Res Ipsa Loquitor-- Disproved:The Impossiblity of absolute motion detection.

message received and understood.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bullshit. Have you ever seen a large pendulum?

As I pointed out, it is incorrect. Remeber that whole thing about how the speed of light is constant for all observers?

LMFAO. I'd like to see you launch a rocket using this logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure I have, Griffiths Park. Now make a measurement and determine the motion of the planet. Make a measurement in your experiment and show the corruption of data by the motion of the planet, where all Vn have inherited the planet's motion. The pendulum, while an interesting example, does not disprove the assertion made. We all know the earth rotates and orbits the sun and the sun orbits whatever, yet no obserbed deviation from straight line motion has beem measured. It is like doesn't deviate from straightline m,otion until operated on by outside forces,

In the meantime the photon trajectory is a prefect axis for a frame of reference.

Launching space craft at the equator in an eastward motion will take advantage of the maximum rotatioonal velocity of the planet at .469 km/sec. This is why the equator is a preferred launch site, beacause the shutttles have inherited the planet's uniform motion.

Not only can the deviation from straightline motion not be measured, the earths curved surface cannot be measured. We live in flat geometry, effectively.

I remember the SR statement that echoes what you just said, but this is just an assertion without any physical proof offerred. You can remember that whole thing by yourself. I discarded that silliness a long time ago.

What comes next, "the thousands of ecperiments that prove SR" ?

And what logic is it that you find not conducive to the succesful launching of space ships? Specifically, please.

The speed of light is constant, in the universe, for all obvservers, except you must make allowances for the relative velocity of frame and photon. This means that when we say light is traveling faster than the passenger train by an amount, Vc - Vn = Vrel > 0 < C. You look on this statement as heresy because you were duped into believing the moving observerxs will always measure C as the realtive velocity of frame and photon. In oprder to do this you must first assume yourself at rest, when in fact you are moving,with respect to Ve, the embankment.

You consciously and purposively negate a physical parameter, frame velocity, in order to have a SRT. Would you ever negate a moving observers motion when measuring the relative velocity of an automobile with respect to the observer?

At what velocity do you negate the motion of the observer?

If you are just going to throw tired SR mantras at me why bother? Haven't you something better to do? Or is this your job?

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You said the entire system is moving? Entire means everything in Arizona, where I'm from. Moving with respect top what by the way? has the mysterious non existent 10000mph component just do a didpsy doodle into the irrelevant statement bin?

After the ball dropping test the Ve is proved the unambiguous preferred frame as the frame that is not moving and which experineced no acclerations giving any recopgnized velocity component to Ve. It isn't a choice by this time it is necessary and it certainly isn't arbitrary?

The ignorance of the observer is such a critical issue in SR that but fore that ignorance there is nothing to talk abbout SR theory wise. WHYich established SR as a mental construct that corrupts rational thinking habits.

Hell you can't even work rationally on hypotheticals without becoming unglued when you assume siome parametr that is prohibited by SFR theory.

What in the hell are you talking about man?

• If I drop a golf ball from a moving train and it lands on some grainy, but fairly uniform pavement, and
• I followed the trajectory of the golfball moving parallel with a line of rivets mounted in a vertical line on the outside of the train until it struck the pavement and
• witnessed the motion after that, I will see a golfball bounce back up into the original trajectory less a bit due to friction losses.
• If I were truly stationary, then the ball should receive a little chip shot to the rear of gthe train, due to the motion of the Ve passing by.
• But the ball had a component of momentum only in the direction of the moving train,
• hence the train os moving wirth respect to the Ve just like everyone knows.

From the above,and

• from signals from the observer on Ve that the ball is moving in a parabolic trajectory, that
• the observer remembered buying her ticket and boarding the train which
• she then felt as it accelerated from the station, as the accelerometers on board Vn all indicated and
• as the Ve acclerometers also indicated null readings on all the Ve acclerometers
• . is consistent only with the results of the ball dropping test, indicating unambiguous motion of the train wrt Ve, with Ve = 0.

The observerf may make one of two conclusions

• (1). The train and Ve are at rest with respect tio each other (but that little fricitonal loss may prove stubbornly illusive to explain) , but the whizzing observed proves no mutual at rest condition exists, or
• (2) the train is moving as witnessed by the momentum component of the moving train assumed by the ball when moving with the frame of reference (just like all Vn on the planet earth) and,
• hence, preventing the Ve from imparting a little specific imnpulse that would take the ball to the rearward direction of the train and clearly away from the observer.

Please explain the justification for assuming a velocity condition that is not only not existing when invoked, but is physically impossible to achieve.

 

Yes I made up the number. I have the Vb moving in a collision course with the Va, in the first run through. The Vq accerates, moves at constant velocity, makes measurements and accelerateds again. Starting from a Vq = Va the Vq is measuring departure from that Vq = Va until the Vq = Vb velocity. The Vq has been measuring the change in relative velocity with respect to the Va frame since changing the Vq motion.


It isn't perhaps as clear to you as it is to me.
The Vq measure the relative velocity, always changing wrt Va, When Vq reached 2000 units the Vb - Vq relative velocity is zero, OK At some point the velocioty Vq - Vb motion must come to a rest, and it happebned to occur here as the Vq had measured a Va - Vq = 2000. Vq had to subtract 2000 units from the Va motion. The total motion is 5000, known ahead of time,
and both Vq and Vb, as you noticed, are moving at the same speed and direction. In the meantime the Vq has been maintaining the relative velocity Va - Vq.

Is trhis strill a waste of time bickering with the likes of me?

 

Yes, a total waste. If Vb-Va=5000 km/sec, and if Vq accelerates until Vq-Vb=0 km/sec, then Vq is COMOVING with Vb and Vq-Va will likewise measure 5000 km/sec.

Just forget it! It has been obvious for over 100 years to SUPERIOR physicists that there is no conceivable test that can distinguish absolute motion. YOU sir, are DREAMING! What have YOU been smoking??

 

You missed something vital so chill out man. This isn't the end of your life and if you don't want to read it then dont.

AS Vq is moving in the same direction as Vb, Vq also is mantaining a running account of its Va - Vq. relative velocity. until the end point of the measurements. Va and Vb only know their relative motion of 5000. Now the Vq moves to the rear until the Vq - Vb = 0. Now guess what the Va - Vq relative velocity happens to be? What ever Vq measured at the instant Vq and the Vb velocity were measured equal; Vq did a smart thing he assumed the Va frame at resat and himslef, rather itself, in motion relative to the Va = 0 frame.

Starting from

• Va - Vb = 5000.
  when
• Vq = Vb then,
• Va - Vq = 2000,
  which is just
• the accumulated velocity VVq acquired when accelerating to catch the Vb motion. Vq says to Va: I have been changing my velocity until my velocity is the same as the Vb velocity. But my position is different than that of Vb, because I know what the motion is between us, Va - Vq , where neither you, the Va frame, nor the Vb frame knew. You only knew the relative motion, not the "absolute " motion that I discovered with my measurements.
  and since
• Vq = Vb we substitute in the expression above,
• Va - Vb = 5000
  Va - 2000 = 5000
• and hence Va = 3000.[/list
  
  Talk to me Dristam, about SUPERIOR physicists, who for the past 100 wasted years, wasted time, convinced you and your peers, you could not do what I just did in front of your face. Tell me about your total waste of time, your insults, your implying I had been "SMOKING" and "DREAMING" , a charaterictic SR anathema of yet another dedicated dissident who now is thoroughly chilled to the members of your commuinity, right?
  
  So what are you going to do? Prove yourself a total ass by maintaining your position that the Vq did not always maintain a running account of the relative Va - Vq relative velocity, from the instant the Vq first accelerated, or see the serror for what it is, and get on withj your life? Where is your ego pucker factor red line level in this instance? Hey Dirstam, just talk long and hard, some will hear you, and believe, just because you seem so damned sure of yourself.
  
  Who was it that said that for,
  
  "the enemies of truth, convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies"
  
  Was that Leroy "Satchel" Paige, the most prolific and devastating basebal pitcher in the history of the game that gave us the quote? I think not. Satchel said,
  
  "When you are face to face with an enemy stronger than you, walk him".
  
  From me, you can take your whining, sniffling, SUPERIOR attitude and shove it up your ass.

 

I'm ALL FOR the sober questioning of authority, especially when decisions are made behind closed doors, or based largely on subjective opinion, prejudice or demagoguery. But this is SCIENCE, and even though Relativity is still classified a theory, NO THEORY has EVER been more thoroughly tested than Relativity!

As for your thread I don't follow it, and for the reasons which I've already made clear. You and I are at an impasse (fini!) unless a third party can interject a translation of your garbled rantings, sir.

 

And you still insist on maintaining the error you found regarding the Va, Vb and Vq and the measure of absolute velocity? You fool, Oh, that's right you can't understand, so you capitalize your response as a part of the surrender process. Not very cool Dristam. Well I guessed the right one didn't I? ego challenged was my guess and guess what, I observed this?.

 

First of all, the velocity condition being used most likely DOES exist. In your train case the person does have a V0 relative to the train when sitting in his seat. I want you to calculate the force between the guy in the seat and the train. An intelligent person would calculate it relative to the train, making the problem fairly easy. You however would rather that we calculate with respect to the ground, even though there is no good reason to and it makes the problem twice as complicated.

Thanks... you just proved my point. The whole solar system doesn't deviate unless perturbed by another force. For that matter the whole galaxy follows that logic. Possible the whole visible universe... but we can't tell because we have nothing to compare it too.

You loose nothing by using a non-ground frame of reference except for your insistance that the Earth is the only thing which is stationary.

 

Is there a reason you put a * in the middle of a sentance?

Um, idiot, it does. This is the reason for it moving backwards (ignoring wind). do an experiment. Get a piece of wood and a track with ball, a release, and a webcam on next next to the ball (moving with it).

Move the ball at 2m/s and release it. It'll will slow down when it hits the wood.

Move the wood and release the ball from a steady state. It will speed up when it hits the wood.

IN EACH CASE THE CAMERA WILL SEE THE SAME THING. The reason for the ball changing direction is exactly the same in each case. It is not due to the earth having an absolute velocity of zero.

 

I agree! geistkiesel has been a misbehaved idiot

 

Why do you make assumptions about what I woulod do under some conditions that you construct? I wouldn't hesitate to measure zero, by inspection. as the force on the person riding in the train. Why should I not? As long as motions aeren't fantasy and have real physical implications they can always be deaklt with, but to remiove fromn consideratioon the motion of a frame that is measuring the relative velocity of the frame and photon is criminal. James R stated in a few posts ago that inertial frames were not real objects they were simply mathematical construicts, Yet when I read hios posts in oher threads, and my own, he sure seems to have been discussing real things as real frames.

No your point was not proved. I said the motion of the Ve, planet earth, the embankenmt, is measurably indistibguishable drom straight line motion. Evryone knows about orbits and rotations, and many can calulate positions of the sun earth system to a high degree of accuracy. But calculating schematics an abstractions is not a measurable modus operandi that distinguishes the motion of Ve different from straight line. You should look very closely what you just said, You jumped for joy by thinking the motion of he Ve wouild negate the thesis that Ve was a preferred inertial frame. Instead you defined everything as being other than an inertial reference frame. All objects at rest with respspect to Ve have the same inherited motion as Ve wherevere that object is located. on Ve.

Bjut Persol, you must recognize that the reality of the physical world is much different than that postulated by your mathematical tools, which can all be manipulated by any rational or irrational assumption you care to interject. Mother Nature is symmteric and has the strictest laws of all , but here is always a little slop, fudge factors, approximations that keep our focus on reailty

Finally, as an example, I know of no mathematical models that adequately describe the step by step processes that are implicit and expressed in all physical priocesses. An SR theoreist is prohibted in coming that close to reality, defining a schematic for the time restricted mode of energy exchange between accelerated paricles and the accelerating field , for inswtance. A history of modern scientific mathamatical models are based on the dynamics for which mathematics was designed in the first instance, and that was for the managing of business operations: mabntaining balance sheets.

 

I and others have addressed all these point in other threads... I'm not going to repeat it 11 times.

 

You may have addressed them in yiour own minds but not in mine. So yohy are through then?

 

I can't follow the description . Can you make a simople drawing. I am truly trying tio understand.
You are saying are you that the observer seeing he ball hit the ground while she is assuming she is at reast and the embankment is moving will see what?

 

He can know he is motionless with respect to the train, but he can't simply close his eyes and not look any fiurther. The frame Ve and Vn frames are slaved together in motion,. This is seen when Vn and Ve are at rest with respect to each other, but when Vn accelerates all the common motion, or inherited motion does not go away, You are being absurd if that is what you are saying. If he feels and hears the clickety clack, knows the Ve frame does not acclerate becasuie it can't acclerate that leaves only his one option to contend with . What is so difficult about that?

 

The forward motion of the Vn momentum will propel the ball forward, you stupid asshole.. Why do you need a camera so you can give us a "Rodney King SLow Mo" version to prove your point??

If you are saying that the relative velocity of the earth frame and the passenger train are measurable on the surface of Ve as I described with my momstones relative to the planet you are beyond stupid. And why aren't there more automobile accidents when this mind crap virus of SR infects rational people driving automobiles and flying airplanes?
Death and destruction that is what. This what lies bring to the table.

 

I would know it stupid incompetent jerk.