According to SR...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Motor Daddy, Mar 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Nothing unsubstantiated about it. Every post you make provides substantiation. That you don't understand Relativity is undisputable.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    If you'd bothered to read this link (http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/ContractInvisible.html) you'd have known that length contraction isn't "just 'apparent' observable reality" because it isn't observed at all. How exactly can something be "apparent" but not observed?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    @ RealityCheck


    Why don't you take this opportunity to explain standard SR? You know, just as a good faith measure to prove you actually know what textbooks say. That's really the only way you can demonstrate it, as you've completely failed to do so in any of your posts so far.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800


    So, using your standard of objectivity, have you equal time to comment on Tach's false claim that time dilation and doppler effects "are one and the same effects"?


    I pointed out to him that just because one effect is used t demonstrate the other effect it does not make them "one and the same effects".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Let us know how 'objective' and 'substanting' and equally sure you are in your reading of his posts where he made that claim of his and repeated it more than once, mate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    He made it quite obvious that he doesn't know physics in general, let alone SR. But he is so much fun to toy with, seeing how he jumps from one kooky idea to a new one as soon as his kookiness is exposed. Very similar to MotorDaddy.

    But this deprives the people at that forum from an unlimited source of free entertainment

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Emil, I do not completely understand what you mean.

    Have I personally measured the velocity of light? There may have been some lab project in college, but I don't remember for certain. I have never on my own done so. I see no need, as I have reviewed the work of others and can accept their results.

    The only experimental argument in favor of the invariance of the speed of light, that I have is that it has been measured experimentally many times and the results seem to always be within the margins of error, for the equipment and methods. And the accuracy continues to improve with technology. If you want the math I think that Maxwell's equations and work in electrodynamics does that. So there is both math and experiment.

    As for mediums, any medium for which there is a known and constant refractive index also has an invariant speed of light associated with that medium. In all mediums other than vacuum, the speed of light is less than in vacuum. In all transparent mediums temperature, pressure and variations in composition can affect the refractive index and velocity of light throught it. Vacuum would be the exception.
     
  10. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    That was the point being made. It is NOT 'observable' either in 'apparent' terms (as in the Terrell Rotation effects) or in the 'evinced direct' reality terms as your reference makes clear.

    I just agreed that in either case there is no 'evinced direct' effect, only either a theoretical perspective or an "apparent" observational 'image' effect due to light signal information finite speedlimit.

    Nothing else implied or claimed, mate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Mate, I am 'exploring' the extents of the DOMAIN of SR 'applicability' and 'assumptions' made BY the SR as presented in the usual 'explanations' in discussions such as these. No more, no less than that exploration.

    I just have time and energy to do that and nothing more since the SR etc is already well explained in text books which I have already read and I am only now interested in the 'boundaries of applicability' in such scenarios as the 'stripped down' one involving that lone planet in 'space' and nothing else for relativity to arise from since there is nothing to 'relate to' in such a stripped down scenario excpet "space" (and we KNOW that "space" is not itself a thing for being 'relative to', don't we?).

    Hence my request (no claims or dogmatic assumptions either way) for courteous and objective discussion/clarification of YOUR use of SR 'explanations' in such unusual scenarios which may be beyond the 'beginnings' of SR constructs per se (unless you want to use 'space' as the relativity base for SR frames, which I am certain you do not wish to do that?).

    Thanks!

    .
     
  11. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Now I do not understand you. I'm talking about invariant speed.
    You remember when I asked you if the Michelson-Morley interferometer was in vacuum or in air?
    Do you understand what implications this has?
    If the invariance of light speed is true in a medium, using mathematical calculations lead to the result that nothing can exceed the speed of light from that medium (c / n). Are you aware of this?
     
  12. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    These aren't "boundary of applicability" as you erroneously seem to think. They are boundaries of your understanding. SR applies just the same whether the universe contains zero, one or an infinity of "planets".
     
  13. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Vacuum.


    That is known to be false. While nothing can exceed the speed of light in vacuum, that is not true in a medium. Did you go to the same school as RealityCheck?
     
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    And no denial of of thinking indirect evidence isn't evidence?


    Yeah, I thought not.
     
  15. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Please a link.
     
  16. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Get yourself a book on relativity, "Introduction to Special Relativity" by James H. Smith is excellent when it comes to explaining experiments. Study it.
     
  17. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800


    Mate, what are you asking? The context is clear. There is no equally DIRECTLY EVINCED effect of distance contraction as there is for both time dilation and doppler effects EVEN BEFORE THEORY.

    That the 'distance contraction' REQUIRES THEORY before it is even considered in light of the other time dilation and doppler effects which were evinced without the need for any such theory to begin with, means that the INDIRECT 'evincing' of distance contraction cannot be put on an equal status with the DIRECT EVINCING of time dilation and doppler effects.

    That is what OnlyMe has been trying to get across to you. That is the same point of departure for my observations about this 'distance contraction' evincing' request on equal terms to the time dilation and the doppler effects.

    Nothing more and nothing less than that, mate. So I have nothing to 'deny' in any of that. So your impression that I have 'denied' something about 'evincing' whether direct or indirect is neither here nor there, mate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Anyhow, I have made my own observations and requests for clarification in context clear in more ways than one. I cannot do more than that. Your impressions are your own and I can't keep coming back and setting you straight about them again and again. I don't have the time or energy for it, mate, honestly.

    So cheers and g'night!


    .
     
  18. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    So there is no a link ?! Sad !

    But I found a link.
    http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SpeedOfLight.html
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  19. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Black Holes?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    And you have yet to explain hw your 'geometric construct' of frames is possible given that nothing exists except that lone planet and the "space" around it.

    Are you claiming to overlay your 'construct' to the "space" ITSELF"?

    Else can one even construct an SR perspective if one has no 'relativities' to anything except empty "space" all around that planet?


    Good night, Tach.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  20. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Simple, frames are geometric objects, contrary to your misconceptions, material objects, like planets aren't needed in establishing frames of reference. I believe this is the fourth or fifth time I am explaining this to you. How about you taking an introductory class? Want to read the book I suggested for Emil?
     
  21. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Reference to what?

    You said yourself it was only a geometric construct, not a real thing(s). So any 'construct' in otherwise empty universe space around a lone planet is not a valid construct because there are NO RELATIVITIES TO BE HAD between the lone planet and 'space' around it. Unless you are claiming that the 'space' itself supports your 'geometric constructs' as providing relativity information relative to the lone planet, then all you have is a theoretical construct with no 'meat' to put on its relative theory' bones.

    The 'geometric construct' is not the 'thing'. A relativity perspective requires actual relativities to 'plug onto' the theoretical construct equations. None exist extant if ther is only one planet and nothing else but 'space'. Unlss you are using that 'space' as the source of 'actual relativity' for plugging into the theory/equations perspective, your SR construct isn't actually 'applied' at all in that stripped down scenario I described to ask for clarification in context.

    .

    G'night mate.

    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Because you say so? You don't get it , do you? The "planet" you are so fixated on has no contribution in generating the frames of reference. You sure don't want to enroll in an introductory class? The'll teach you frames of reference, I promise.
     
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Emil, it has been along time since I looked over the details of the Michelson & Morley experiment. What I can say is that Michelson was the scientist and Morley joined him largely because he was very good at constructing the kind of equipement necessary for many experiments. I believe it was completed in vacuum. Taking the time into account circa 1870s-1880s, I cannot say how complete the vacuum was.

    However, the experiments have been repeated a number of times since. Sometime during the 1950s, one of my uncles, my mother's sisters husband, was a member of a team that repeated the experiment a number of times with new equipement. They wound up with the same results.

    But that really has nothing to do with the constancy of the speed of light, in vacuum. That has been proven many times to very high precission. As far as any experiments I have ever heard of the speed of light in vacuum has been proven to be invariant. No one has the speed is the same through all mediums. Just think a moment it does not travel trough solid stone at any velocity.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page