 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Is physics a science?... |
|
Page 9 of 24 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 22, 23, 24 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Vern... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 9:31 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 8:28 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]It makes no sense to talk about mechanisms in relation to changing
reference frames, as they are arbitrary.
Yet you asked about mass in different reference frames -- before and
after an acceleration.
[/quote]
I was referring to your example of changing reference frames. My
inquiry concerning an object accelerated and then in free flight was
to confirm an experimental expectation. Aether models would generally
have the object slowing down in free flight by a factor of gamma.
[quote] In any one reference frame,
it should be assumed that any interaction involving matter must have a
mechanism.
But the acceleration of a mass isn't in one reference frame. The mass
in any one frame is constant. The so-called "relativistic mass" is a
relation between mass-like terms in two different reference frames. It
helps to know what relativity actually SAYS.
[/quote]
Again, I was responding to your example, not mine. Nevertheless, in
classical mechanics for an accelerating object, surely you are not
saying that no mechansim is present.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:41 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 9:31 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:28 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
It makes no sense to talk about mechanisms in relation to changing
reference frames, as they are arbitrary.
Yet you asked about mass in different reference frames -- before and
after an acceleration.
I was referring to your example of changing reference frames. My
inquiry concerning an object accelerated
[/quote]
Exactly, which is a shift from one reference frame to another.
[quote]and then in free flight was
to confirm an experimental expectation. Aether models would generally
have the object slowing down in free flight by a factor of gamma.
[/quote]
This is counter to experimental observation in accelerator beamlines.
[quote]
In any one reference frame,
it should be assumed that any interaction involving matter must have a
mechanism.
But the acceleration of a mass isn't in one reference frame. The mass
in any one frame is constant. The so-called "relativistic mass" is a
relation between mass-like terms in two different reference frames. It
helps to know what relativity actually SAYS.
Again, I was responding to your example, not mine. Nevertheless, in
classical mechanics for an accelerating object, surely you are not
saying that no mechansim is present.
[/quote]
The change of momentum in a *single* reference frame is due to a
mechanism. There is no change in mass in a *single* reference frame
and so no mechanism. Nor is there a mechanism required for the
difference in "relativistic mass" as observed in two different
reference frames, for the same reason kinetic energy doesn't require
one.
It really helps to understand what relativity actually says. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 6:41 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 9:31 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:28 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
It makes no sense to talk about mechanisms in relation to changing
reference frames, as they are arbitrary.
Yet you asked about mass in different reference frames -- before and
after an acceleration.
I was referring to your example of changing reference frames. My
inquiry concerning an object accelerated and then in free flight was
to confirm an experimental expectation. Aether models would generally
have the object slowing down in free flight by a factor of gamma.
[/quote]
Vern, everything does 'make sense' if there exists an underlying
medium. Then, everything is ultimately related to its primal state
(call that a preferred frame and is 'illuminated' by the CMBR). Then
all states of momentum/energy always, and ultimately relate back to
its primal state. What we are calling frames of reference are just a
convenient point of view and has no bearing on actual reality. That
is also the LET perspective. Thus momentum and kinetic energy are
actually conserved in all states of being. To me, this perspective is
intellectually more satisfying than assuming momentum/energy vanishes
and appears from nowhere. As, for slowing down, you're right it
happens and can & has been quantified. I think this is even predicted
in the GR model (if one looks closely). The equation for that
decelleration term is,
A_d = (-fu/c)v
Where f = the aether's momentum flux (kg/m-sec^2) = 6.74E+00
u = the mass attenuation coefficient (m^2/kg) = 3.15E-06
c = the Root Mean Speed of the aether (m/sec) = 3.00E+08
v = the net speed of the mass in m/sec
[quote]Vern
[/quote]
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 11:46 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Nov 5, 7:34 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
snip
Please. Look up Minkowski space.
Also see the definition of what 'flat' means
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space-time
Minkowski spacetime is a geometry that is flat.
In terms of a model for explaining known phenomena, space-time in the
absense of gravity would then only be posited to account for a speed
limit,
And the invariance of that limit with respect to inertial reference
frame, or if you like, independence on source speed.
right, and as a result, mass must increase as speeds approach
"c" and time slows down.
These are comic-book versions of what relativity says. The invariant
mass remains invariant. There was once a bridge concept called
"relativistic mass" which was the product of two terms in the
relativistic equation of momentum, so that the product could look
something like the classical equation of momentum. This bridge concept
is no longer really thought of as being useful, it being much more
straightforward to just recognize that the classical expression is
simply an approximation to the more correct one.
And the mechanism (how it's caused) for this
is still unknown.
There is no "mechanism" needed. Even in classical physics, the kinetic
energy of a single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in
two different reference frames.
As I have previously pointed out that is a non sense argument. If two
objects fly through space and collide one may calculate the kinetic
energy involved in the collision but it is silly to attribute kinetic
energy to one or other of the objects. One may arbitrarily do so for
calculation but it is otherwise meaningless. Kinetic energy involves an
interaction of two (or more) objects and is dependent on their relative
speeds. It is therefore nonsensical to say that "the kinetic energy of a
single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in two different
reference frames". The kinetic energy of a single object is a
meaningless concept (except for rotational kinetic energy which we are
not dealing with here).
[/quote]
Fascinating. And yet kinetic theory makes extensive use of the kinetic
energy of the individual elements in the medium.
Do you have any references from classical physics that support your
position on this?
[quote]
There is no "mechanism" of how the
kinetic energy suddenly appeared in one frame when it was zero in the
other.
If I am hit by a bullet one may arbitrarily think of the bullet as
having the kinetic energy but it is wrong to do so. It is no more and no
less sensible to suggest that it is I who bring the energy involved in
the collision. If I *change my speed* w.r.t the gun and am hit by an
identical bullet then the energy of the interaction will change and the
process/mechanism which caused that change in the kinetic energy of
interaction is that which changed my speed - I put my foot on the
accelerator ............
If someone else travelling at a different speed is hit by a bullet then
that is an entirely different interaction between him and the bullet and
again it is meaningless to talk about whether it is him or the bullet
which has the kinetic energy.
The problem is that people like you are so used to talking about frames
of reference they start to become real to you and an excuse for all
sorts of twisted thinking. As a FoR does not physically exist, then
anything sensible in physics should be capable of explanation without
using the phrase. You should try it.
--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 7:34 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
snip
Please. Look up Minkowski space.
Also see the definition of what 'flat' means
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space-time
Minkowski spacetime is a geometry that is flat.
In terms of a model for explaining known phenomena, space-time in the
absense of gravity would then only be posited to account for a speed
limit,
And the invariance of that limit with respect to inertial reference
frame, or if you like, independence on source speed.
right, and as a result, mass must increase as speeds approach
"c" and time slows down.
These are comic-book versions of what relativity says. The invariant
mass remains invariant. There was once a bridge concept called
"relativistic mass" which was the product of two terms in the
relativistic equation of momentum, so that the product could look
something like the classical equation of momentum. This bridge concept
is no longer really thought of as being useful, it being much more
straightforward to just recognize that the classical expression is
simply an approximation to the more correct one.
And the mechanism (how it's caused) for this
is still unknown.
There is no "mechanism" needed. Even in classical physics, the kinetic
energy of a single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in
two different reference frames.
[/quote]
As I have previously pointed out that is a non sense argument. If two
objects fly through space and collide one may calculate the kinetic
energy involved in the collision but it is silly to attribute kinetic
energy to one or other of the objects. One may arbitrarily do so for
calculation but it is otherwise meaningless. Kinetic energy involves an
interaction of two (or more) objects and is dependent on their relative
speeds. It is therefore nonsensical to say that "the kinetic energy of a
single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in two different
reference frames". The kinetic energy of a single object is a
meaningless concept (except for rotational kinetic energy which we are
not dealing with here).
[quote]There is no "mechanism" of how the
kinetic energy suddenly appeared in one frame when it was zero in the
other.
[/quote]
If I am hit by a bullet one may arbitrarily think of the bullet as
having the kinetic energy but it is wrong to do so. It is no more and no
less sensible to suggest that it is I who bring the energy involved in
the collision. If I *change my speed* w.r.t the gun and am hit by an
identical bullet then the energy of the interaction will change and the
process/mechanism which caused that change in the kinetic energy of
interaction is that which changed my speed - I put my foot on the
accelerator ............
If someone else travelling at a different speed is hit by a bullet then
that is an entirely different interaction between him and the bullet and
again it is meaningless to talk about whether it is him or the bullet
which has the kinetic energy.
The problem is that people like you are so used to talking about frames
of reference they start to become real to you and an excuse for all
sorts of twisted thinking. As a FoR does not physically exist, then
anything sensible in physics should be capable of explanation without
using the phrase. You should try it.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Nov 5, 7:34 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
snip
Please. Look up Minkowski space.
Also see the definition of what 'flat' means
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space-time
Minkowski spacetime is a geometry that is flat.
In terms of a model for explaining known phenomena, space-time in the
absense of gravity would then only be posited to account for a speed
limit,
And the invariance of that limit with respect to inertial reference
frame, or if you like, independence on source speed.
right, and as a result, mass must increase as speeds approach
"c" and time slows down.
These are comic-book versions of what relativity says. The invariant
mass remains invariant. There was once a bridge concept called
"relativistic mass" which was the product of two terms in the
relativistic equation of momentum, so that the product could look
something like the classical equation of momentum. This bridge concept
is no longer really thought of as being useful, it being much more
straightforward to just recognize that the classical expression is
simply an approximation to the more correct one.
And the mechanism (how it's caused) for this
is still unknown.
There is no "mechanism" needed. Even in classical physics, the kinetic
energy of a single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in
two different reference frames.
As I have previously pointed out that is a non sense argument. If two
objects fly through space and collide one may calculate the kinetic
energy involved in the collision but it is silly to attribute kinetic
energy to one or other of the objects. One may arbitrarily do so for
calculation but it is otherwise meaningless. Kinetic energy involves an
interaction of two (or more) objects and is dependent on their relative
speeds. It is therefore nonsensical to say that "the kinetic energy of a
single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in two different
reference frames". The kinetic energy of a single object is a
meaningless concept (except for rotational kinetic energy which we are
not dealing with here).
[/quote]
Of course that is completely wrong. If you have ten objects, work out
the number of possible computations you have to do for all the
objects. You seem to think this is somehow simpler than listing the
energies of the ten objects?
[quote]
There is no "mechanism" of how the
kinetic energy suddenly appeared in one frame when it was zero in the
other.
If I am hit by a bullet one may arbitrarily think of the bullet as
having the kinetic energy but it is wrong to do so.
[/quote]
Depends on which frame you are in.
It is no more and no
[quote]less sensible to suggest that it is I who bring the energy involved in
the collision.
[/quote]
Yes, it depends on which frame you are in.
If I *change my speed* w.r.t the gun and am hit by an
[quote]identical bullet then the energy of the interaction will change and the
process/mechanism which caused that change in the kinetic energy of
interaction is that which changed my speed - I put my foot on the
accelerator ............
If someone else travelling at a different speed is hit by a bullet then
that is an entirely different interaction between him and the bullet and
again it is meaningless to talk about whether it is him or the bullet
which has the kinetic energy.
The problem is that people like you are so used to talking about frames
of reference they start to become real
[/quote]
for good reason.
to you and an excuse for all
[quote]sorts of twisted thinking.
[/quote]
Rather, your ignorance of them is causing you problems.
As a FoR does not physically exist, then
[quote]anything sensible in physics should be capable of explanation without
using the phrase. You should try it.
Wow, you really are ignorant of even classical physics.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 10:44 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 8:41 am,Vern<vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]and then in free flight was
to confirm an experimental expectation. Aether models would generally
have the object slowing down in free flight by a factor of gamma.
This is counter to experimental observation in accelerator beamlines.
[/quote]
IMO, the particles would have to be shunted to a free flight tunnel
independent of accelerator influence and long enough to definitively
determine velocity.
[quote]Again, I was responding to your example, not mine. Nevertheless, in
classical mechanics for an accelerating object, surely you are not
saying that no mechansim is present.
The change of momentum in a *single* reference frame is due to a
mechanism. There is no change in mass in a *single* reference frame
and so no mechanism. Nor is there a mechanism required for the
difference in "relativistic mass" as observed in two different
reference frames, for the same reason kinetic energy doesn't require
one.
It really helps to understand what relativity actually says.
[/quote]
We've digressed. The issue I was driving at is whether there exists
any model of nature in the SR/GR paradigm. The only thing I've heard
so far is that SR provides an ultimate speed limit. The field
interpretation of GR offers somewhat of a model as a field is
indicative of a medium. The geometric interpretation provides no type
of model and has force initiation problems (according to published
writings of Tom VanFlandern).
Ether theory(ies) model every aspect of nature in this domain as well
as providing models in other domains and are not ruled out by
experimental or observational data. Each reason given for the
abandonment of ether concepts in the early 1900s can be shown to be a
result of lack of knowledge at the time and the conflicts have since
been resolved.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 10:44 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:41 am,Vern<vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
and then in free flight was
to confirm an experimental expectation. Aether models would generally
have the object slowing down in free flight by a factor of gamma.
This is counter to experimental observation in accelerator beamlines.
IMO, the particles would have to be shunted to a free flight tunnel
independent of accelerator influence and long enough to definitively
determine velocity.
[/quote]
Two comments:
- In a circular accelerator, the only "accelerator influence" is the
RF cavity station that comprises perhaps 3% of the ring circumference,
smaller if you're at CERN. The rest is essentially free flight.
- Fixed target experiments do *exactly* the free flight beamlines you
refer to. You can look at an aerial map of Fermilab to see how this
looks. And there is plenty of beamline instrumentation in the free
flight beamlines to track the velocity of the particles. If you'd like
an extreme example of this, please Google the NuMI beamline, which
runs highly relativistic particles from the western suburbs of
Chicago, Illinois, to Soudan State Park, Minnesota. That beamline is
450 miles long and certainly would be sensitive to particle slowing.
[quote]
Again, I was responding to your example, not mine. Nevertheless, in
classical mechanics for an accelerating object, surely you are not
saying that no mechansim is present.
The change of momentum in a *single* reference frame is due to a
mechanism. There is no change in mass in a *single* reference frame
and so no mechanism. Nor is there a mechanism required for the
difference in "relativistic mass" as observed in two different
reference frames, for the same reason kinetic energy doesn't require
one.
It really helps to understand what relativity actually says.
We've digressed. The issue I was driving at is whether there exists
any model of nature in the SR/GR paradigm. The only thing I've heard
so far is that SR provides an ultimate speed limit.
[/quote]
No, the structure of spacetime yields both the ultimate speed limit
and the frame invariance of that speed limit. Those in turn lead to
LOTS of interesting implications, many of which have already been
tested and none of which has encountered counterevidence.
[quote] The field
interpretation of GR offers somewhat of a model as a field is
indicative of a medium.
[/quote]
I note the softening of language from "demands" to "is indicative of".
This is precisely the point.
[quote] The geometric interpretation provides no type
of model
[/quote]
Depends on what you think the critical elements of a "model" are. See
earlier disagreements in this thread.
[quote]and has force initiation problems (according to published
writings of Tom VanFlandern).
Ether theory(ies) model every aspect of nature in this domain as well
as providing models in other domains and are not ruled out by
experimental or observational data. Each reason given for the
abandonment of ether concepts in the early 1900s can be shown to be a
result of lack of knowledge at the time and the conflicts have since
been resolved.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
Ether theory(ies) model every aspect of nature in this domain as well
as providing models in other domains and are not ruled out by
experimental or observational data.
[/quote]
Except for that slowing business you just mentioned. Ruled out by
experimental data.
You MAY want to take that into consideration.
You see, you just did something useful with the ether model -- you
came up with a prediction of a measurable phenomenon that clearly
distinguishes it from relativity. That is an admirable accomplishment,
because it sets the stage for unambiguously determining which of the
two is actually right. As it turns out, though (and this is the way it
should be), nature has made its unbiased evaluation -- and the ether
model's prediction tanked.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 12:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ether theory(ies) model every aspect of nature in this domain as well
as providing models in other domains and are not ruled out by
experimental or observational data.
Except for that slowing business you just mentioned. Ruled out by
experimental data.
You MAY want to take that into consideration.
You see, you just did something useful with the ether model -- you
came up with a prediction of a measurable phenomenon that clearly
distinguishes it from relativity. That is an admirable accomplishment,
because it sets the stage for unambiguously determining which of the
two is actually right. As it turns out, though (and this is the way it
should be), nature has made its unbiased evaluation -- and the ether
model's prediction tanked.
PD
[/quote]
Show me some numbers... How much change in speed do you expect??? If
some particle is moving at 2.85E+08 m/sec and is experiencing 2E-05 m/
sec^2 deceleration in one kilometer it will see a 0.2 m/sec change.
That's ~7E-08% change. EVEN IF! you were looking for it I doubt you
could detect it. If you have another model to quantify deceleration,
by all means show us! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 3:39 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 12:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ether theory(ies) model every aspect of nature in this domain as well
as providing models in other domains and are not ruled out by
experimental or observational data.
Except for that slowing business you just mentioned. Ruled out by
experimental data.
You MAY want to take that into consideration.
You see, you just did something useful with the ether model -- you
came up with a prediction of a measurable phenomenon that clearly
distinguishes it from relativity. That is an admirable accomplishment,
because it sets the stage for unambiguously determining which of the
two is actually right. As it turns out, though (and this is the way it
should be), nature has made its unbiased evaluation -- and the ether
model's prediction tanked.
PD
Show me some numbers... How much change in speed do you expect??? If
some particle is moving at 2.85E+08 m/sec and is experiencing 2E-05 m/
sec^2 deceleration in one kilometer it will see a 0.2 m/sec change.
That's ~7E-08% change. EVEN IF! you were looking for it I doubt you
could detect it. If you have another model to quantify deceleration,
by all means show us!
[/quote]
Where do YOU get 2E-5 m/s^2 deceleration? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 3:39 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ether theory(ies) model every aspect of nature in this domain as well
as providing models in other domains and are not ruled out by
experimental or observational data.
Except for that slowing business you just mentioned. Ruled out by
experimental data.
You MAY want to take that into consideration.
You see, you just did something useful with the ether model -- you
came up with a prediction of a measurable phenomenon that clearly
distinguishes it from relativity. That is an admirable accomplishment,
because it sets the stage for unambiguously determining which of the
two is actually right. As it turns out, though (and this is the way it
should be), nature has made its unbiased evaluation -- and the ether
model's prediction tanked.
PD
Show me some numbers... How much change in speed do you expect??? If
some particle is moving at 2.85E+08 m/sec and is experiencing 2E-05 m/
sec^2 deceleration in one kilometer it will see a 0.2 m/sec change.
That's ~7E-08% change. EVEN IF! you were looking for it I doubt you
could detect it. If you have another model to quantify deceleration,
by all means show us!
Where do YOU get 2E-5 m/s^2 deceleration?
[/quote]
Where do you get one from??? All I see is undefined denials...
Look back in this thread and the equation is given... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 4:00 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 3:39 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ether theory(ies) model every aspect of nature in this domain as well
as providing models in other domains and are not ruled out by
experimental or observational data.
Except for that slowing business you just mentioned. Ruled out by
experimental data.
You MAY want to take that into consideration.
You see, you just did something useful with the ether model -- you
came up with a prediction of a measurable phenomenon that clearly
distinguishes it from relativity. That is an admirable accomplishment,
because it sets the stage for unambiguously determining which of the
two is actually right. As it turns out, though (and this is the way it
should be), nature has made its unbiased evaluation -- and the ether
model's prediction tanked.
PD
Show me some numbers... How much change in speed do you expect??? If
some particle is moving at 2.85E+08 m/sec and is experiencing 2E-05 m/
sec^2 deceleration in one kilometer it will see a 0.2 m/sec change.
That's ~7E-08% change. EVEN IF! you were looking for it I doubt you
could detect it. If you have another model to quantify deceleration,
by all means show us!
Where do YOU get 2E-5 m/s^2 deceleration?
Where do you get one from??? All I see is undefined denials...
Look back in this thread and the equation is given...
[/quote]
The one that was given was this:
A_d = (-fu/c)v
Where f = the aether's momentum flux (kg/m-sec^2) = 6.74E+00
u = the mass attenuation coefficient (m^2/kg) = 3.15E-06
c = the Root Mean Speed of the aether (m/sec) = 3.00E+08
v = the net speed of the mass in m/sec
It's interesting that this expression does not include the mass of the
object in the aether, which means that a bowling ball is decelerated
at the same rate as a helium balloon of the same volume, and at the
same rate as a proton.
It also predicts a sizable energy loss from stars to the surrounding
medium, so that 1/r^2 radiative scaling would not apply. This is
easily testable.
It also predicts a sizable delay between particles observed from
stellar sources, compared to the photon equivalents. We can measure
the speed of the particles upon their arrival at the observatory (with
a TOF or Cerenkov counter, eg.), use the relation above to integrate
what the source speed was, and then use that velocity profile to track
back the time of the release of the particles compared to that of the
light. This time would be much earlier than a similar traceback that
assumes the particles traveled at constant speed from the origin. If
the origin time is weeks before the origin of the light, would this
make you suspect that the relation has a problem? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 4:00 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 3:39 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:03 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Ether theory(ies) model every aspect of nature in this domain as well
as providing models in other domains and are not ruled out by
experimental or observational data.
Except for that slowing business you just mentioned. Ruled out by
experimental data.
You MAY want to take that into consideration.
You see, you just did something useful with the ether model -- you
came up with a prediction of a measurable phenomenon that clearly
distinguishes it from relativity. That is an admirable accomplishment,
because it sets the stage for unambiguously determining which of the
two is actually right. As it turns out, though (and this is the way it
should be), nature has made its unbiased evaluation -- and the ether
model's prediction tanked.
PD
Show me some numbers... How much change in speed do you expect??? If
some particle is moving at 2.85E+08 m/sec and is experiencing 2E-05 m/
sec^2 deceleration in one kilometer it will see a 0.2 m/sec change.
That's ~7E-08% change. EVEN IF! you were looking for it I doubt you
could detect it. If you have another model to quantify deceleration,
by all means show us!
Where do YOU get 2E-5 m/s^2 deceleration?
Where do you get one from??? All I see is undefined denials...
Look back in this thread and the equation is given...
The one that was given was this:
A_d = (-fu/c)v
Where f = the aether's momentum flux (kg/m-sec^2) = 6.74E+00
u = the mass attenuation coefficient (m^2/kg) = 3.15E-06
c = the Root Mean Speed of the aether (m/sec) = 3.00E+08
v = the net speed of the mass in m/sec
It's interesting that this expression does not include the mass of the
object in the aether, which means that a bowling ball is decelerated
at the same rate as a helium balloon of the same volume, and at the
same rate as a proton.
It also predicts a sizable energy loss from stars to the surrounding
medium, so that 1/r^2 radiative scaling would not apply. This is
easily testable.
It also predicts a sizable delay between particles observed from
stellar sources, compared to the photon equivalents. We can measure
the speed of the particles upon their arrival at the observatory (with
a TOF or Cerenkov counter, eg.), use the relation above to integrate
what the source speed was, and then use that velocity profile to track
back the time of the release of the particles compared to that of the
light. This time would be much earlier than a similar traceback that
assumes the particles traveled at constant speed from the origin. If
the origin time is weeks before the origin of the light, would this
make you suspect that the relation has a problem?
[/quote]
What I don't see is anything quantitive from you... It was 'you' who
claimed Vern's process proved something, not him, so show us the
numbers & analysis to back that up.
Do you find it strange that a feather would decelerate at the same
rate as a uranium bowling ball? Where else is this property seen? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3267
|
Physics is questionable as a science?
Has someone gone into denial?
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:27 pm
|
|