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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #433035 > unrolled thread

Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data)

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 17:23 +0200
    Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 08:36 -0700
    Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-21 15:10 +0200
      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-21 06:29 -0700
        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 20:27 +0200
          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 12:13 -0700
            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 21:36 +0200
              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-22 20:09 +0000
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:10 +0200
              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 13:30 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:56 +0200
                  Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-23 05:09 -0700
                    Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-24 21:31 +0200
                      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 21:43 +0200
                        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:26 +0200
                          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 22:00 +0200
                            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 21:45 +0200
                              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-29 01:52 +0200
                            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 09:50 +0200
                      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 22:57 -0700
                        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 10:23 +0200
                          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 02:07 -0700
                            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:14 +0200
                              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 13:10 -0700
                                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 22:12 +0200
                                  Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-26 22:41 -0700
                                    Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-28 21:09 +0200
                                      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-28 13:14 -0700
                                        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-29 14:10 +0200
                                          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-29 06:09 -0700
                                            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-30 16:39 +0200
                                              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-30 08:12 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#433035 — Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data)

[X-Post & F’up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>]

Arindam Banerjee wrote in <news:sci.physics>:

> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:37:46 PM UTC+10, Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 2:06:56 PM UTC+10, sci.physics
>> > wrote:
>> >> How much energy will it take to get these spaceships to travel faster
>> >> than light?
>> >> 
>> >> Where does this energy come from?
>> > 
>> > If the acceleration of the ship is g or say 10m./sec^2 then from rest
>> > the ship will reach the speed of light
> 
> In 347 days

Argumentum ad nauseam.

No, it will not *ever* reach the speed of light using conventional 
propulsion.

> At 100m/s/s 34.7 days which is quite feasible with modern technology
> and with 1000m/s/s 3.47 days which should happen within 100 years

Newtonian mechanics does not work anymore when the relative speeds approach 
the speed of light (or masses are large, see GR).  For two theoretical 
objects moving at the speed of light, the error is *100 %*:

  u(v, u') = (v + u')∕(1 + v u'∕c²)    Relativistic speed composition

  u(c, c)  = (c + c)/(1 + c²/c²) = c

vs.

  v(v₁, v₂) = v₁ + v₂

  v(c,  c)  = c + c = 2 c              Galilean/Newtonian speed composition,

where u is the speed of K as observed by A, and u' is the speed of K as 
observed by B which is moving relative to A at speed v.

When the speeds are much less than the speed of light, then the 
Galilean/Newtonian speed composition also only works *approximately* as only

  lim      u(v, u') = v + u'.
  v u' → 0

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=plot+%7B2+v%7D,
+%7B2v%2F(1+%2B+v%5E2)%7D+for+v+%3D+0+to+1>
 
>> *You cannot reach the speed of light c using conventional propulsion*
>> (i.e. not based on dynamic spacetime), because the kinetic energy you
>> would need to generate approaches infinity.
> 
> Idiotic e=mcc babbling.

I did not write “e=mcc”.

> As c depends upon the velocity of the emitter,

It does not.  Experimentally confirmed a thousandfold, if that is even 
enough.

> the first postulate for deriving e=mcc is knocked out

Einstein defines the first postulate of special relativity as follows:

,-<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>
| 
| […] lead to the conjecture that not only in mechanics, but in
| electrodynamics as well, the phenomena do not have any properties 
| corresponding to the concept of absolute rest, but that in all coordinate 
| systems in which the mechanical equations are valid, also the same 
| electrodynamic and optical laws are valid, as has already been [3] shown 
| for quantities of the first order. We shall raise this conjecture [4] 
| (whose content will be called "the principle of relativity" hereafter) to 
| the status of a postulate […]

So you are claiming that not “in all coordinate systems in which the 
mechanical equations are valid, also the same electrodynamic and optical 
laws are valid”?

> so the whole theory is absolute bunkum.

If that is true, then, for example, why has the protons’ relative speed in 
the LHC not already surpassed the speed of light *by orders of magnitude*?

If the Galilean transformation would hold in all regimes, then the mass–
energy equivalence E₀ = m c² would be wrong, the protons would have no 
energy when at rest (E₀_{Galilean} = 0), so with the collision energy
(= Galilean kinetic energy) per beam of ca. 6.5 TeV [1], and a proton mass 
of ca. 938 MeV∕c² [2], a proton’s speed relative to the accelerator ring 
should be

  E_{Galilean} = m v²/2

             v = √(2 E_{Galilean}/m)

             v ≈ √((2 × 6.5 TeV)/(938 MeV∕c²) ≈ 118 c.

But it is _not_.

Instead, it is *measured* to be just

             E = γ m c²
             E = m c²/√(1 − u²/c²)
  √(1 − u²/c²) = m c²/E
    1 − u²/c²  = m²c⁴/E²
        u²/c²  = 1 − m²c⁴/E²
        u²     = c² − m²c⁶/E²
        u²     = (E²c² − m²c⁶)/E²
        u²     = c² (E² − m²c⁴)/E²
        u      = c √(E² − m²c⁴)/E
        u      = c √((6.5 TeV)² − (938 MeV∕c²)²c⁴)∕(6.5 TeV)

             u ≈ 0.9999999896 c,

*precisely* as special relativity predicts.

How do you explain that?

> As proven by the correct analysis of the MMI experiment which I did back
> in 2005, 

“MMI”?

> and evidenced by the Doppler effect.

On the contrary, the Doppler effect is striking evidence that the phase 
speed of *any* wave does _not_ change (i.e., is invariant) if the wave 
source is moving relative to the observer.  Because c = λ f = const., where 
c is phase speed, λ is wavelength, and f is frequency.  This applies even if 
you insist on pre-relativistic, even pre-Maxwellian, mechanics.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect>

Conclusion: You have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.

_______
[1] <https://home.cern/about/updates/2015/05/protons-set-collide-13-tev-prepare-physics>
[2] <http://pdg.lbl.gov/2017/tables/rpp2017-sum-baryons.pdf>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#433036

It's a perfect Fluid. 
Time Dilation = 1/3.71295e-28 
No twin paradox 

Space time & its CMBR is the field of a black hole




((((160.390033967 GHz) * (3.71295774e-28 (m^2))) / Planck's constant) * (1 kg)) = c^2 

https://goo.gl/nQubSz 


((((CMBR Hz) * (Friedmann Mass Density (m^2))) / Planck's constant) * (1 kg)) = c^2 

1/(160.390033967 GHz * 3.71295774e-28 kg   / Planck's constant  / c^2  )^0.5 = 1 m^2/s (square meter per second) 



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity#Kinematic_viscosity 

The kinematic viscosity "momentum diffusivity" is the ratio of the dynamic viscosity μ to the density of the fluid ρ. It is usually denoted by the Greek letter nu (ν) and has units  m^2/s 

https://goo.gl/TFyus5

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

#433174 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 20.09.2017 um 17:23 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> [X-Post & F’up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>]
>
> Arindam Banerjee wrote in <news:sci.physics>:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:37:46 PM UTC+10, Thomas
>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 2:06:56 PM UTC+10, sci.physics
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> How much energy will it take to get these spaceships to travel faster
>>>>> than light?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where does this energy come from?
>>>>
>>>> If the acceleration of the ship is g or say 10m./sec^2 then from rest
>>>> the ship will reach the speed of light
>>
>> In 347 days
>
> Argumentum ad nauseam.
>
> No, it will not *ever* reach the speed of light using conventional
> propulsion.

The spaceship can have any velocity it desires to have, if it flies 
unaccelerated.

That could be zero or infinity, as you prefer.

This is so, because the spaceship cannot define an absolute zero point 
in space, in respect which it has a certain velocity.

IOW: speed is 'relative'.

The spaceship crew could say 'well, we don't know how fast we are. But 
at least we are at rest in respect to ourselves'.

This does in fact make some sense and that is actually what we usually do.

We measure the velocity of - say - a car in respect to the street the 
car is rolling upon. But we ignore the velocity caused by Earth' 
rotation around its axis and the rotation of that axis around the sun 
and the rotation of the sun about the center of our galaxy.

This center moves around the center of our local galaxy cluster and how 
that might move, we don't know.

So we stick to street velocity (in connection with cars), even if this 
is a local measure and relative to the Earth surface.

Now you certainly say, there is a reference point, upon we could base 
our measurement of velocity.

Unfortunately this is not the case and actually relativity tells us, 
that velocity is 'relative'.

So I could say, I move with light speed away from something remote, that 
is almost invisible and that something would be my personal reference point.

This would make my current velocity c. But I could also use the chair 
I'm sitting on as reference and have then velocity zero.

And I could do this both at the same time.


TH
...

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

#433176 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu czwartek, 21 września 2017 15:10:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:

> This is so, because the spaceship cannot define an absolute zero point 
> in space, in respect which it has a certain velocity.
> 
> IOW: speed is 'relative'.
> 
> The spaceship crew could say 'well, we don't know how fast we are. But 
> at least we are at rest in respect to ourselves'.

It's incredibly wise and the ship's navigator will 
obviously be delighted with incredibly wise guru 
providing him such incredibly helpful information

> This does in fact make some sense and that is actually what we usually do. 

Your driving license should be immediately revoked, if
you ever managed to obtain any with such approach.

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

#433366 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 21.09.2017 um 15:29 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> W dniu czwartek, 21 września 2017 15:10:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>
>> This is so, because the spaceship cannot define an absolute zero point
>> in space, in respect which it has a certain velocity.
>>
>> IOW: speed is 'relative'.
>>
>> The spaceship crew could say 'well, we don't know how fast we are. But
>> at least we are at rest in respect to ourselves'.
>
> It's incredibly wise and the ship's navigator will
> obviously be delighted with incredibly wise guru
> providing him such incredibly helpful information
>
>> This does in fact make some sense and that is actually what we usually do.
>
> Your driving license should be immediately revoked, if
> you ever managed to obtain any with such approach.
>

I did not say, that pace on a rood is 'relative'.

But actually towards which point of reference a car runs 'absolute'?

Certainly you regard the road as at rest and the car as moving. This is 
actually what we usually do.

But we're not talking about cars on streets, but about theoretical 
physics and the validity of SRT.

Since SRT uses a term 'v' (for velocity) in its equations, it should be 
legitimate to ask, in respect to which reference point this v is measured.

This is especially legitimate, since SRT assumes the validity of the 
principle of equivalence. That means, that you cannot distinguish 
unaccelerated motion from being at rest.

So what does this term 'v' (of SRT) mean in a physical sense?

Certainly not meant is the speed of a car on some sort of road.

SRT uses in fact a schizophrenic concept of relative motion and an 
absolute space (plus absolute time).

But the real deal would be, that space is relative to an arbitrary 
observer, equipped with local time only.


TH

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

#433374 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu piątek, 22 września 2017 20:27:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 21.09.2017 um 15:29 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> > W dniu czwartek, 21 września 2017 15:10:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> >
> >> This is so, because the spaceship cannot define an absolute zero point
> >> in space, in respect which it has a certain velocity.
> >>
> >> IOW: speed is 'relative'.
> >>
> >> The spaceship crew could say 'well, we don't know how fast we are. But
> >> at least we are at rest in respect to ourselves'.
> >
> > It's incredibly wise and the ship's navigator will
> > obviously be delighted with incredibly wise guru
> > providing him such incredibly helpful information
> >
> >> This does in fact make some sense and that is actually what we usually do.
> >
> > Your driving license should be immediately revoked, if
> > you ever managed to obtain any with such approach.
> >
> 
> I did not say, that pace on a rood is 'relative'.

Sure. When you drive a car, you can no way determine its speed:(


> Certainly you regard the road as at rest and the car as moving. This is 
> actually what we usually do.

Right. This is what we usually do. For good reasons.

> But we're not talking about cars on streets, but about theoretical 
> physics and the validity of SRT.
> Since SRT uses a term 'v' (for velocity) in its equations, it should be 
> legitimate to ask, in respect to which reference point this v is measured.
> 
> This is especially legitimate, since SRT assumes the validity of the 
> principle of equivalence. That means, that you cannot distinguish 
> unaccelerated motion from being at rest.
> 
> So what does this term 'v' (of SRT) mean in a physical sense?

Soon nobody sane will care about your "physical sense". 
Just like me. Unless those like you get conscious.



> 
> Certainly not meant is the speed of a car on some sort of road.
> 
> SRT uses in fact a schizophrenic concept of relative motion and an 
> absolute space (plus absolute time).
> 
> But the real deal would be, that space is relative to an arbitrary 
> observer, equipped with local time only.
> 
> 
> TH

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

#433376 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 22.09.2017 um 21:13 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>>> IOW: speed is 'relative'.
>>>>
>>>> The spaceship crew could say 'well, we don't know how fast we are. But
>>>> at least we are at rest in respect to ourselves'.
>>>
>>> It's incredibly wise and the ship's navigator will
>>> obviously be delighted with incredibly wise guru
>>> providing him such incredibly helpful information
>>>
>>>> This does in fact make some sense and that is actually what we usually do.
>>>
>>> Your driving license should be immediately revoked, if
>>> you ever managed to obtain any with such approach.
>>>
>>
>> I did not say, that pace on a rood is 'relative'.
>
> Sure. When you drive a car, you can no way determine its speed:(
>
>
>> Certainly you regard the road as at rest and the car as moving. This is
>> actually what we usually do.
>
> Right. This is what we usually do. For good reasons.

Well, 'good reason' is a relative term, too.

In fact roads are moving as well, since the Earth rotates about its 
axis. That axis rotates around the sun. And the entire solar system 
rotates around the center of our home galaxy.

So: streets are not at rest at all (even if they seem to be).


>> But we're not talking about cars on streets, but about theoretical
>> physics and the validity of SRT.
>> Since SRT uses a term 'v' (for velocity) in its equations, it should be
>> legitimate to ask, in respect to which reference point this v is measured.
>>
>> This is especially legitimate, since SRT assumes the validity of the
>> principle of equivalence. That means, that you cannot distinguish
>> unaccelerated motion from being at rest.
>>
>> So what does this term 'v' (of SRT) mean in a physical sense?
>
> Soon nobody sane will care about your "physical sense".
> Just like me. Unless those like you get conscious.
>

  I was NOT talking about my 'physical sense', of course, but about the 
'meaning of the term v in SRT'.

so: what do you think, how this 'v' should be interpreted?


TH

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

#433382 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Thomas Heger wrote:

> In fact roads are moving as well, since the Earth rotates about its
> axis. That axis rotates around the sun. And the entire solar system
> rotates around the center of our home galaxy.

This is exactly what they wnat you to believe.

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

#433439 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 22.09.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Kos Etrakis:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> In fact roads are moving as well, since the Earth rotates about its
>> axis. That axis rotates around the sun. And the entire solar system
>> rotates around the center of our home galaxy.
>
> This is exactly what they wnat you to believe.
>

Well, this is what most scientists regard as true.

This wouldn't say, it is really true, but most likely it is.

But eventually something else is in fact correct, despite the majority 
thinks otherwise.

But this does not say (in either case), that SRT is correct.

The reason is, that SRT does not tell, which inertial system is at rest 
and which is moving. (Actually SRT says, that you cannot decide.)

So: what exactly is 'rest mass' (for instance) and which are the 
conditions, under which that rest mass is measured?

Other question': what is the reference system for light and its velocity c?


TH

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

#433383 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu piątek, 22 września 2017 21:36:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:

>   I was NOT talking about my 'physical sense', of course, but about the 
> 'meaning of the term v in SRT'.
> 
> so: what do you think, how this 'v' should be interpreted?

And angels dancing on a pinhead - will they dance 
tango or rather foxtrot?

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

#433441 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 22.09.2017 um 22:30 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> W dniu piątek, 22 września 2017 21:36:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>
>>    I was NOT talking about my 'physical sense', of course, but about the
>> 'meaning of the term v in SRT'.
>>
>> so: what do you think, how this 'v' should be interpreted?
>
> And angels dancing on a pinhead - will they dance
> tango or rather foxtrot?
>


Still 'dancing angels' was not the subject. So they may dance whatever 
they like.

But we were talking about SRT and whether or not someone with an 
advanced spaceship could reach c.

I said, this term 'c' requires a frame of reference, in respect to which 
velocity should be measured.

But SRT says this:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to 
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” 
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics 
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They 
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of 
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be 
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics 
hold good."

But if no absolute rest exists, no absolute reference point exists neither.

This would cause difficulties, if you try to define the meaning of c.

I (kind of) solved this issue by introduction of something I call 
'subjectivism':

any observer is the center of the universe by definition and therefore 
at rest (in respect to himself).

What the observer calls 'universe' is actually his own past light cone, 
hence not universal at all. This 'universe' has an intrinsic speed limit 
we call c, since what is moving faster drops out of sight (out of that 
universe).

So: Since the observer in this advanced spaceship is still at rest, he 
cannot reach c.


TH

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

#433444 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu sobota, 23 września 2017 12:56:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 22.09.2017 um 22:30 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> > W dniu piątek, 22 września 2017 21:36:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> >
> >>    I was NOT talking about my 'physical sense', of course, but about the
> >> 'meaning of the term v in SRT'.
> >>
> >> so: what do you think, how this 'v' should be interpreted?
> >
> > And angels dancing on a pinhead - will they dance
> > tango or rather foxtrot?
> >
> 
> 
> Still 'dancing angels' was not the subject. So they may dance whatever 
> they like.
> 
> But we were talking about SRT and whether or not someone with an 
> advanced spaceship could reach c.
> 
> I said, this term 'c' requires a frame of reference, in respect to which 
> velocity should be measured.
> 
> But SRT says this:


Your Shit may say whatever it likes, but your tales 
of "what an observer observes" didn't match anything 
even in Galileo's time.
Now they are not even worthy laughing.

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

#433614 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 23.09.2017 um 14:09 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> W dniu sobota, 23 września 2017 12:56:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>> Am 22.09.2017 um 22:30 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>> W dniu piątek, 22 września 2017 21:36:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>>>
>>>>     I was NOT talking about my 'physical sense', of course, but about the
>>>> 'meaning of the term v in SRT'.
>>>>
>>>> so: what do you think, how this 'v' should be interpreted?
>>>
>>> And angels dancing on a pinhead - will they dance
>>> tango or rather foxtrot?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Still 'dancing angels' was not the subject. So they may dance whatever
>> they like.
>>
>> But we were talking about SRT and whether or not someone with an
>> advanced spaceship could reach c.
>>
>> I said, this term 'c' requires a frame of reference, in respect to which
>> velocity should be measured.
>>
>> But SRT says this:
>
>
> Your Shit may say whatever it likes, but your tales
> of "what an observer observes" didn't match anything
> even in Galileo's time.
> Now they are not even worthy laughing.

The laws of nature are not changing in time. Only our understanding of 
nature changes.

So, something wrong in times of Galileo is still wrong today.



But some concepts we take for granted, which could be actually wrong.

To find out, what is in fact true, it is necessary to question former 
results and ask the question, whether or not a former insight should be 
kept.

Here I asked a simple question about the physical meaning of terms used 
in SRT:

what is the 'rest frame', in respect to which the  'rest mass' is at rest?

You could put the question in other words, but it is still valid.

It is also of mayor importance in relativity (what this forum is about) 
to discuss, what these symbols ('v' for instance) should represent.


TH

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

#433617 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Dne 24/09/2017 v 21:31 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

> 
> Here I asked a simple question about the physical meaning of terms used
> in SRT:
> 
> what is the 'rest frame', in respect to which the  'rest mass' is at rest?

rest frame is not specific to SRT.

Rest frame is a shortcut,
with meaning such a frame of reference,
consisting of body based reference points and coordinate system,
where the object of interest is in rest,
i.e. its coordinate position is constant.

Rest mass is obsolete term
and is not used in Theory of relativity anymore.

Current usage of mass means implicitly invariant mass,
what is close, but not exactly rest mass,
as it frequently involves motion.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#433809 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 24.09.2017 um 21:43 schrieb Poutnik:
> Dne 24/09/2017 v 21:31 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>
>>
>> Here I asked a simple question about the physical meaning of terms used
>> in SRT:
>>
>> what is the 'rest frame', in respect to which the  'rest mass' is at rest?
>
> rest frame is not specific to SRT.
>
> Rest frame is a shortcut,
> with meaning such a frame of reference,
> consisting of body based reference points and coordinate system,
> where the object of interest is in rest,
> i.e. its coordinate position is constant.


It is exactly what I wrote. Only I called it 'subjectivism'.

I mean: any object is 'self centered', because this is a requirement for 
being an object.

The Earth is an object and therefor we could treat the Earth as at rest 
and regard the other celestial objects are moving.


This is not really true, since the Sun does not rotated around the Earth.

But we could use an Earth based FoR nevertheless.

Helio centric system is wrong, too, even if that is often used.

Even 'fixed star background' is wrong.

The main reason: further away is also longer ago, since light takes time 
to travel.

We have also the problem of rotation of galaxies, what makes 'fixed' 
stars moving around.

So our universe (as we see it) is an optical illusion anyhow, 
irrespective of the FoR we use.

> Rest mass is obsolete term
> and is not used in Theory of relativity anymore.
>
> Current usage of mass means implicitly invariant mass,
> what is close, but not exactly rest mass,
> as it frequently involves motion.


I made the statement, that material objects for one observer are 
invisible or appear as radiation for other observers.

('ones matter is the other ones radiation')

IOW mass is not observer invariant.


TH



ps:

if you want to know, how I came to this statement, you may read my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

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

#433811 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Dne 25/09/2017 v 21:26 Thomas Heger napsal(a):

> 
> I made the statement, that material objects for one observer are
> invisible or appear as radiation for other observers.
> 
> ('ones matter is the other ones radiation')
> 
That is great. It can help to avoid traffic accidents.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#433940 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Am 25.09.2017 um 22:00 schrieb Poutnik:
> Dne 25/09/2017 v 21:26 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>
>>
>> I made the statement, that material objects for one observer are
>> invisible or appear as radiation for other observers.
>>
>> ('ones matter is the other ones radiation')
>>
> That is great. It can help to avoid traffic accidents.
>

I'm afraid, that this effect will not be very helpful under usual 
circumstances.

But I can try to explain the (assumed) effect:

I use a certain symbolic representation of 'elements of spacetime'.

These 'elements' are pointlike and interconnected to the environment.

The symbolic form is a spinning ball, where the equator needs to twist 
twice to return.

The axis of rotation is the axis of time.

Now I regard matter as 'timelike stable patterns', which are produced by 
these interconnected spinning balls.

What we call static fields is inverse to time and lies on a 
perpendicular plane (perpendicular to the axis of time), that is comoving.

An atom is then a certain 'structure' (of spacetime), with a masslike 
core and a spacelike field around.

So: matter depends on the axis of time. And the realm, where matter 
stays stable I call a 'time domaine'.

In between the axis of time and the comoving plane, at the angle of 45°' 
we find light (the future and past light cone).

Relativistic effects are caused by acceleration (not by velocity) and 
this could bent the axis of time (to a different 'time domaine').

So the former axis of stability for matter and that of another realm, 
with a different axis of time, stand in an angle.

This would make the matter of one realm observed from the other look 
like light.

TH

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

#434386 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.09.2017 um 22:00 schrieb Poutnik:
>> Dne 25/09/2017 v 21:26 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>> I made the statement, that material objects for one observer are
>>> invisible or appear as radiation for other observers.
>>>
>>> ('ones matter is the other ones radiation')

                    _                            : :
                   : :                          : :
                  : :                          : :  ...
                 : :                          : : . ... .
                : :                          : : . .   . .
               : :                          : : . .     . .
              :_:                          : : . .  :->  . .
                                          : : . . SARCASM . .
                                         : : . .           . .
            _                           : : :  '''''''''''''  :
           : :                         : :  `-----------------'
          : :                         : :           : :
         : :                         : :            : :
        : :                         : :             : :
       : :                         : :              : :
      : :                         : :           . . : : .*.
     :_:                         : :             ``.: : `:'  __
                                : :               `::_: `:' |PE
  -----------------------------'-'-----------------------------

>> That is great. It can help to avoid traffic accidents.

So much for that ;-)

> I'm afraid, that this effect will not be very helpful under usual 
> circumstances.
> 
> [crackpottery]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#434080 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 25/09/2017 v 21:26 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>> I made the statement, that material objects for one observer are
>> invisible or appear as radiation for other observers.
>> 
>> ('ones matter is the other ones radiation')
>> 
> That is great. It can help to avoid traffic accidents.

YMMD :)


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

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

#433717 — Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

W dniu niedziela, 24 września 2017 21:31:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:

> The laws of nature are not changing in time.

"Laws" and "nature" are excluding each other.

> So, something wrong in times of Galileo is still wrong today.

Right. Nobody was seeing trees and buildings running around
him in Galileo's time and nobody is seeing them now.
Coordinate - what does this word mean? Co-ord - does it sound
a bit familiar?
Coordinates are to be COMMON, poor idiot.  Your
observer dependent frames are a functional nonsense.
And nature has nothing to do with them.



> Here I asked a simple question about the physical meaning of terms used 
> in SRT:
> 
> what is the 'rest frame', in respect to which the  'rest mass' is at rest?


I don't care. And if you won't get conscious, soon nobody 
will care what you mean. You're building a knowledge of 
angels dancing on a pinhead.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web