| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Nonsense and SR
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Richard Hachel |
 Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged frame
and says that it is necessary to put them all in the same feet
of equality.
Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel "visible speed",
of approach and estrangement are not symetric.
We may turn the problem as we want, we find a contradiction,
and, worse, a nonsense.
R.H. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sue... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 22, 5:38 am, Richard Hachel <r.hac...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
Quote: Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged frame
and says that it is necessary to put them all in the same feet
of equality.
Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel "visible speed",
of approach and estrangement are not symetric.
We may turn the problem as we want, we find a contradiction,
and, worse, a nonsense.
R.H.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sue... |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 22, 5:38 am, Richard Hachel <r.hac...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
Quote: Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged frame
and says that it is necessary to put them all in the same feet
of equality.
Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel "visible speed",
of approach and estrangement are not symetric.
We may turn the problem as we want, we find a contradiction,
and, worse, a nonsense.
R.H.
BTW... as stated in the 1920 paper
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
....the posulates of SR are resolveable:
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
Sue... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Richard Hachel:
"Richard Hachel" <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote in message
news:45DD72AA.CE67620C@tiscali.fr...
Quote:
Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged
frame and says that it is necessary to put them
all in the same feet of equality.
Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel "visible
speed", of approach and estrangement are not
symetric.
Observer A should measure the same speed for B, that B measures
for A.
Quote: We may turn the problem as we want, we find
a contradiction, and, worse, a nonsense.
No contradiction.
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| harry |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Richard Hachel" <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote in message
news:45DD72AA.CE67620C@tiscali.fr...
Quote:
Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged frame
Where? Maybe he did write that somewhere, but not everyone means the same
thing when they talk about reality and being.
Quote: and says that it is necessary to put them all in the same feet
of equality.
That was based on experience: since the time of Newton that experience had
not changed.
Quote: Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel "visible speed",
of approach and estrangement are not symetric.
That's not what he wrote. Have you actually read that paper? In it he
answers questions that you haven't asked yet.
Quote: We may turn the problem as we want, we find a contradiction,
and, worse, a nonsense.
Now I'm sure that you haven't read it...
Harald. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Hachel |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:
Quote: Dear Richard Hachel:
"Richard Hachel" <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote in message
news:45DD72AA.CE67620C@tiscali.fr...
Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged
frame and says that it is necessary to put them
all in the same feet of equality.
Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel "visible
speed", of approach and estrangement are not
symetric.
Observer A should measure the same speed for B, that B measures
for A.
No. We see that visible speeds are not the same speeds for A and for B.
That is a contradiction, a nonsense.
For A: Vo=0.8c d/T = 12 al/ 27 years then Vapp=0.444c.
For B: d/T =7.2 al / 9 years then Vapp = 0.8c !!!
No symmetric.
Stella Returns:
For A d/T = 12al/3years then Vapp= 4c
For B d/T = 7.2 al/9 years then Vapp =0.8c !!!
No symmetric.
Quote:
We may turn the problem as we want, we find
a contradiction, and, worse, a nonsense.
No contradiction.
Sure???
Quote:
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler
David A. Smith
R.H. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dlzc |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Richard Hachel:
On Feb 22, 10:09 am, Richard Hachel <r.hac...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
Quote: "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:
Dear Richard Hachel:
"Richard Hachel" <r.hac...@tiscali.fr> wrote in message
news:45DD72AA.CE67620C@tiscali.fr...
Einstein says that it does not exists
a privileged frame and says that it is
necessary to put them all in the same
feet of equality.
Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel
"visible speed", of approach and
estrangement are not symetric.
Observer A should measure the same speed
for B, that B measures for A.
No. We see that visible speeds are not
the same speeds for A and for B.
That is a contradiction, a nonsense.
For A: Vo=0.8c d/T = 12 al/ 27 years
then Vapp=0.444c.
For B: d/T =7.2 al / 9 years then Vapp = 0.8c !!!
No symmetric.
You have made an elementary error. You have performed a "frame
jump". B measures A to be traveling away or towards at 0.866c. Guess
what speed A measures B to be moving away or towards? 0.866c
A simply does not measure the distance travelled to agree with B. But
this is little different than the apparent height of a building if you
are near or far from it. It is only "perspective".
....
Quote: We may turn the problem as we want, we find
a contradiction, and, worse, a nonsense.
No contradiction.
Sure???
You will be too, if you study.
Quote: "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Hachel |
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote:
Quote:
You have made an elementary error.
Probable  )
R.H. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Hachel |
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote:
Quote: You have made an elementary error. You have performed a "frame
jump". B measures A to be traveling away or towards at 0.866c. Guess
what speed A measures B to be moving away or towards? 0.866c
A simply does not measure the distance travelled to agree with B. But
this is little different than the apparent height of a building if you
are near or far from it. It is only "perspective".
I thank you for your answer a lot.
Regrettably, you do not understand what I want to say.
I mean that a speed must be symmetric, and as much the visible speed is similar as the classic speed.
Now, in the langevin, it is not.
Of course, Vo=Uo=0.8c but Vapp=0.444c and Uapp=0.8c. It's a great problem of symmetria.
Here, we have a contradiction, because the Lorentz contraction are badly understood.
It' s not sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) but sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)/(1+cosµv/c) what we have --->perfect symmetria.
However, I do not say that the SR is false.
I say that it is very badly explained generaly, and especially, always very badly understood there;
with, all in all, obvious contradictions and nonsenses.
R.H. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dlzc |
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Richard Hachel:
On Feb 24, 6:13 am, Richard Hachel <r.hac...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
Quote: dlzc wrote:
You have made an elementary error. You have
performed a "frame jump". B measures A to be
traveling away or towards at 0.866c. Guess
what speed A measures B to be moving away or
towards? 0.866c
A simply does not measure the distance
travelled to agree with B. But this is little
different than the apparent height of a
building if you are near or far from it. It
is only "perspective".
I thank you for your answer a lot.
Regrettably, you do not understand what I want
to say. I mean that a speed must be symmetric,
It is symmetric. Each measures the other to be travelling at the same
speed.
Quote: and as much the visible speed is similar as
the classic speed.
You perform a frame jump when you do this. This is your error, your
"contradictions and nonsenses".
Quote: Now, in the langevin, it is not. Of
course, Vo=Uo=0.8c but Vapp=0.444c and
Uapp=0.8c. It's a great problem of symmetria.
It is a frame jump. If you make the measurements in a frame, and use
only measurements and "physics" from that frame, everything is in
agreement. Except for comparing elapsed time and trip length. But
both agree the trip was made, and A brought back pretty pictures to
prove it.
Quote: Here, we have a contradiction, because the
Lorentz contraction are badly understood.
Then it is your job to study and learn it.
Quote: It' s not sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) but
sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)/(1+cosµv/c) what we have
--->perfect symmetria.
However perfect you imagine it to be, it is not in agreement with
experiment. Unless "mu" = (n * pi/2 * c/v), n= 1, 3, 5...
Quote: However, I do not say that the SR is false.
You just say that it is "contradictions and nonsenses" and "un-
symmetric". And then provide a "correction" that has an infinite
number of wrong results.
Quote: I say that it is very badly explained
generaly, and especially, always very badly
understood there; with, all in all, obvious
contradictions and nonsenses.
Recall walking in the woods. Imagine someone complaining that the
roads in the woods are very rough, and the "walk / don't walk" signs
never seem to change. Common sense is comfortable in the terrain it
is trained in.
If you do not like the presentation in one text, try the one I
recommended:
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler.
It is only *your* discomfort, not something wrong with the
application. Once you get past your discomfort, you might be able to
see that it is the postulates and the unstated assumptions that are a
theory's weak spots. Arguing about the "flavor" of a result is
"contradictions and nonsenses".
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Hachel |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote:
Quote: to say. I mean that a speed must be symmetric,
It is symmetric.
Not in the Langevin concept.
Quote: Each measures the other to be travelling at the same
speed.
No.
And this is a nonsense, a contradiction of Einstein symmetrical theory.
Quote:
and as much the visible speed is similar as
the classic speed.
You perform a frame jump when you do this. This is your error, your
"contradictions and nonsenses".
No.
Nothing to see with "frame jump" here.
The frame jump explain other things, but not no-symmetrical
visible speed.
Quote:
Now, in the langevin, it is not. Of
course, Vo=Uo=0.8c but Vapp=0.444c and
Uapp=0.8c. It's a great problem of symmetria.
It is a frame jump.
Noooooo !
No have frame jump here !
Terrence sees Stella, and Stella sees Terrence. It's all.
In galilean frame. It's all.
And it's not symmetric ----> Then, there is a contradiction.
If v=0.8c
Terrence sees Vapp=0.444c
Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!!
And when she returns:
Terrence sees Vapp=4c
Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!!
To Stella, Uapp=v ----> Ridiculus !!!
Why ???
R.H. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dlzc |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Richard Hachel:
On Feb 28, 2:42 am, Richard Hachel <r.hac...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
Quote: dlzcwrote:
to say. I mean that a speed must be
symmetric,
It is symmetric.
Not in the Langevin concept.
Only how you choose to read it.
Quote: Each measures the other to be travelling
at the same speed.
No.
t_A = time for round trip in A's frame.
l_A = distance travelled in A's frame.
t_B = time that A was gone in B's frame.
l_B = 2 x the rest frame distance to the star A visits.
l_A / t_A = l_B / t_B
Symmetric.
Quote: And this is a nonsense, a contradiction of
Einstein symmetrical theory.
You don't like symmetry now? Why not?
Quote: and as much the visible speed is similar as
the classic speed.
You perform a frame jump when you do this.
This is your error, your "contradictions and
nonsenses".
No.
Nothing to see with "frame jump" here.
Time in one frame, but distance from another... a frame jump.
Quote: The frame jump explain other things, but
not no-symmetrical visible speed.
It is symmetric. You want to imagine it is not.
Quote: Now, in the langevin, it is not. Of
course, Vo=Uo=0.8c but Vapp=0.444c and
Uapp=0.8c. It's a great problem of symmetria.
It is a frame jump.
Noooooo !
No have frame jump here !
Time and distance from one frame, not one from each of two frames.
Quote: Terrence sees Stella, and Stella sees
Terrence. It's all.
And they each agree on closing / departing speed.
Quote: In galilean frame. It's all.
And it's not symmetric ----> Then, there is
a contradiction.
If v=0.8c
Terrence sees Vapp=0.444c
Terrence sees 0.8c
Quote: Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!!
And when she returns:
Terrence sees Vapp=4c
Terrence sees 0.8c
Quote: Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!!
To Stella, Uapp=v ----> Ridiculus !!!
Why ???
Because you perform a frame jump. Terrence can measure the distance
too. Terrence measures everything in Terrence's frame. Terrence does
not have to rely on some Holy Book to use Stella's value of distance.
Why do you not like symmetry? Why do you insist on using another
frame's measurements? If I tell you that the distance to the store is
1.3 miles, you would be telling me that it is some other value.
Because the distance is a function of what path is taken.
A follows a different path from B, between A's departure and A'
arrival. Why is there a big surprise?
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Hachel |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dlzc wrote:
Quote:
If v=0.8c
Terrence sees Vapp=0.444c
Terrence sees 0.8c
No.
Vapp=v/(1+v/c)
Vapp=0.4444c
Quote:
Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!!
And when she returns:
Terrence sees Vapp=4c
Terrence sees 0.8c
No.
Vapp=v/(1-v/c)= 4c
Quote:
Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!!
To Stella, Uapp=v ----> Ridiculus !!!
Why ???
Because you perform a frame jump. Terrence can measure the distance
too. Terrence measures everything in Terrence's frame.
Yes.
He measures d=12 (year light)
He measures 27 years (Doppler effect)
Vapp=12/27=0.4444c
Idem with I take Vapp=0.8/(1+0. = 0.4444c
When Stella return: he measures d=12 ; Tapp=3 years (Doppler effect)
Well, Vapp=12/3 = 4c.
Idem: Vapp=0.8/(1-0.= 4c.
But impossible that Stella sees the same effect with SR.
It's NOT symmetric.
CQFD.
R.H. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dlzc |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Richard Hachel:
On Feb 28, 7:56 am, Richard Hachel <r.hac...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
Quote: dlzcwrote:
If v=0.8c
Terrence sees Vapp=0.444c
Terrence sees 0.8c
No.
Vapp=v/(1+v/c)
Vapp=0.4444c
Formula out of strange bodily orifice. Use version I supplied, where
only measurements are in the frame of the object.
Quote: Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!!
And when she returns:
Terrence sees Vapp=4c
Terrence sees 0.8c
No.
Vapp=v/(1-v/c)= 4c
Formula out of strange bodily orifice. Use version I supplied, where
only measurements are in the frame of the object.
Quote: Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!!
To Stella, Uapp=v ----> Ridiculus !!!
Why ???
Because you perform a frame jump. Terrence
can measure the distance too. Terrence
measures everything in Terrence's frame.
Yes.
He measures d=12 (year light)
He measures 27 years (Doppler effect)
Vapp=12/27=0.4444c
Idem with I take Vapp=0.8/(1+0. = 0.4444c
You know, your dislike of silliness apparently applies to sound.
Because your formula shows a similar problem for any motion near "the
speed of the medium".
Quote: When Stella return: he measures d=12 ;
Tapp=3 years (Doppler effect)
Well, Vapp=12/3 = 4c.
Idem: Vapp=0.8/(1-0. = 4c.
But impossible that Stella sees the same effect with SR.
It's NOT symmetric.
CQFD.
Formula out of strange bodily orifice. Use version I supplied, where
only measurements are in the frame of the object.
One-way trip time for Terrence: (15 / gamma) years
One-way distance that Terrance measures for each leg once attaining
0.8c: (12 / gamma) light years
Round trip time Stella measures: 30 years
One-way distance that Stella measures: 24 ly
(12 / gamma) / (15 / gamma) = 30 / 24 = same average speed...
symmetric
You have your silliness because:
- you neglect the speed of light over a long distance, and
- you use a (rest frame) textbook value of distance... not what is
measured.
You make frame jumps.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:52 am
|
|