Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382075 > unrolled thread

Particle Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Particle Physics Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 17:09 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 19:42 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 06:42 +0200
        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:14 -0500
          Re: Particle Physics David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:01 -0700
          Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 19:49 +0200
            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 13:06 -0500
              Re: Particle Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-23 01:37 +0200
            Re: Particle Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-22 13:35 -0500
              Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 22:29 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-22 23:32 +0200
                  Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 06:15 +0200
                    Re: Particle Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 22:25 -0700
                      Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 23:18 +0200
                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:55 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 08:33 -0500
                  Re: Particle Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-23 15:53 +0200
                  Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 20:36 +0200
                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:59 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-23 16:43 -0500
                  Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-24 07:16 +0200
                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:02 -0500
                      Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-25 06:55 +0200
                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:07 -0500
                          Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-26 22:24 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#382193

Am 23.04.2016 23:43, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 4/22/16 4/22/16 3:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.04.2016 20:35, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> So when we say something has a length of 1 meter, what we actually
>>> mean is
>>> that the ratio of its length to the standard length of a meter is 1.
>>
>> No! If we take the meter as unit for measurements of the type length,
>> then a
>> certain length is a product of a number and the standard unit '1 m'.
>
> You say "No!", and then say something equivalent to what I said.
> You REALLY need to learn basic logic.
>

You tried to justify, that the units are omitted in a measure. I had 
rejected this idea, since the dimensions are an essential part.

If - for example - you have '220 Volts' and leave the units, you have 
only '220'.

And I rejected this method, even if the meaning of the numbers would be 
clear from the context, since I regard it as 'bad practise'.

To say c=1 and claim this would be 'natural' is in my eyes nonsense.

c=1 would require units. To have the number 1 the unit of length must be 
'light-seconds', if time units of seconds are used.

so light moves in vacuum with 1 ls /s.

This is actually true, since it is a tautology.


>> But what do have against 'm/s' (or another type of dimension)?
>
> Nothing. But 1 is indeed more convenient than 299,792,458 m/s.
>
>> Only: 'time' and 'space' do not denote the same subject.
>
> What God whispered in your ear and told you this?
>
> While we humans do experience them differently, our best models of the
> world put
> them on equal footings (i.e. as the same "subject").

You want to use units against their intended purpose and measure length 
with a clock and time with a meter stick.

There might be a connection, but still you may not use the units in 
other ways then according to their definition.
>
>> So I wonder, why you would like to use the same unit for things, that
>> would
>> deserve their own units.
>
> Because:
> A) "Deserve different units" is a HISTORICAL claim, not based on the
> PHYSICS
> B) Natural units reflect a symmetry of our best model of the world
> C) Natural units simplify many calculations
> D) Natural units are CONCEPTUALLY simpler

I totally agree about most of this ideas. But still you cannot leave out 
these natural units (like light-seconds).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382226

On 4/24/2016 12:16 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> You want to use units against their intended purpose and measure length
> with a clock and time with a meter stick.

And what do you think the "intended purpose" of units is?

Be REALLY careful with what you answer, and be sure you base it on what 
scientists actually say, not your own opinion.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382242

Am 24.04.2016 21:02, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 4/24/2016 12:16 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> You want to use units against their intended purpose and measure length
>> with a clock and time with a meter stick.
>
> And what do you think the "intended purpose" of units is?
>
> Be REALLY careful with what you answer, and be sure you base it on what
> scientists actually say, not your own opinion.
>

Units have an idea to what they shall express.

The concept behind the term 'length' stems from common observations, we 
have as human beings, living on planet Earth:

The movement from one spot to the other requires a number of steps.

If we make '1 step' a unit, then the counting of steps would be 
sufficient to measure the distance between spot A und spot B upon the 
surface of Earth.

Now '1 Step' was not really useful, since all people have different legs 
and make different steps.

This problem was 'solved' by 'length of the King's feet'. Since England, 
Egypt, Prussia and the USA had different Emperors, the feet was 
different in different nations.

Then came Napoleon and replaced 'Royal feet' with 'the meter'.

This was defined by a Platinum bar in Paris.

Now smart Physicists came along, and wanted something more precise and 
not as expensive as that Platinum bar.

So they used light to define the meter, but oriented their definition on 
that Platinum bar in Paris.

With this light it and the definition of 'length' it was now possible to 
measure other distance, in directions, into which you cannot walk (like 
to the Moon).

But the concept was inherited from counting steps on a journey upon the 
surface of planet Earth, only generalised into other directions and 
measurement by other means than comparing length to the own limbs.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382247

On 4/24/2016 11:55 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.04.2016 21:02, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> On 4/24/2016 12:16 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> You want to use units against their intended purpose and measure length
>>> with a clock and time with a meter stick.
>>
>> And what do you think the "intended purpose" of units is?
>>
>> Be REALLY careful with what you answer, and be sure you base it on what
>> scientists actually say, not your own opinion.
>>
>
> Units have an idea to what they shall express.
>
> The concept behind the term 'length' stems from common observations, we
> have as human beings, living on planet Earth:
>
> The movement from one spot to the other requires a number of steps.
>
> If we make '1 step' a unit, then the counting of steps would be
> sufficient to measure the distance between spot A und spot B upon the
> surface of Earth.
>
> Now '1 Step' was not really useful, since all people have different legs
> and make different steps.
>
> This problem was 'solved' by 'length of the King's feet'. Since England,
> Egypt, Prussia and the USA had different Emperors, the feet was
> different in different nations.
>
> Then came Napoleon and replaced 'Royal feet' with 'the meter'.
>
> This was defined by a Platinum bar in Paris.
>
> Now smart Physicists came along, and wanted something more precise and
> not as expensive as that Platinum bar.
>
> So they used light to define the meter, but oriented their definition on
> that Platinum bar in Paris.
>
> With this light it and the definition of 'length' it was now possible to
> measure other distance, in directions, into which you cannot walk (like
> to the Moon).
>
> But the concept was inherited from counting steps on a journey upon the
> surface of planet Earth, only generalised into other directions and
> measurement by other means than comparing length to the own limbs.
>
>
> TH

Now notice that you have ignored time in the above while you have 
defined length.

I'm going to assume that you've done that because you have assumed that 
time is an independent concept from distance. What that means that FOR 
ALL OBSERVERS, a change in length does not involve a change in duration.

This last statement is important, because it shows the difference 
between an independent unit and independent COMPONENTS. For example, it 
is easy to say that north-south is independent of east-west, because I 
can certainly make movement in the north-south direction without moving 
in the east-west direction, and vice versa. Because I can do that, it 
would be tempting to say there's good reason to measure north-south 
distances differently than east-west distances, and to use different units.

However, a change in north-south distances is not independent of 
east-west distances for ALL OBSERVERS. Indeed, if there is an observer 
that has a different direction defined as north (say, magnetic north as 
opposed to polar north) and is rotated relative to the first observer, a 
change in length in the north-south direction will be accompanied by a 
change in length in the east-west direction. Thus, the two units 
(north-south and east-west) are not independent for all observers after 
all; they are mixed. And indeed, you know that what stays the same, 
regardless of rotation, is the "as the crow flies" distance, which 
combines the north-south distance and east-west distance.

Likewise, what turns out to be true is that length is not independent of 
duration for ALL OBSERVERS. The two are mixed, and indeed as mixed as 
east-west and north-south.

The HISTORICAL reasons why length and time were considered different are 
irrelevant. After all, people once thought that the primary elements 
were earth, water, air, and fire, so that liquids and solids were made 
of fundamentally different elements. This we know now is simply not 
true, regardless of historical reasons.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382307

Am 25.04.2016 13:07, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> You want to use units against their intended purpose and measure length
>>>> with a clock and time with a meter stick.
>>>
>>> And what do you think the "intended purpose" of units is?
>>>
>>> Be REALLY careful with what you answer, and be sure you base it on what
>>> scientists actually say, not your own opinion.
>>>
>>
>> Units have an idea to what they shall express.
>>
>> The concept behind the term 'length' stems from common observations, we
>> have as human beings, living on planet Earth:
>>
>> The movement from one spot to the other requires a number of steps.
>>
>> If we make '1 step' a unit, then the counting of steps would be
>> sufficient to measure the distance between spot A und spot B upon the
>> surface of Earth.
>>
>> Now '1 Step' was not really useful, since all people have different legs
>> and make different steps.
>>
>> This problem was 'solved' by 'length of the King's feet'. Since England,
>> Egypt, Prussia and the USA had different Emperors, the feet was
>> different in different nations.
>>
>> Then came Napoleon and replaced 'Royal feet' with 'the meter'.
>>
>> This was defined by a Platinum bar in Paris.
>>
>> Now smart Physicists came along, and wanted something more precise and
>> not as expensive as that Platinum bar.
>>
>> So they used light to define the meter, but oriented their definition on
>> that Platinum bar in Paris.
>>
>> With this light it and the definition of 'length' it was now possible to
>> measure other distance, in directions, into which you cannot walk (like
>> to the Moon).
>>
>> But the concept was inherited from counting steps on a journey upon the
>> surface of planet Earth, only generalised into other directions and
>> measurement by other means than comparing length to the own limbs.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Now notice that you have ignored time in the above while you have
> defined length.

Actually I had tried to explain the concept behind the term
'length' (or 'distance').

'Time' has a similar foundation in everyday experiences: the hart beats, 
the sun goes up and down and the seasons change.

Usually we divide the length of a day in 24 hours, the hour in 60 
minutes and the minute in 60 seconds.

We hope, the length of the day does not change (what it in fact does) 
and therefore base the term 'time' on our home-planet's movements.

The experience we have in connection with 'time' are a lot of changes 
occurring in our environment.

Some of these changes seem to be proportional to the movements of planet 
Earth about its axis of rotation, so we utilise these to 'measure' time.

In fact we do not measure time directly, but count events or observe 
changes and use these changes to measure time.

This works quite well and measurements of time could be very precise.

Only: if the rotation velocity of planet Earth around its axis would 
change, we cannot measure this, since the unit 'second' is based on the 
same phenomenon we try to measure.

We also have no real knowledge, if a second is a long period of time or 
a short one, since time is kind of 'relative.

> I'm going to assume that you've done that because you have assumed that
> time is an independent concept from distance. What that means that FOR
> ALL OBSERVERS, a change in length does not involve a change in duration.

If the observer would be a car and existence is like driving along a 
certain street, the clock would behave like an odometer.

In such a picture time is similar to a distance (on our 'wordline') and 
rotation of the Earth could be symbolised by rotations of the 'wheels of 
life'.


> This last statement is important, because it shows the difference
> between an independent unit and independent COMPONENTS. For example, it
> is easy to say that north-south is independent of east-west, because I
> can certainly make movement in the north-south direction without moving
> in the east-west direction, and vice versa. Because I can do that, it
> would be tempting to say there's good reason to measure north-south
> distances differently than east-west distances, and to use different units.

Now you try to introduce SRT with an inappropriate picture. (I also 
think, that SRT is wrong.)

> However, a change in north-south distances is not independent of
> east-west distances for ALL OBSERVERS. Indeed, if there is an observer
> that has a different direction defined as north (say, magnetic north as
> opposed to polar north) and is rotated relative to the first observer, a
> change in length in the north-south direction will be accompanied by a
> change in length in the east-west direction. Thus, the two units
> (north-south and east-west) are not independent for all observers after
> all; they are mixed. And indeed, you know that what stays the same,
> regardless of rotation, is the "as the crow flies" distance, which
> combines the north-south distance and east-west distance.

Now the picture gets even worse.

> Likewise, what turns out to be true is that length is not independent of
> duration for ALL OBSERVERS. The two are mixed, and indeed as mixed as
> east-west and north-south.
>
> The HISTORICAL reasons why length and time were considered different are
> irrelevant. After all, people once thought that the primary elements
> were earth, water, air, and fire, so that liquids and solids were made
> of fundamentally different elements. This we know now is simply not
> true, regardless of historical reasons.


These 'elements' have not been meant like our modern chemical elements. 
It is more like qualities, rather types of stuff. And these principles 
have names like 'fire' instead of (say) 'heat'.

Also the Chinese 'Ying' and 'Yang' are ideas about basic principles, not 
chemical elements.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web