SR Simultaneous Lines Drawn in the Sand

[Hurkyl]

The curious part is that you could derive a conclusion that has nothing to do with the rest of the post. I went back to reread #131 and I can find nothing that says anything about two different reference frames. I can't even find an explicit reference to one reference frame.

 

[geistkiesel]

Geistkiesel: here is your experiment drawn as a diagram:

0        0        0
*\       *       /*
* \      *      / *
AZ \     MN    /  BY
AZ  \    MN   /   BY
AZ   \   MN  /    BY
A Z   \  M N/     B Y
A Z    \ M *      B Y
A Z     \M/N      B Y
A  Z     *  N     B  Y
A  Z     M\ N     B  Y
A  Z     M \N     B  Y
A   Z    M  \N    B   Y
A   Z    M   *    B   Y





  Z A    NM     0
  ZA     NM    /*
  ZA     0    / *
  ZA     *   / BY
  0      *  /  BY
  *\    MN /   BY
  * \   MN/   B Y
 AZ  \  M*    B Y
 AZ   \M/N    B Y
 AZ    * N   B  Y
A Z    M\N   B  Y
A Z   M  *   B  Y

Legend:
A, M, B: your A, M, B
Z, N, Y: Your A', M', B'
0: A point where a clock read 0
\, /: photons
*: Multiple things at this point (such as two clocks, or a clock and a photon)

The first diagram is the stationary reference frame. The second diagram is the moving reference frame. Space runs from left to right, and time increases as you go downward.

The first diagram was taken directly from your experimental setup. I placed M and N midway between A/Z and B/Y, and simply drew out the time evolution of the system.

To draw the second diagram, I started with the unambiguous fact that both photons meet precisely when they each meet M. I drew the time evolution backwards, and used the fact that N is midway between Z and Y when M meets N to place where Z and Y should be. I then applied the fact that Z meets A and are both set to zero when the left photon is emitted to finish off the left side of the diagram, and similarly for Y and B. I did, however, have to estimate how N lies relative to M. Any other such choice yields a similar diagram.


Your mistake, as everyone is trying to tell you, is made clear from the diagram. In the moving frame, the clocks are not synchronized; you can see that they are all zero at different times. We see that SR can handle this scenario perfectly well, as long as you don't start with the assumption that synchronization in one frame = synchronization in all frames.




(NOTE: In the second drawing, to keep the diagram small, the lexical distance between A and M is 6 and one-third characters)

I find your diagram confusing and obfuscating. There was a diagram, presented in the opening thread I suggest you deal with the given instead of reinventing the thread language.. No ervyone didn't tell me that because i never made any statement to that effect. If I did use the word "synchroization " it was clear to the meaning that I did not mean it o be cross frame synchronization. Show the signifiicance of your statement in terms of the figure in the opening thread , please. I find it curious you have notcomplained about the clarity of the original figure. So SR can handle the scenario perfectly well. WEll then handle it. I have handled it my way, also perfectly well. Take a few minutes and find a fatal flaw in my analyisi befoe you try to usurp the essence of the thread with what you state, but do not priove, : SR's perfect handling of the scenario.

If you are unable tio explain how photons emitted simulataneioysly to th eeimmediate presence, within a photon wave length of light sensitive strips and not expose thos strip immediately yu are not communicating to me on issues i find critical. If you recall I stipulated ha SR would find he pgotons were not emitted simultabneously. Why are trying to prove what was stipulated?

I suggest you form your argument inline with the given paramjeters of the problem instead of creating diversions, intentionally or negligently.. This is a bad habit you have, chnges he direcion of threads to suit your own purposes, what evre they happenm to be.

 

[geistkiesel]

The curious part is that you could derive a conclusion that has nothing to do with the rest of the post. I went back to reread #131 and I can find nothing that says anything about two different reference frames. I can't even find an explicit reference to one reference frame.

So what?
t
What do you think 131 was discussing?. At lest you are beginnng to see that there is only one sginficant frame here. Ths stationary frame provided the simultaneous emission of photons. From that event on the stationary frame iis insconsequential to the physics of the problem, as the relevant events were completed at the instant the photons were emitted by A and B and then immediately exposed the light sensitive strip located within a wavelength of the event, the enmitted phoons.
try looking at the problenm as it you hadn't already assumed the answer, as you have been doing all along. be a physiicist fior this analysis.

 

[Hurkyl]

I will I've mentally blended some of the arguments you've made over the past few days; I seem to be responding to the one in the link you kept claiming went undiscussed as opposed to the one in this thread.

 

[geistkiesel]

All the time you are assuming that there are all these physical entities which 'have length X' or 'are at time Y'. How do you know this? How do you know that the distance between A and B is 2L? You measure it of course. But hang on, now you haven't actually determined what this entitie's 'true length' is, you have made a measurement - there is no way you can talk about the 'true length' because there is no measurement free way of determining it. Then what SR tells us is how these measurements will differ between intertial frames.

the problem is a hypothetical. I inserted hypothetical measuring paameters consitent withthe laws fo physics. If o hve to lead sem bythe hand on thsi elemnarty level, I am wonder just what you think to=your function is. What you just said sounds as if you are trying to ob scure themeaning of theinvariance of physical lasw in all inertial frames. I described the ls-strips. I describes how pairs of strips were numberd such that the same numbed pairs wee equal distane from he midpoint. Are you telling me SR does not allow finding midpoints of the ls-strips? If you are telling me this I will ignroe you. equal
Themeasurement: using the most accurate stainless steel measuring tape possible tobe constructed, the midpoints ot the numbered ls-striops were located equidistant fro M' n the moving frame.
When the photons were emitted the nearest pair of co=numberd ls-strips were exposed. to the emitted dhotons, situated one wave length from the photons. Are you sayuing this is physially impossible?



[quotwe-baffledMatt]You still think that you are determining some true 'real' property using this measurement. What SR tries to tell us is that the only quantities which do in fact have a 'true' property are the invariant ones (such as rest mass).

Until you think very very carefully about the way you are making your measurements you will never understand this.[/quote]

I am making the exposure of the ls-strips that are placed one wave length from the photons emitted in the stationary frame. If you think this is not a physical possiblity, then say so. I don't rmember saying I was determining a 'real' property. I said I was obtaining a iny mark on an ls_ striop, period. What is so diffiicult in grasping something that is not of a complex nature requiring all the scurrying around.

Are you telling me that SR is so all inclusive and pervasive that it negates the detection of photons at A and B when emitted? you must prove this to me.

Excuse me, are you a physicist or a philosopher? If you want to talk this way then please move your discussion to the philosophy section of the forum. I'm afraid that mathematics is the only way we know of to build a coherent and consistent model of the world around us.

Your suggestion of using 'physical law and reason' instead of hard mathematics is exactly the kind of thinking that gave us Ptolemy. They reasoned that perfect circles were 'physical law' despite what the mathematics was telling them. Do you really want us to go back to that way of reasoning?

Matt

This is just my opinion, but I believe that mathematical models are to a very large extent a corruption on the progress of phsyics. Ptolemy's system worked you know, satisfactorily even thoufgh groundless a a refledtion of natural dynamics. Thus, Ptolemy's model was a precursor to the coruption that relativity theory has had on the progress of science. Sillines, but this is just m yopinion.

At what point in your life did you come to realize that you had eveything covered? I just arrived at that point myself only lastweek.

 

[geistkiesel]

The difference between this and religion is that SR is completely logical. You start from the principle of relativity and everything else is deduced from this. So the only thing I got converted to was the principle of relativity - if you want to call that religion then be my guest.

You have not shown us any flaws in SR, only flaws in your interpretation of SR.



There is no paradox, period! Only gross misunderstandings.



This depends on your point of view. I do not consider there to be any physical relevance to two things being simultaneous, so the results of SR do not bother me.

Why do you think there is any significance to things being simultaneous? If two events happen at different locations and the same time then there is no physical way the two events are connected - they are outside of each others light cones. So each event has no idea that it is occurring 'at the same time' as another event. Why do you attach so much significance to things which cannot be causally related?

Matt

How do events have ideas, about other events?

I attach importance to theoreical constructs that enter the physuical domain as pure mental constructs and purport to gao back in time an alter the eality of events already having taken place. You deny this. I assert it to be true,
It isn't that simulateity is disrupted is is the perturbation after an efecnt ahs occued that is claimed as a real physical pheniomenon. tha disturbs me.


A simultaneous eveny of two lights being emitted in a stationary frame occur. This is all. A million of hese evens thisw is all. Only simulatbeous emission fo phoptons is the simultabeiys event. Now comes an obsever, just an observer that no one is pretending applied any physical or other meansurable force on any physical property of the parametrs constuituing the sinmulatneous event and now we have twop ebvenjt. Only the presence of the observer opeates to construct three events from two events., all ths by the mere pesence of an observer.

 

[geistkiesel]

I will I've mentally blended some of the arguments you've made over the past few days; I seem to be responding to the one in the link you kept claiming went undiscussed as opposed to the one in this thread.

I unerstand.

 

[ram2048]

The universe of which I'm aware is full of objects traveling every which way, constantly accelerating to different directions, and without any nice, global structure into which everything fits.

So, there are two very problematic things about this idea; why should there be such a thing as a "stationary universe", and how do we tell what it sees?

i've defined a nice way for determining universal perspective but it includes calculating relative motions for EVERYTHING in the universe. suffice to say it's incredibly accurate and infinitely tedious to run ;D

barring that we can use it to triangulate events from the perspective of relevant local bodies and base our reality /time / space off of those calculations to satisfy on a global level. it may not agree with aliens from beta centauri, but who cares what they think?

And the point is that a reference frame is chosen, and then everything else is defined relative to that.

Relativity does not say that you're not allowed to choose a reference frame as a "standard"; it merely says that any reference frame would suffice.

and my relativity states that you can choose whatever reference frame you want, but when your calculations are vastly disagreeing with the majority, there's a high probability that you're the one that's wrong about "reality"

-------------------

to leave this on a different note, does it really make sense for one person traveling fast and having his perceptions skewed to have HIS OWN, valid reality, complete with slowed stuff behind him and fast stuff in front of him, non-simultaneity, and shrinking rulers? i can only bring myself to think that some of the SR people are down the rabbit hole, smokin with the worm.

 

[Hurkyl]

to leave this on a different note, does it really make sense for one person traveling fast and having his perceptions skewed to have HIS OWN, valid reality, complete with slowed stuff behind him and fast stuff in front of him, non-simultaneity, and shrinking rulers? i can only bring myself to think that some of the SR people are down the rabbit hole, smokin with the worm.

Yes.

The most important reason, I think is the following: I expect the laws of physics inside my spaceship to be the same whether I'm in a nice leisurely geosynchronous orbit or hurtling between galaxies at a constant speed of 99% of c.

E.G. If I set something at rest (WRT the ship), I expect it to stay at rest until something nudges it. If I toss a ball at the wall, it should bounce back in the "right" direction. And because of Maxwell's laws, if I send a light signal from aft to stern, I expect it to travel at c.

This is the principle of relativity, and it is what is used to derive everything about SR.



Some other reasons you haven't encountered because you are misleading yourself by only considering situations where there's an obvious "right" choice.

Thought experiments can be set up where the universe consists of only a few objects, none having any sort of special significance that would entail using it to define the "right" frame.

The "right" frame can change; if I'm taking a rocket to Mars, I "should" be in Earth's frame at the start, I "should" be in the solar system's frame in the middle, and I "should" be in Mars's frame at the end. It seems silly to pick a point on my journey and say that I suddenly switch frames!

The "right" frame isn't always the easiest frame to analyze. For instance, calculations might be simpler and natural to do in the frame of the spaceship instead of, say, the frame of the solar system.

 

[geistkiesel]

Because we're disagreeing about what SR says when we analyze the exact same events from different frames.

Specifically, Geistkiesel is asserting that both of these diagrams are representing the exact same sequence of events:

A        M        B
A\       M       /B
A \      M      / B
A  \    M      /  B
A   \   M     /   B
A    \  M    /    B
A     \M    /     B
A      M   /      B
A      M  /       B
A     M  /        B
A     M /         B
A     M/          B


A       M       B
A\      M      /B
A \     M     / B
 A \    M    /   B
 A  \   M   /    B
 A   \  M  /     B
  A   \ M /       B
  A    \M/        B

We have two relatively stationary light sources (A and B), and an observer who starts in the middle and moves towards A.

The first diagram depicts how things look in the rest frame of the lights, if the lights are activated simultaneously.

The second diagram depicts how things look in the rest frame of the observer, if the lights are activated simultaneously.

However, there is a very important difference between the two diagrams; in the first diagram the photons do not meet M at the same event, however in the second diagram the photons do meet M at the same event.

The conclusion is that these diagrams cannot possibly represent the same events. Among the possible assumptions we can abandon, abanding that of absolute simultaneity is by far the most reasonable; the emission of photons is simply simultaneous in one frame but not the other.

The intrinsic fallacies off Special Relativity Theory.

Postulates of Special Relativity Theory
The laws of physics and the measure of the speed of light are invariant in all inertial frames.

Experimental Conditions:

1. One battery with power for two photons only is connected with a single switch to two lights.
   [*] Jill is walking toward Jack who is at the midpoint of the lights.
   [*]When Jill reaches Jack the lights are switched on simultaneously.
   

Contradictory Observations

1. Jack observes the lights switched on simultaneously.
   [*]Jill observes the lights switched on sequentially.
   

Irrational Basis of Special Relativity Theory.

1. Violation of conservation of energy principal.
   
   • Two energy units available.
     [*] Four units of energy claimed.
     
   [*] No rational explanation for the sequential order of photon emissions.
   [*] Violation of invariance of physical laws in inertial frames.
   

 

[baffledMatt]

the problem is a hypothetical. I inserted hypothetical measuring paameters consitent withthe laws fo physics.

No, you have no idea what the laws of physics are so you are not qualified to make this statement.

I described the ls-strips. I describes how pairs of strips were numberd such that the same numbed pairs wee equal distane from he midpoint. Are you telling me SR does not allow finding midpoints of the ls-strips?

You will find the midpoint, but each observer will measure a different distance to that midpoint. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

If you are telling me this I will ignroe you. equal

Go ahead, you'll only be shooting yourself in the foot. You can even believe you won the argument if you like and continue through life oblivious to your ignorance. I don't care.

Themeasurement: using the most accurate stainless steel measuring tape possible tobe constructed, the midpoints ot the numbered ls-striops were located equidistant fro M' n the moving frame.
When the photons were emitted the nearest pair of co=numberd ls-strips were exposed. to the emitted dhotons, situated one wave length from the photons. Are you sayuing this is physially impossible?

It is impossible to get the results you describe. You take it as an assumption that this can be measured, but this assumption is against the laws of physics. Hence, any conclusions you draw from it is equally unphysical.

I am making the exposure of the ls-strips that are placed one wave length from the photons emitted in the stationary frame. If you think this is not a physical possiblity, then say so. I don't rmember saying I was determining a 'real' property. I said I was obtaining a iny mark on an ls_ striop, period. What is so diffiicult in grasping something that is not of a complex nature requiring all the scurrying around.

You have such a high opinion of yourself yet you completely fail to grasp the subtlety of what I am trying to tell you. The measurement is physically possible, but getting the result you are assuming in physically impossible.

This is just my opinion, but I believe that mathematical models are to a very large extent a corruption on the progress of phsyics. Ptolemy's system worked you know, satisfactorily even thoufgh groundless a a refledtion of natural dynamics. Thus, Ptolemy's model was a precursor to the coruption that relativity theory has had on the progress of science. Sillines, but this is just m yopinion.

Go on, admit it. You just can't do the math can you? It's ok, not everyone is good at maths and there are lots of other things you can be instead of a physicist.

Matt

 

[ram2048]

with an obvious velocity limit of C what makes you think that your physics will always be the same?

if you're inside a spaceship traveling 99.99999999999% C and decide to pitch a baseball at 100 mph inside the craft, would it go faster than light speed?

 

[quantumdude]

geistkiesel,

I deleted your last post. Threats of physical violence are unacceptable.

with an obvious velocity limit of C what makes you think that your physics will always be the same?

That, by itself, does not guarantee that the physics will always be the same. SR rests on two postulates: The constancy of the speed of light, and the relativity postulate, which states that the laws of physics will be the same in every frame. By requiring these two, we arrive at the Lorentz transformation.

if you're inside a spaceship traveling 99.99999999999% C and decide to pitch a baseball at 100 mph inside the craft, would it go faster than light speed?

No, it won't.

 

[quantumdude]

The intrinsic fallacies off Special Relativity Theory.

Postulates of Special Relativity Theory
The laws of physics and the measure of the speed of light are invariant in all inertial frames.

Experimental Conditions:

1. One battery with power for two photons only is connected with a single switch to two lights.
   [*] Jill is walking toward Jack who is at the midpoint of the lights.
   [*]When Jill reaches Jack the lights are switched on simultaneously.
   

Contradictory Observations

1. Jack observes the lights switched on simultaneously.
   [*]Jill observes the lights switched on sequentially.
   

The intrinsic fallacies of geistkiesel's crackpot physics

1. It doesn't recognize the importance of mathematics to physics. (See, it doesn't matter if you can provide a qualitative discussion of a phenomenon if you can't discuss it quantitatively. As Warren Siegel put it, physics is not just about "what comes up must come down". It's also about where and when it comes down.)
2. It doesn't recognize the importance of experimental work to physics. (Made clear by the fact that not a single real experiment is ever cited).
3. It assumes that a thought experiment is a valid substitute for #2. (See "experimental conditions" in the quoted post for a good laugh).

Irrational Basis of Special Relativity Theory.

1. Violation of conservation of energy principal.
   

1. 
   
   No, it doesn't. Relativistic Lagrangians are still invariant under time translations, and so energy is still conserved.
   
   

   • Two energy units available.
     [*] Four units of energy claimed.
     

   • 
     
     "Energy units" have nothing to do with any physical theory, and in fact there are many energy units available to all theories. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with that.
     
     

   [*] No rational explanation for the sequential order of photon emissions.

   
   That's not true at all. The explanation stems from the postulates. And the postulates cannot be said to be "irrational" just because you personally don't like them.
   
   

   [*] Violation of invariance of physical laws in inertial frames.

This is the dumbest of all your points. SR is designed to preserve the invariance of physical laws in all frames.

Geistkiesel, it's time for you to put up or shut up. You think that energy conservation is violated in SR? Fine: prove it. You think that SR doesn't preserve the invariance of physical laws in inertial frames? Fine: prove it. And don't just blather on for pages on end, show the mathematical details.

 

[Hurkyl]

with an obvious velocity limit of C what makes you think that your physics will always be the same?

One philosophical reason to do so is that given that we, as earthbound folk whirling around the sun, which is circumnavigating the Milky way, which is hurtling towards Andromeda, with both being sucked towards the great attractor, which has who knows what relationship to the next big thing, it is an extraordinarily bold claim that we are lucky enough to (nearly) be in the one frame where the laws of physics look "right".


As a practical matter, experiments confirm that the physics still looks the same, many of astonishing predictions stemming in part from this assumption have been confirmed, and it is an integral part of the most accurate theory known to man.

 

[geistkiesel]

One philosophical reason to do so is that given that we, as earthbound folk whirling around the sun, which is circumnavigating the Milky way, which is hurtling towards Andromeda, with both being sucked towards the great attractor, which has who knows what relationship to the next big thing, it is an extraordinarily bold claim that we are lucky enough to (nearly) be in the one frame where the laws of physics look "right".


As a practical matter, experiments confirm that the physics still looks the same, many of astonishing predictions stemming in part from this assumption have been confirmed, and it is an integral part of the most accurate theory known to man.

Hurkyl-
Look at Dayton Miller's papers re Michelson Morely experiments. Beside thefact that DM essentially eproduced MM results, nopt NULL, but a wave shift ~1.20 of what was then predicted.
I am direing this at your statement that the milky Way is "hurtling towards Andrmeda'. In DM's analysis he took great pains to determine the direcion of m,
otion we are heading and came to different conclusion than that suspected in the1930's .It has been awhile since I read the paper, but i recall he ws looking for some motion (earth-solar system-milkyway) that would explain the 1/20wave length from the "expected" shift. Apparently we ain't heading to Andromeda.( or what was geneally believd then)

 

[russ_watters]

Contradictory Observations

1. Jack observes the lights switched on simultaneously.
   [*]Jill observes the lights switched on sequentially.
   

I guess I should have seen this before, but its preplexing in a way - this isn't a contradiction in any version of relativity. It isn't unique to Einstein's. Its should be obvious. What you are showing here is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of physics that is far more basic than Einstein's version of Relativity.

Haven't you ever played catch with a ball? If you are throwing the ball at a moving person, you need to anticipate where the person is going to be when the ball gets there and aim for that spot, not where the person is now. Thats all forms of relativity, its simultenaety, and its built into the human brain at a subconscious level (the part of the brain that co-ordinates movement).

Thinking about it more, maybe the issue is speed. In your Jack and Jill example, if you take it literally, the speed of light is so fast compared to the speed they walk, they wouldn't notice the difference - but the difference would exist, nonetheless. The only way they could possibly see the light switch on simultaneously (assuming they were carrying sensitive enough instruments to measure the difference) is if C is infinite. For a thought experiment like that, C is so much higher than the speed they walk at that it may as well be infinite to Jack and Jill. But to an atomic clock and a GPS satellite (a device capable of noticing that C is finite), C is not infinite.

Is that all this issue is about?

 

[baffledMatt]

geistkiesel,

I deleted your last post. Threats of physical violence are unacceptable.

Blimey, well I hope it wasn't directed at me.

Well geistkiesel, I'm afraid that I've had enough of your attitude so I'll leave you to wallow in a pit of your own, well, whatever it is you are wallowing in at this moment in time.

Believe what you like, ignore everyone and everything around you. Live in the belief that you are and always will be right about everything. Yell at, hurl abuse at (and threaten?!) people who try to tell you otherwise. I don't care, it's your life.

All I can say is good luck.

Matt

 

[geistkiesel]

Variance of designed invariance in Special Relativity

The intrinsic fallacies of geistkiesel's crackpot physics

1. It doesn't recognize the importance of mathematics to physics. (See, it doesn't matter if you can provide a qualitative discussion of a phenomenon if you can't discuss it quantitatively. As Warren Siegel put it, physics is not just about "what comes up must come down". It's also about where and when it comes down.)

1. 
   
   Wow.! I get it Tom like all the mathematics in your knee jerk propaganda piece! My mistake! There, see,there, some mathematics in Mateson's post that I missed: "list=1" . Where can I research this? Von Neumann, Feynman, Ptolemy, The White Rabbit? What does "1" mean?
   
   

   [*]It doesn't re cognize the importance of experimental work to physics. (Made clear by the fact that not a single real experiment is ever cited).

   
   Well , I guess you're right there. I was posting in thread reagarding an analysis of Einsteins famous impotant experimental work, that "single real experiment" that for the past hundred years tied a few generations of mental powers into sub-human level of performance.
   
   An example, Tom Mateson writes a 'scathing' response to am observvation, citing the need for mathematics, which isn't provided, except for the famous "list = 1" equation, "Stockholm here I come", right Tom Mateson?
   
   The incompetents in this forum who have me picked out for easy pickings have failed to recognize just who is is the "nit" and who is the "picker" on who, who is running experiments and who is living in the fantasy land of sophisticated mathematical theory in physical model development. You haven't arrived yet Tom, you're still in the memorization stage of your scientific development. Your silly post here is a public relation adventure, designed to hold yourself up as a justifiably smug, silly old man, hey I vote for Tom Mateson.
   
   

   [*]It assumes that a thought experiment is a valid substitute for #2. (See "experimental conditions" in the quoted post for a good laugh).

I saw some more mathematics from the great scientist, Tom Mateson: Heh, Tom Can you prove that "2" there?

Let em see e^(i(pi)) +1 = ? , what was that again? Has anybody seen my calculator, I don'tthink it's 27.

No, it doesn't. Relativistic Lagrangians are still invariant under time translations, and so energy is still conserved.



"Energy units" have nothing to do with any physical theory, and in fact there are many energy units available to all theories. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with that.

Hey, Tom I read in a supeman comic book about the conservation of energy and it dawned on me that SR theory as it applies to "simultabeity" constructs" is a patently obvious violation of the conservation priinciple".
The thought expeiment limited the energy out put to two photons, which are ultimately absorbed in Pacoima . California. Speacial relativity theory by reconstructing reality with the addition of another set of events, creates two more emitted photons for the moving observer, just because the observer is there. Neat triick. I guess I confused you with the "unit enregy" shorthand. OK the battery had enough power to provide two 27 megawatt bursts of enrgy for the production of photons. After the theorists got their pocket calculators clicking and a clacking, relativity theory produced 2 more 27 megawatt buirst of nonsimutaneous photons for those n the moving frame who just happened to be in the 'hood'. I wish I could do that.

I'm going to rest now for a bit. Two number "27" in the same paragraph, has me bushed and a little light in the head.

That's not true at all. The explanation stems from the postulates. And the postulates cannot be said to be "irrational" just because you personally don't like them.

i like Postulates, I took three of them to lunch just last week. Postulates, those are mental aberrations of theoretical physicicts that substitute for experiemntal results, like the kind i was accused (I plead Guilty yer honor) of not performing.

SO Tom , if one is a fancy pants phsiquest, like yourself where postulations are official substitutes for real experiments I can do that too: I had a note from an engineer who said I could peform as many mental gymnastifications as I could possibly,or even Impossibly, postulate. So here.

This is the dumbest of all your points. SR is designed to preserve the invariance of physical laws in all frames.

Geistkiesel, it's time for you to put up or shut up. You think that energy conservation is violated in SR? Fine: prove it. You think that SR doesn't preserve the invariance of physical laws in inertial frames? Fine: prove it. And don't just blather on for pages on end, show the mathematical details.

I blathered in less than a page. You are reading some one elses blathes.

You ought to get your money back, because your designed invariance flange just cracked and there are all kinds od invariances spewing from special relativity theory all over the immobile moving frame..

Put up or shut up?

Does anybody want to run an Einstein "train experiment" where we measure the simultaneious photon emissions tested with photosensitive devices, as a test of simultaneity , which according to the famous "put up or shut up" physicsist Tom Mateson, should be able to produce two extra photons for any stray observer casually passing through the hood?



Phrased another way: Who is willing to provide assets to directly test SR theory. If the test fails we could be in some serious rank doodoo if we are skirting around reality in some ptolemaic fog. Does everybody understand? to allow existence of SR that is infected with bloated mathematical contrivances some investigative work will be in order right?

The cheapest way to solve the problem, of course, is have Tom Mateson splain it all to everybody. I hear he is a cetificated "experiment bypass" authority. myself, I have to bust knuckles and drop tools on the floor and break glass [just by entering labs!yeah], and turn dials, and swear a lot. Well actually they don'teven let me do that. They have professionals available that know how all about that. Myself, I like to watch.

 

[quantumdude]

Wow.! I get it Tom like all the mathematics in your knee jerk propaganda piece! My mistake! There, see,there, some mathematics in Mateson's post that I missed: "list=1" . Where can I research this? Von Neumann, Feynman, Ptolemy, The White Rabbit? What does "1" mean?

No, the "list=1" only shows up when you quote the post. It's part of the formatting that generates the numbered lists. See how it doesn't actually appear in my post?

Well , I guess you're right there. I was posting in thread reagarding an analysis of Einsteins famous impotant experimental work, that "single real experiment" that for the past hundred years tied a few generations of mental powers into sub-human level of performance.

Einstein never did any experimental work. You'd know that if you had half a clue.

An example, Tom Mateson writes a 'scathing' response to am observvation, citing the need for mathematics, which isn't provided, except for the famous "list = 1" equation, "Stockholm here I come", right Tom Mateson?

What math do you want to see here? Do you want me to write the equation that describes just what an ignorant fool you are? I'm afraid that all the computing power in the world couldn't crunch that one any time soon.

The incompetents in this forum who have me picked out for easy pickings have failed to recognize just who is is the "nit" and who is the "picker" on who, who is running experiments and who is living in the fantasy land of sophisticated mathematical theory in physical model development. You haven't arrived yet Tom, you're still in the memorization stage of your scientific development. Your silly post here is a public relation adventure, designed to hold yourself up as a justifiably smug, silly old man, hey I vote for Tom Mateson.

I saw some more mathematics from the great scientist, Tom Mateson: Heh, Tom Can you prove that "2" there?

Let em see e^(i(pi)) +1 = ? , what was that again? Has anybody seen my calculator, I don'tthink it's 27.

What the hell are you talking about?

Hey, Tom I read in a supeman comic book about the conservation of energy and it dawned on me followed by some extremely stupid remarks

No comment on that part.

Speacial relativity theory by reconstructing reality with the addition of another set of events, creates two more emitted photons for the moving observer, just because the observer is there. Neat triick.

It doesn't "reconstruct reality", it simply describes it. Try to understand the difference.

I guess I confused you with the "unit enregy" shorthand.

You didn't "confuse" me, you simply said it wrong. "Units of energy" are things like Joules, ft-lb, kW-h, and the like.

OK the battery had enough power to provide two 27 megawatt bursts of enrgy for the production of photons. After the theorists got their pocket calculators clicking and a clacking, relativity theory produced 2 more 27 megawatt buirst of nonsimutaneous photons for those n the moving frame who just happened to be in the 'hood'. I wish I could do that.

You don't understand a thing. It's not that there are different photons in each frame, it's that there are different spaitotemporal intervals in each frame.

I'm going to rest now for a bit. Two number "27" in the same paragraph, has me bushed and a little light in the head.

Don't hurt yourself, cupcake.

i like Postulates, I took three of them to lunch just last week. Postulates, those are mental aberrations of theoretical physicicts that substitute for experiemntal results, like the kind i was accused (I plead Guilty yer honor) of not performing.

Again, you don't understand a thing. Postulates aren't used in place of experiments. They are submitted to be tested by experiments. And you know what? The postulates of SR have survived every test put to them.

SO Tom , if one is a fancy pants phsiquest, like yourself where postulations are official substitutes for real experiments I can do that too: I had a note from an engineer who said I could peform as many mental gymnastifications as I could possibly,or even Impossibly, postulate. So here.

You are a retard.

I blathered in less than a page. You are reading some one elses blathes.

You ought to get your money back, because your designed invariance flange just cracked and there are all kinds od invariances spewing from special relativity theory all over the immobile moving frame..

In English please?

Put up or shut up?

Does anybody want to run an Einstein "train experiment" where we measure the simultaneious photon emissions tested with photosensitive devices, as a test of simultaneity , which according to the famous "put up or shut up" physicsist Tom Mateson, should be able to produce two extra photons for any stray observer casually passing through the hood?

Phrased another way: Who is willing to provide assets to directly test SR theory. If the test fails we could be in some serious rank doodoo if we are skirting around reality in some ptolemaic fog. Does everybody understand? to allow existence of SR that is infected with bloated mathematical contrivances some investigative work will be in order right?

Actually, SR is tested every day, in particle accelerators and, with GPS systems, and with nuclear reactors and weapons, and even with humble radios in moving cars. There is a wealth of experimental information available for anyone who wants to see it, and all of it confirms SR and shows Galilean relativity to be wrong. But you don't want any part of it, because you prefer to remain in willful ignorance, screaming anti-SR nonsense like a jackass.

The cheapest way to solve the problem, of course, is have Tom Mateson splain it all to everybody. I hear he is a cetificated "experiment bypass" authority. myself, I have to bust knuckles and drop tools on the floor and break glass [just by entering labs!yeah], and turn dials, and swear a lot. Well actually they don'teven let me do that. They have professionals available that know how all about that. Myself, I like to watch.

No, the cheapest way for you to solve your problem is to invest the time and energy studying real physics. That's the only way you will break free of these errors you are making.

On that note, I don't see any point in this thread continuing. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to contribute here.