careful experimental tests of the
predictions of SR. Every single one of those tests was aimed to show SR
wrong if it was wrong. When SR was not wrong, then and only then did SR
begin to gain acceptance.

However, there
remained a small group of individuals who had the capacity to think
clearly and freely.

And to ignore the experimental results of the previous skeptics who had
done the work to test it.

They asked questions about a physical object, the
cube. The dimensions of the cube were 100m x 100m x 100m on
Superstition. In their minds, the thinkers sent it to a star in the
universe as a spaceship. As it travelled away, its length and measuring
sticks according to SR F.O.P.I. would contract and its time and clocks
would slow down. As an example, a distance of one meter measured on the
cube on Superstition would be reduced to 90cm and a second to 900
milliseconds as it sped away at a certain speed.

What were the real dimensions of the cube in flight in this example?
Observers on the cube (the cubists) measured them to be 100x100x100m.
Observers on Superstition (the superstitious) would insist on
90x100x100m.
The cubists could see a light signal sent from a corner of
the cube to the opposite corner parallel to the direction of motion
arriving at the same time as one sent to the opposite corner on a
perpendicular path. According to SR F.O.P.I., anyone on Superstition
would make the same observation despite the length of the cube having
been reduced to 90m while width and height remained at 100m. How could
the speed of light be constant under all conditions and yet cover
different distances in the same time?

Same time? Who said anything about same time? The two clock rates are
different, remember?

Well, the dogma of the constancy
of light demanded it and the facts had to conform to it. Again,
circular arguments, spurious assertions and vague references to
experiments which at best were inconclusive, at worst misrepresented
were used to prove it.

The thinkers asked how long were the measuring rods on the cube as it
moved through space, 90cm or 1m? If aligned in the direction of motion,
were they 90cm long but 1m long if aligned perpendicular to the motion?
At any other alignment between the parallel and perpendicular axis
would they be differently sized, according to the angle?

Yes.

What if the
speed changed?

Yes.

Would the size of a rod not depend on this speed as well
as on the alignment towards the parallel axis?

Yes. I see you are only familiar with the most basic form of the
Lorentz transform and do not know how it is done in three dimensions.

How many differently
calibrated rods were necessary to measure everything on the cube at any
time and under any condition?

Three.

Or was there only one rod which changed
invisibly in real length

Real length? What do you mean by real length?

as it was moved around inside the cube or the
cube changed speed? What was the force that caused the change and how
was it controlled?

What force? Nothing physically acted on the rod to change its length.
Length is not an intrinsic property of a rod. It is inherently and
observer-dependent property, just the way momentum and kinetic energy
are.


Time dilation was just as contentious as contraction. On Superstition,
a second was exactly one second long. However, at the given speed in
our example, a second anywhere inside the moving cube, as measured from
Superstition, was only .9 seconds long. While a meter could be anything
from .9m to 1m, a second was always reduced to .9 seconds everywhere on
the cube.

That is incorrect. The time interval between two events can be anything
between 0.9s and 1s. You apparently don't know how the Lorentz
transforms work at all.

The shortened cube second was sufficient for light to cover
the contracted cube distance of 90m parallel to the motion but not long
enough to traverse the unchanged perpendicular distance of 100m.

Again, that's because you don't understand the Lorentz transforms.

Again,
the constancy principle had been violated. It was pointed out to the SR
F.O.P.I. gurus. They mumbled something about world time lines, time
incongruities and similar esoterics.

Just because you don't understand what they said does not mean it was
mumbled. It might help if you took your hands off your ears.


The wise men had also pronounced that the absolute speed of any object
in the universe couldn't be told. While the speed of the cube was
known relative to planet Superstition, the absolute speed was unknown.

That's correct.

It could be less or more than the relative speed.

No, stronger than that. There IS no absolute speed.

However, the rods and
clocks aboard would only shrink or vary according to the relative
speed, ignoring completely the absolute speed.

That's correct. There IS no absolute speed.


The wise men furthermore declared that no observer had preference over
another. So every object with a different speed from an observer would
be seen as having different seconds and different non-perpendicular
meters.

Right.

Perpendicular meters however remained always the same even
though this fact was only implied; never considered or mentioned.

Sure it is, explicitly considered and mentioned. Perhaps not in the
little that you've read. Perhaps you should read a little more.

Generally, it appears that a multitude, nay infinity of measuring rods
and clocks is required on every object in the universe to allow
measuring any dimension on every other object to which it has a
different speed and angular attitude.

No, just three.
Tell me something. If you wanted to find the distance from your home
town to six others, one at 13 degrees east of north, one at 53 degrees
east of north, one at 17 degrees east of south, one at eight degrees
west of south, one at eighty-one degrees west of north, and one at 12
degrees west of north, how many rulers would you need to measure those
distances?


The thinkers asked another question: If the cube approached
Superstition instead of speeding away from it, would meters and seconds
increase? The followers of SR F.O.P.I. did not know for sure

Sure they do.

but said
it made no difference. They decided the thinkers asked too many
questions and hastened to appoint Kommissars to enforce political
correctness in science. Enquiry, discussion and progress were inhibited
but the stability of believe systems remained safe for a long time.


PD

Pd, thank you for using arguments rather than invective to reply to SR
F.O.P.I.
Some of your arguments are quite good but not all of them.

Peter Riedt
Back to top
DJINGATTILA
science forum addict


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:22 am    Post subject: Re: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
SR F.O.P.I.

Since this is fairly laughable, I will laugh at it.
Note I will not take the opportunity to correct these misconceptions in
detail. There is no point in teaching a pig to sing.


Two men on the planet Superstition wondered about the nature of light.
How was it transmitted from its sources? To answer their curiosity,
they used a device called interferometer in an experiment which later
was called MMX, the Magic Mystery Experiment. The interferometer had
two arms of equal length at a right angle to each other. Light was sent
along both arms, reflected by a mirror at the end of each arm and
returned to a common point where it was assumed the two light beams
would interfere. It should prove that all space was filled with
something like invisible honey, a substance that vibrated as light
passed through it.

The two men set up the experiment in their laboratory, positioning one
of the arms in a direction parallel to the motion of the planet through
space and the other arm perpendicularly to it. The light travelling
over the parallel arm was believed to take a longer time than the light
travelling over the perpendicular arm. This was because the mirror at
the end of the parallel arm moved away from the light that was chasing
it while the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm remained at the
same distance. When the experiment was conducted, the light took the
same time to arrive at the ends of both arms. No honey! Everybody who
had knowledge of these things was upset. Some wise old men then said if
the honey didn't work, it didn't exist. They came up with a clever
ruse to explain the absence of the honey. It was too bizarre to be true

Actually, it's not that bizarre at all. Especially since nature seems
to work that way. I don't know why some would deign to say that *we*
dictate how nature behaves, and not the other way around.

but those who supported it were appointed to important posts and given
honours. The wise men said the length of the parallel arm had shortened
'in the direction of motion' through space and proportionally to
the speed of the interferometer to equalise with the length of the
other arm. This was called contraction. Likewise, time affecting the
device had to slow down. This was called time dilation. Contraction
allowed light to cover different distances in the same time because the
longer distance always reduced automatically to the smaller dimension.
This was called the principle of the constancy of light. In this way,
the wise men pronounced that contraction explained the null result of
the magic mystery experiment.

Contraction however required the interferometer to move strictly in a
straight line at all times to produce the exact amount of contraction
necessary to equalise the length of the two arms. But stationary
locations on earth are subject to five different motions through space:
rotation of the earth, planetary motion, stellar motion, galactic
motion and universe expansion motion. If the equipment is indeed
subject to contraction, the effect of all five actual motions on the
dimensions of the equipment will be unpredictable.

Not unpredictable at all. In fact, what one can say pretty reliably is
that four out of the five motions do not change appreciably during the
interval of the experiment, and so that their effect on the result is
simple and cancellable. I don't know why you think tracking five
motions makes the motion over a short interval intractably complex.

This fact was
ignored by the wise men.

Factually incorrect. It was accounted for by the experimenters.

They stubbornly insisted 'the direction of
motion' is invariably a straight line and contraction applies only to
the parallel arm in the exact amount.

That also is incorrect. The analysis that you've read makes that
simplification, but the full analysis does not require that.


Furthermore, decreeing that only contraction of the parallel arm would
explain the null result of MMX was arbitrary. The same result could be
achieved if instead of contraction of the parallel arm an expansion of
the perpendicular arm had been stipulated. In either case, the length
of the two arms would be equal and the time of the light to travel over
the two arms would be the same as indeed the experiment had shown,
albeit for different reasons. If the formula 'sqrt(1-vv/cc)'
applied to the parallel arm were to be replaced by the formula
'sqrt(1+vv/cc)' and applied to the perpendicular arm, the
experiment would have shown the same result but with different
implications. Instead of parallel arm contraction, time dilation and
mass increase, perpendicular arm expansion, time contraction and mass
decrease would have ensued. But all this was ignored by the wise men.
They didn't even think of it.

That is also incorrect. First of all, following the prescription above
would *not* result in the same predicted effect, as a little bit of
algebra will show. Secondly, the formula with the minus sign was not ad
hoc but was *derived* from two basic assumptions, that the laws of
physics are the same in any inertial reference frame and that the speed
of light is the same in any inertial reference frame. There is no
comparable set of simple assumptions from which you can *derive* the
formula with the plus sign.


Furthermore, contraction and time dilation dictated that the speed of
light had to be constant under any condition.

Actually, this is backwards, too. Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics
dictate that the speed of light had to be constant under any condition,
and length contraction and time dilation are *conclusions* from that
statement, not the other way around.

As an example, starting
from the same point in the universe and moving in the same direction,
two spaceships travelling at 50000m/sec and 100000m/sec respectively
would be overtaken at the same time by a light beam sent after them
some time later.

It certainly does not mean that. There is no reference frame in which
that observation would occur. Your misunderstanding of what SR says is
not a critique of SR.

This paradox was explained that 'at the same time'
did not mean 'at the same time', using circular arguments.

The findings of the magic mystery experiment were applied to every
object in the universe. The length and clock rate of every object
depended on its speed. The observed dimensions and times however never
changed if the observer had the same speed as the observed object
because his measuring rods and clocks would also change with the new
speed. If however the object was measured by an observer travelling at
a different speed, this observer would measure the dimensions of and on
the other object according to his own rods and the clock rate according
to his own clocks.

Anybody doubting the decrees of the wise old men was excluded from
Sanctus Religio, the Faith Of Pure Illogic, SR F.O.P.I.

Actually, that's incorrect, too. Relativity's introduction was met with
decades of skepticism and extremely careful experimental tests of the
predictions of SR. Every single one of those tests was aimed to show SR
wrong if it was wrong. When SR was not wrong, then and only then did SR
begin to gain acceptance.

However, there
remained a small group of individuals who had the capacity to think
clearly and freely.

And to ignore the experimental results of the previous skeptics who had
done the work to test it.

They asked questions about a physical object, the
cube. The dimensions of the cube were 100m x 100m x 100m on
Superstition. In their minds, the thinkers sent it to a star in the
universe as a spaceship. As it travelled away, its length and measuring
sticks according to SR F.O.P.I. would contract and its time and clocks
would slow down. As an example, a distance of one meter measured on the
cube on Superstition would be reduced to 90cm and a second to 900
milliseconds as it sped away at a certain speed.

What were the real dimensions of the cube in flight in this example?
Observers on the cube (the cubists) measured them to be 100x100x100m.
Observers on Superstition (the superstitious) would insist on
90x100x100m.
The cubists could see a light signal sent from a corner of
the cube to the opposite corner parallel to the direction of motion
arriving at the same time as one sent to the opposite corner on a
perpendicular path. According to SR F.O.P.I., anyone on Superstition
would make the same observation despite the length of the cube having
been reduced to 90m while width and height remained at 100m. How could
the speed of light be constant under all conditions and yet cover
different distances in the same time?

Same time? Who said anything about same time? The two clock rates are
different, remember?

Well, the dogma of the constancy
of light demanded it and the facts had to conform to it. Again,
circular arguments, spurious assertions and vague references to
experiments which at best were inconclusive, at worst misrepresented
were used to prove it.

The thinkers asked how long were the measuring rods on the cube as it
moved through space, 90cm or 1m? If aligned in the direction of motion,
were they 90cm long but 1m long if aligned perpendicular to the motion?
At any other alignment between the parallel and perpendicular axis
would they be differently sized, according to the angle?

Yes.

What if the
speed changed?

Yes.

Would the size of a rod not depend on this speed as well
as on the alignment towards the parallel axis?

Yes. I see you are only familiar with the most basic form of the
Lorentz transform and do not know how it is done in three dimensions.

How many differently
calibrated rods were necessary to measure everything on the cube at any
time and under any condition?

Three.

Or was there only one rod which changed
invisibly in real length

Real length? What do you mean by real length?

as it was moved around inside the cube or the
cube changed speed? What was the force that caused the change and how
was it controlled?

What force? Nothing physically acted on the rod to change its length.
Length is not an intrinsic property of a rod. It is inherently and
observer-dependent property, just the way momentum and kinetic energy
are.


Time dilation was just as contentious as contraction. On Superstition,
a second was exactly one second long. However, at the given speed in
our example, a second anywhere inside the moving cube, as measured from
Superstition, was only .9 seconds long. While a meter could be anything
from .9m to 1m, a second was always reduced to .9 seconds everywhere on
the cube.

That is incorrect. The time interval between two events can be anything
between 0.9s and 1s. You apparently don't know how the Lorentz
transforms work at all.

The shortened cube second was sufficient for light to cover
the contracted cube distance of 90m parallel to the motion but not long
enough to traverse the unchanged perpendicular distance of 100m.

Again, that's because you don't understand the Lorentz transforms.

Again,
the constancy principle had been violated. It was pointed out to the SR
F.O.P.I. gurus. They mumbled something about world time lines, time
incongruities and similar esoterics.

Just because you don't understand what they said does not mean it was
mumbled. It might help if you took your hands off your ears.


The wise men had also pronounced that the absolute speed of any object
in the universe couldn't be told. While the speed of the cube was
known relative to planet Superstition, the absolute speed was unknown.

That's correct.

It could be less or more than the relative speed.

No, stronger than that. There IS no absolute speed.

However, the rods and
clocks aboard would only shrink or vary according to the relative
speed, ignoring completely the absolute speed.

That's correct. There IS no absolute speed.


The wise men furthermore declared that no observer had preference over
another. So every object with a different speed from an observer would
be seen as having different seconds and different non-perpendicular
meters.

Right.

Perpendicular meters however remained always the same even
though this fact was only implied; never considered or mentioned.

Sure it is, explicitly considered and mentioned. Perhaps not in the
little that you've read. Perhaps you should read a little more.

Generally, it appears that a multitude, nay infinity of measuring rods
and clocks is required on every object in the universe to allow
measuring any dimension on every other object to which it has a
different speed and angular attitude.

No, just three.
Tell me something. If you wanted to find the distance from your home
town to six others, one at 13 degrees east of north, one at 53 degrees
east of north, one at 17 degrees east of south, one at eight degrees
west of south, one at eighty-one degrees west of north, and one at 12
degrees west of north, how many rulers would you need to measure those
distances?


The thinkers asked another question: If the cube approached
Superstition instead of speeding away from it, would meters and seconds
increase? The followers of SR F.O.P.I. did not know for sure

Sure they do.

but said
it made no difference. They decided the thinkers asked too many
questions and hastened to appoint Kommissars to enforce political
correctness in science. Enquiry, discussion and progress were inhibited
but the stability of believe systems remained safe for a long time.


PD

Pd, thank you for using arguments rather than invective to reply to SR
F.O.P.I.
Some of your arguments are quite good but not all of them.

Peter Riedt
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:31 pm    Post subject: Re: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

Peri of Pera wrote:
Quote:
SR F.O.P.I.

Since this is fairly laughable, I will laugh at it.
Note I will not take the opportunity to correct these misconceptions in
detail. There is no point in teaching a pig to sing.

Quote:

Two men on the planet Superstition wondered about the nature of light.
How was it transmitted from its sources? To answer their curiosity,
they used a device called interferometer in an experiment which later
was called MMX, the Magic Mystery Experiment. The interferometer had
two arms of equal length at a right angle to each other. Light was sent
along both arms, reflected by a mirror at the end of each arm and
returned to a common point where it was assumed the two light beams
would interfere. It should prove that all space was filled with
something like invisible honey, a substance that vibrated as light
passed through it.

The two men set up the experiment in their laboratory, positioning one
of the arms in a direction parallel to the motion of the planet through
space and the other arm perpendicularly to it. The light travelling
over the parallel arm was believed to take a longer time than the light
travelling over the perpendicular arm. This was because the mirror at
the end of the parallel arm moved away from the light that was chasing
it while the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm remained at the
same distance. When the experiment was conducted, the light took the
same time to arrive at the ends of both arms. No honey! Everybody who
had knowledge of these things was upset. Some wise old men then said if
the honey didn't work, it didn't exist. They came up with a clever
ruse to explain the absence of the honey. It was too bizarre to be true

Actually, it's not that bizarre at all. Especially since nature seems
to work that way. I don't know why some would deign to say that *we*
dictate how nature behaves, and not the other way around.

Quote:
but those who supported it were appointed to important posts and given
honours. The wise men said the length of the parallel arm had shortened
'in the direction of motion' through space and proportionally to
the speed of the interferometer to equalise with the length of the
other arm. This was called contraction. Likewise, time affecting the
device had to slow down. This was called time dilation. Contraction
allowed light to cover different distances in the same time because the
longer distance always reduced automatically to the smaller dimension.
This was called the principle of the constancy of light. In this way,
the wise men pronounced that contraction explained the null result of
the magic mystery experiment.

Contraction however required the interferometer to move strictly in a
straight line at all times to produce the exact amount of contraction
necessary to equalise the length of the two arms. But stationary
locations on earth are subject to five different motions through space:
rotation of the earth, planetary motion, stellar motion, galactic
motion and universe expansion motion. If the equipment is indeed
subject to contraction, the effect of all five actual motions on the
dimensions of the equipment will be unpredictable.

Not unpredictable at all. In fact, what one can say pretty reliably is
that four out of the five motions do not change appreciably during the
interval of the experiment, and so that their effect on the result is
simple and cancellable. I don't know why you think tracking five
motions makes the motion over a short interval intractably complex.

Quote:
This fact was
ignored by the wise men.

Factually incorrect. It was accounted for by the experimenters.

Quote:
They stubbornly insisted 'the direction of
motion' is invariably a straight line and contraction applies only to
the parallel arm in the exact amount.

That also is incorrect. The analysis that you've read makes that
simplification, but the full analysis does not require that.

Quote:

Furthermore, decreeing that only contraction of the parallel arm would
explain the null result of MMX was arbitrary. The same result could be
achieved if instead of contraction of the parallel arm an expansion of
the perpendicular arm had been stipulated. In either case, the length
of the two arms would be equal and the time of the light to travel over
the two arms would be the same as indeed the experiment had shown,
albeit for different reasons. If the formula 'sqrt(1-vv/cc)'
applied to the parallel arm were to be replaced by the formula
'sqrt(1+vv/cc)' and applied to the perpendicular arm, the
experiment would have shown the same result but with different
implications. Instead of parallel arm contraction, time dilation and
mass increase, perpendicular arm expansion, time contraction and mass
decrease would have ensued. But all this was ignored by the wise men.
They didn't even think of it.

That is also incorrect. First of all, following the prescription above
would *not* result in the same predicted effect, as a little bit of
algebra will show. Secondly, the formula with the minus sign was not ad
hoc but was *derived* from two basic assumptions, that the laws of
physics are the same in any inertial reference frame and that the speed
of light is the same in any inertial reference frame. There is no
comparable set of simple assumptions from which you can *derive* the
formula with the plus sign.

Quote:

Furthermore, contraction and time dilation dictated that the speed of
light had to be constant under any condition.

Actually, this is backwards, too. Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics
dictate that the speed of light had to be constant under any condition,
and length contraction and time dilation are *conclusions* from that
statement, not the other way around.

Quote:
As an example, starting
from the same point in the universe and moving in the same direction,
two spaceships travelling at 50000m/sec and 100000m/sec respectively
would be overtaken at the same time by a light beam sent after them
some time later.

It certainly does not mean that. There is no reference frame in which
that observation would occur. Your misunderstanding of what SR says is
not a critique of SR.

Quote:
This paradox was explained that 'at the same time'
did not mean 'at the same time', using circular arguments.

The findings of the magic mystery experiment were applied to every
object in the universe. The length and clock rate of every object
depended on its speed. The observed dimensions and times however never
changed if the observer had the same speed as the observed object
because his measuring rods and clocks would also change with the new
speed. If however the object was measured by an observer travelling at
a different speed, this observer would measure the dimensions of and on
the other object according to his own rods and the clock rate according
to his own clocks.

Anybody doubting the decrees of the wise old men was excluded from
Sanctus Religio, the Faith Of Pure Illogic, SR F.O.P.I.

Actually, that's incorrect, too. Relativity's introduction was met with
decades of skepticism and extremely careful experimental tests of the
predictions of SR. Every single one of those tests was aimed to show SR
wrong if it was wrong. When SR was not wrong, then and only then did SR
begin to gain acceptance.

Quote:
However, there
remained a small group of individuals who had the capacity to think
clearly and freely.

And to ignore the experimental results of the previous skeptics who had
done the work to test it.

Quote:
They asked questions about a physical object, the
cube. The dimensions of the cube were 100m x 100m x 100m on
Superstition. In their minds, the thinkers sent it to a star in the
universe as a spaceship. As it travelled away, its length and measuring
sticks according to SR F.O.P.I. would contract and its time and clocks
would slow down. As an example, a distance of one meter measured on the
cube on Superstition would be reduced to 90cm and a second to 900
milliseconds as it sped away at a certain speed.

What were the real dimensions of the cube in flight in this example?
Observers on the cube (the cubists) measured them to be 100x100x100m.
Observers on Superstition (the superstitious) would insist on
90x100x100m.
The cubists could see a light signal sent from a corner of
the cube to the opposite corner parallel to the direction of motion
arriving at the same time as one sent to the opposite corner on a
perpendicular path. According to SR F.O.P.I., anyone on Superstition
would make the same observation despite the length of the cube having
been reduced to 90m while width and height remained at 100m. How could
the speed of light be constant under all conditions and yet cover
different distances in the same time?

Same time? Who said anything about same time? The two clock rates are
different, remember?

Quote:
Well, the dogma of the constancy
of light demanded it and the facts had to conform to it. Again,
circular arguments, spurious assertions and vague references to
experiments which at best were inconclusive, at worst misrepresented
were used to prove it.

The thinkers asked how long were the measuring rods on the cube as it
moved through space, 90cm or 1m? If aligned in the direction of motion,
were they 90cm long but 1m long if aligned perpendicular to the motion?
At any other alignment between the parallel and perpendicular axis
would they be differently sized, according to the angle?

Yes.

Quote:
What if the
speed changed?

Yes.

Quote:
Would the size of a rod not depend on this speed as well
as on the alignment towards the parallel axis?

Yes. I see you are only familiar with the most basic form of the
Lorentz transform and do not know how it is done in three dimensions.

Quote:
How many differently
calibrated rods were necessary to measure everything on the cube at any
time and under any condition?

Three.

Quote:
Or was there only one rod which changed
invisibly in real length

Real length? What do you mean by real length?

Quote:
as it was moved around inside the cube or the
cube changed speed? What was the force that caused the change and how
was it controlled?

What force? Nothing physically acted on the rod to change its length.
Length is not an intrinsic property of a rod. It is inherently and
observer-dependent property, just the way momentum and kinetic energy
are.

Quote:

Time dilation was just as contentious as contraction. On Superstition,
a second was exactly one second long. However, at the given speed in
our example, a second anywhere inside the moving cube, as measured from
Superstition, was only .9 seconds long. While a meter could be anything
from .9m to 1m, a second was always reduced to .9 seconds everywhere on
the cube.

That is incorrect. The time interval between two events can be anything
between 0.9s and 1s. You apparently don't know how the Lorentz
transforms work at all.

Quote:
The shortened cube second was sufficient for light to cover
the contracted cube distance of 90m parallel to the motion but not long
enough to traverse the unchanged perpendicular distance of 100m.

Again, that's because you don't understand the Lorentz transforms.

Quote:
Again,
the constancy principle had been violated. It was pointed out to the SR
F.O.P.I. gurus. They mumbled something about world time lines, time
incongruities and similar esoterics.

Just because you don't understand what they said does not mean it was
mumbled. It might help if you took your hands off your ears.

Quote:

The wise men had also pronounced that the absolute speed of any object
in the universe couldn't be told. While the speed of the cube was
known relative to planet Superstition, the absolute speed was unknown.

That's correct.

Quote:
It could be less or more than the relative speed.

No, stronger than that. There IS no absolute speed.

Quote:
However, the rods and
clocks aboard would only shrink or vary according to the relative
speed, ignoring completely the absolute speed.

That's correct. There IS no absolute speed.

Quote:

The wise men furthermore declared that no observer had preference over
another. So every object with a different speed from an observer would
be seen as having different seconds and different non-perpendicular
meters.

Right.

Quote:
Perpendicular meters however remained always the same even
though this fact was only implied; never considered or mentioned.

Sure it is, explicitly considered and mentioned. Perhaps not in the
little that you've read. Perhaps you should read a little more.

Quote:
Generally, it appears that a multitude, nay infinity of measuring rods
and clocks is required on every object in the universe to allow
measuring any dimension on every other object to which it has a
different speed and angular attitude.

No, just three.
Tell me something. If you wanted to find the distance from your home
town to six others, one at 13 degrees east of north, one at 53 degrees
east of north, one at 17 degrees east of south, one at eight degrees
west of south, one at eighty-one degrees west of north, and one at 12
degrees west of north, how many rulers would you need to measure those
distances?

Quote:

The thinkers asked another question: If the cube approached
Superstition instead of speeding away from it, would meters and seconds
increase? The followers of SR F.O.P.I. did not know for sure

Sure they do.

Quote:
but said
it made no difference. They decided the thinkers asked too many
questions and hastened to appoint Kommissars to enforce political
correctness in science. Enquiry, discussion and progress were inhibited
but the stability of believe systems remained safe for a long time.


PD
Back to top
Harry
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:14 am    Post subject: Re: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153278386.910728.194940@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
SR F.O.P.I.

Two men on the planet Superstition wondered about the nature of light.
How was it transmitted from its sources? To answer their curiosity,
they used a device called interferometer in an experiment which later
was called MMX, the Magic Mystery Experiment. The interferometer had
two arms of equal length at a right angle to each other. Light was sent
along both arms, reflected by a mirror at the end of each arm and
returned to a common point where it was assumed the two light beams
would interfere. It should prove that all space was filled with
something like invisible honey, a substance that vibrated as light
passed through it.

[SNIP]

Happily we don't live on that planet, so that all that nonsense never
happened. :-)

Harald
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:48 am    Post subject: Re: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1153278386.910728.194940@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
SR F.O.P.I.

The imbecile troll is back:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RiedtTroll.html

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:37 am    Post subject: s**t ON YOU, Peter Riedt Reply with quote

Peri of Pera wrote:
Quote:
dda1 wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
snipped due to extreme idiocy

Peter , aren't you tired of people shitting on you? Even after you die,
we'll still piss on your grave (at least for a while) . Fucking cretin!

dda1, you would fail the examination test to be a Kommissar's
apprentice.

Peter Riedt
Back to top
DJINGATTILA
science forum addict


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:59 am    Post subject: Re: Peter Riedt - CRETIN. PERSISTENT Reply with quote

dda1 wrote:
Quote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
snipped due to extreme idiocy

Peter , aren't you tired of people shitting on you? Even after you die,
we'll still piss on your grave (at least for a while) . Fucking cretin!

dda1, you would fail the examination test to be a Kommissar's
apprentice.

Peter Riedt
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:51 am    Post subject: Peter Riedt - CRETIN. PERSISTENT Reply with quote

Peri of Pera wrote:
<snipped due to extreme idiocy>

Peter , aren't you tired of people shitting on you? Even after you die,
we'll still piss on your grave (at least for a while) . Fucking cretin!
Back to top
DJINGATTILA
science forum addict


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:06 am    Post subject: SR F.O.P.I Reply with quote

SR F.O.P.I.

Two men on the planet Superstition wondered about the nature of light.
How was it transmitted from its sources? To answer their curiosity,
they used a device called interferometer in an experiment which later
was called MMX, the Magic Mystery Experiment. The interferometer had
two arms of equal length at a right angle to each other. Light was sent
along both arms, reflected by a mirror at the end of each arm and
returned to a common point where it was assumed the two light beams
would interfere. It should prove that all space was filled with
something like invisible honey, a substance that vibrated as light
passed through it.

The two men set up the experiment in their laboratory, positioning one
of the arms in a direction parallel to the motion of the planet through
space and the other arm perpendicularly to it. The light travelling
over the parallel arm was believed to take a longer time than the light
travelling over the perpendicular arm. This was because the mirror at
the end of the parallel arm moved away from the light that was chasing
it while the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm remained at the
same distance. When the experiment was conducted, the light took the
same time to arrive at the ends of both arms. No honey! Everybody who
had knowledge of these things was upset. Some wise old men then said if
the honey didn't work, it didn't exist. They came up with a clever
ruse to explain the absence of the honey. It was too bizarre to be true
but those who supported it were appointed to important posts and given
honours. The wise men said the length of the parallel arm had shortened
'in the direction of motion' through space and proportionally to
the speed of the interferometer to equalise with the length of the
other arm. This was called contraction. Likewise, time affecting the
device had to slow down. This was called time dilation. Contraction
allowed light to cover different distances in the same time because the
longer distance always reduced automatically to the smaller dimension.
This was called the principle of the constancy of light. In this way,
the wise men pronounced that contraction explained the null result of
the magic mystery experiment.

Contraction however required the interferometer to move strictly in a
straight line at all times to produce the exact amount of contraction
necessary to equalise the length of the two arms. But stationary
locations on earth are subject to five different motions through space:
rotation of the earth, planetary motion, stellar motion, galactic
motion and universe expansion motion. If the equipment is indeed
subject to contraction, the effect of all five actual motions on the
dimensions of the equipment will be unpredictable. This fact was
ignored by the wise men. They stubbornly insisted 'the direction of
motion' is invariably a straight line and contraction applies only to
the parallel arm in the exact amount.

Furthermore, decreeing that only contraction of the parallel arm would
explain the null result of MMX was arbitrary. The same result could be
achieved if instead of contraction of the parallel arm an expansion of
the perpendicular arm had been stipulated. In either case, the length
of the two arms would be equal and the time of the light to travel over
the two arms would be the same as indeed the experiment had shown,
albeit for different reasons. If the formula 'sqrt(1-vv/cc)'
applied to the parallel arm were to be replaced by the formula
'sqrt(1+vv/cc)' and applied to the perpendicular arm, the
experiment would have shown the same result but with different
implications. Instead of parallel arm contraction, time dilation and
mass increase, perpendicular arm expansion, time contraction and mass
decrease would have ensued. But all this was ignored by the wise men.
They didn't even think of it.

Furthermore, contraction and time dilation dictated that the speed of
light had to be constant under any condition. As an example, starting
from the same point in the universe and moving in the same direction,
two spaceships travelling at 50000m/sec and 100000m/sec respectively
would be overtaken at the same time by a light beam sent after them
some time later. This paradox was explained that 'at the same time'
did not mean 'at the same time', using circular arguments.

The findings of the magic mystery experiment were applied to every
object in the universe. The length and clock rate of every object
depended on its speed. The observed dimensions and times however never
changed if the observer had the same speed as the observed object
because his measuring rods and clocks would also change with the new
speed. If however the object was measured by an observer travelling at
a different speed, this observer would measure the dimensions of and on
the other object according to his own rods and the clock rate according
to his own clocks.

Anybody doubting the decrees of the wise old men was excluded from
Sanctus Religio, the Faith Of Pure Illogic, SR F.O.P.I. However, there
remained a small group of individuals who had the capacity to think
clearly and freely. They asked questions about a physical object, the
cube. The dimensions of the cube were 100m x 100m x 100m on
Superstition. In their minds, the thinkers sent it to a star in the
universe as a spaceship. As it travelled away, its length and measuring
sticks according to SR F.O.P.I. would contract and its time and clocks
would slow down. As an example, a distance of one meter measured on the
cube on Superstition would be reduced to 90cm and a second to 900
milliseconds as it sped away at a certain speed.

What were the real dimensions of the cube in flight in this example?
Observers on the cube (the cubists) measured them to be 100x100x100m.
Observers on Superstition (the superstitious) would insist on
90x100x100m. The cubists could see a light signal sent from a corner of
the cube to the opposite corner parallel to the direction of motion
arriving at the same time as one sent to the opposite corner on a
perpendicular path. According to SR F.O.P.I., anyone on Superstition
would make the same observation despite the length of the cube having
been reduced to 90m while width and height remained at 100m. How could
the speed of light be constant under all conditions and yet cover
different distances in the same time? Well, the dogma of the constancy
of light demanded it and the facts had to conform to it. Again,
circular arguments, spurious assertions and vague references to
experiments which at best were inconclusive, at worst misrepresented
were used to prove it.

The thinkers asked how long were the measuring rods on the cube as it
moved through space, 90cm or 1m? If aligned in the direction of motion,
were they 90cm long but 1m long if aligned perpendicular to the motion?
At any other alignment between the parallel and perpendicular axis
would they be differently sized, according to the angle? What if the
speed changed? Would the size of a rod not depend on this speed as well
as on the alignment towards the parallel axis? How many differently
calibrated rods were necessary to measure everything on the cube at any
time and under any condition? Or was there only one rod which changed
invisibly in real length as it was moved around inside the cube or the
cube changed speed? What was the force that caused the change and how
was it controlled?

Time dilation was just as contentious as contraction. On Superstition,
a second was exactly one second long. However, at the given speed in
our example, a second anywhere inside the moving cube, as measured from
Superstition, was only .9 seconds long. While a meter could be anything
from .9m to 1m, a second was always reduced to .9 seconds everywhere on
the cube. The shortened cube second was sufficient for light to cover
the contracted cube distance of 90m parallel to the motion but not long
enough to traverse the unchanged perpendicular distance of 100m. Again,
the constancy principle had been violated. It was pointed out to the SR
F.O.P.I. gurus. They mumbled something about world time lines, time
incongruities and similar esoterics.

The wise men had also pronounced that the absolute speed of any object
in the universe couldn't be told. While the speed of the cube was
known relative to planet Superstition, the absolute speed was unknown.
It could be less or more than the relative speed. However, the rods and
clocks aboard would only shrink or vary according to the relative
speed, ignoring completely the absolute speed.

The wise men furthermore declared that no observer had preference over
another. So every object with a different speed from an observer would
be seen as having different seconds and different non-perpendicular
meters. Perpendicular meters however remained always the same even
though this fact was only implied; never considered or mentioned.
Generally, it appears that a multitude, nay infinity of measuring rods
and clocks is required on every object in the universe to allow
measuring any dimension on every other object to which it has a
different speed and angular attitude.

The thinkers asked another question: If the cube approached
Superstition instead of speeding away from it, would meters and seconds
increase? The followers of SR F.O.P.I. did not know for sure but said
it made no difference. They decided the thinkers asked too many
questions and hastened to appoint Kommissars to enforce political
correctness in science. Enquiry, discussion and progress were inhibited
but the stability of believe systems remained safe for a long time.

Peter Riedt
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [12 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:56 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  


Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1784s ][ Queries: 15 (0.1164s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]