Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #565902 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-27 06:23 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-04 09:05 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-27 06:23 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 23:07 +0200
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 17:13 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-31 14:51 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 12:23 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:33 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 13:40 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:45 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:52 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:47 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:53 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 20:16 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:10 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:32 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 17:11 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-31 15:00 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 23:35 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 06:13 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:48 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 14:44 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:03 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:08 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:14 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-02 06:23 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 08:34 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:39 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 07:50 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 18:56 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:56 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:22 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:30 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:07 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:16 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:12 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:38 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:45 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:35 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:35 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:55 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:17 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 18:31 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 14:46 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 23:30 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-02 06:13 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 08:38 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:44 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:26 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:02 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-06 15:19 -0600
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 17:39 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:45 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-02 07:47 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 18:52 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:53 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:28 -0500
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:22 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:06 -0700
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:48 +0000
Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:05 -0500
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 06:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion |
| Message-ID | <ef6af78b-337b-447d-9fc8-35c712881d0b@googlegroups.com> |
The paper in the link below shows the following past experiments detected absolute motion. 1. The Photoelectric experiment. 2. The Compton Shift experiment. 3. The Double-Slits experiment. In addition, new doable experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd416da0-725c-4456-b18c-84963314ae84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565902 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:23:42 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > The paper in the link below shows the following past experiments detected absolute motion. > 1. The Photoelectric experiment. > 2. The Compton Shift experiment. > 3. The Double-Slits experiment. > > In addition, new doable experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf No the interpretation of the CMBR has shown us what the absolute rest state is. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 23:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nd9hrp$4in$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #565984 |
Dne 27/03/2016 v 22:51 Double-A napsal(a): > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:23:42 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > No the interpretation of the CMBR has shown us what the absolute rest state is. > No, it does not. 1/ it is relative motion/rest WRT CMBR,. i.e. not absolute one. For absolute motion there is no need of reference, otherwise it is relative motion. 2/ This relative motion/rest WRT CMBR is direction dependent. i.e. there is no rest wrt CMBR in all directions simultaneously. -- Poutnik ( The Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 17:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zbGdnRRLqKaaxmXLnZ2dnUU7-aEAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #565984 |
On 3/27/16 3:51 PM, Double-A wrote: > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:23:42 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> The paper in the link below shows the following past experiments detected absolute motion. >> 1. The Photoelectric experiment. >> 2. The Compton Shift experiment. >> 3. The Double-Slits experiment. >> >> In addition, new doable experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed. >> >> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > No the interpretation of the CMBR has shown us what the absolute rest state is. > > Double-A > CMB can be a frame of convenience, but that doesn't make it absolute any more than any other frame of convenience. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eccf16b5-f32b-40c4-9eb4-e75c62bdf080@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565984 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:51:41 PM UTC-4, Double-A wrote: > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:23:42 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > The paper in the link below shows the following past experiments detected absolute motion. > > 1. The Photoelectric experiment. > > 2. The Compton Shift experiment. > > 3. The Double-Slits experiment. > > > > In addition, new doable experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed. > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > No the interpretation of the CMBR has shown us what the absolute rest state is. How?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07852d47-25e3-421a-a73b-e17448b370b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567052 |
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:51:40 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:51:41 PM UTC-4, Double-A wrote: > > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:23:42 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > The paper in the link below shows the following past experiments detected absolute motion. > > > 1. The Photoelectric experiment. > > > 2. The Compton Shift experiment. > > > 3. The Double-Slits experiment. > > > > > > In addition, new doable experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed. > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > > > No the interpretation of the CMBR has shown us what the absolute rest state is. > > How? Since the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be detected to be the most blue shifted in one direction and the most red shifted in the opposite direction, from this observed fact the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR has been be mathematically calculated. That would suggest that the rest frame of the CMBR is absolute rest. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 14:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vb2dnXW6tb47XJ_KnZ2dnUU7-TcAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567903 |
On 4/4/16 2:23 PM, Double-A wrote: > Since the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be detected to be the most blue shifted in one direction and the most red shifted in the opposite direction, from this observed fact the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR has been be mathematically calculated. That would suggest that the rest frame of the CMBR is absolute rest. > > Double-A No... it just means that the earth is moving with respect to the CMB. Nothing more. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da22f7b1-f562-4ef8-92f4-f55034581cb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567910 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:34:01 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/4/16 2:23 PM, Double-A wrote: > > Since the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be detected to be the most blue shifted in one direction and the most red shifted in the opposite direction, from this observed fact the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR has been be mathematically calculated. That would suggest that the rest frame of the CMBR is absolute rest. > > > > Double-A > > > No... it just means that the earth is moving with respect > to the CMB. Nothing more. > Then again, if you are at rest with regard to the CMBR, how much more at rest can you be? Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b17886f-1c63-461d-8aff-ee2a7016e25c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567933 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:40:36 PM UTC-4, Double-A wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:34:01 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 4/4/16 2:23 PM, Double-A wrote: > > > Since the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be detected to be the most blue shifted in one direction and the most red shifted in the opposite direction, from this observed fact the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR has been be mathematically calculated. That would suggest that the rest frame of the CMBR is absolute rest. > > > > > > Double-A > > > > > > No... it just means that the earth is moving with respect > > to the CMB. Nothing more. > > > > Then again, if you are at rest with regard to the CMBR, how much more at rest can you be? There is no at rest wrt the CMBR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vb2dnXK6tb63SZ_KnZ2dnUU7-TcAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567933 |
On 4/4/16 3:40 PM, Double-A wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:34:01 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 4/4/16 2:23 PM, Double-A wrote: >>> Since the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be detected to be the most blue shifted in one direction and the most red shifted in the opposite direction, from this observed fact the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR has been be mathematically calculated. That would suggest that the rest frame of the CMBR is absolute rest. >>> >>> Double-A >> >> >> No... it just means that the earth is moving with respect >> to the CMB. Nothing more. >> > > Then again, if you are at rest with regard to the CMBR, how much more at rest can you be? > > Double-A > If you are at rest WRT the CMB, then you are at rest with the CMB, nothing more. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e74295a0-7de9-4d41-a4e4-b72be2d459f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567910 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:34:01 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/4/16 2:23 PM, Double-A wrote: > > Since the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be detected to be the most blue shifted in one direction and the most red shifted in the opposite direction, from this observed fact the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR has been be mathematically calculated. That would suggest that the rest frame of the CMBR is absolute rest. > > > > Double-A > > > No... it just means that the earth is moving with respect > to the CMB. Nothing more. Do you realize that what you said violates the P2....SR says that there is no detectable different motion wrt any light (CMBR)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 15:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndujsl$11jj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567935 |
On 4/4/2016 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote: > Do you realize that what you said violates the P2....SR says that there is no detectable > different motion wrt any light (CMBR) Where the heck did you read that SR's P2 says that there is no detectable different motion wrt to any light? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vb2dnW26tb7ISZ_KnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567935 |
On 4/4/16 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:34:01 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 4/4/16 2:23 PM, Double-A wrote: >>> Since the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be detected to be the most blue shifted in one direction and the most red shifted in the opposite direction, from this observed fact the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR has been be mathematically calculated. That would suggest that the rest frame of the CMBR is absolute rest. >>> >>> Double-A >> >> >> No... it just means that the earth is moving with respect >> to the CMB. Nothing more. > > Do you realize that what you said violates the P2....SR says that there is no detectable different motion wrt any light (CMBR) > How so? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 20:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <FqednSGEXIzk_pnKnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567935 |
On 4/4/16 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote: > Do you realize that what you said violates the P2....SR says that there is no detectable different motion wrt any light (CMBR) Oh no! Not again Seto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48rz8udZBmQ -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52819a12-9f72-49bd-865d-371a8b5d0d05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568167 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:16:46 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/4/16 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote: > > Do you realize that what you said violates the P2....SR says that there is no detectable different motion wrt any light (CMBR) > > > Oh no! Not again Seto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48rz8udZBmQ > > ROTFLOL....Wormy claims himself to be an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e8fe19e-4d69-4efd-aed8-bc219fe150e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567903 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:24:06 PM UTC-4, Double-A wrote: > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:51:40 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:51:41 PM UTC-4, Double-A wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:23:42 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > The paper in the link below shows the following past experiments detected absolute motion. > > > > 1. The Photoelectric experiment. > > > > 2. The Compton Shift experiment. > > > > 3. The Double-Slits experiment. > > > > > > > > In addition, new doable experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed. > > > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > > > > > > No the interpretation of the CMBR has shown us what the absolute rest state is. > > > > How? > > > Since the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be detected to be the most blue shifted in one direction and the most red shifted in the opposite direction, from this observed fact the speed of the Earth relative to the CMBR has been be mathematically calculated. That would suggest that the rest frame of the CMBR is absolute rest. > No.....that merely means that the CMBR is waves in the ether moving at constant speed and the earth is moving in the ether at a different absolute speed. The observed red and blue shift of the CNBR means the detection of absolute motion of the earth wrt light being transmitted by the ether at constant speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zbGdnRVLqKYax2XLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #565902 |
On 3/27/16 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > The paper in the link below shows the following past experiments detected absolute motion. > 1. The Photoelectric experiment. > 2. The Compton Shift experiment. > 3. The Double-Slits experiment. > > In addition, new doable experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > There is a problem, Seto, as absolute motion requires an absolute reference frame, and there ain't one, including the stuff you make up. No absolute Refernce frame ==> no absolute motion. I suggest you read: Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity > harmoniously co-exist. > Conclusions > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret > the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to > confront the startling ideas of special relativity. > Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble > relating measurements made by observers in different reference > frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels, > do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the > speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently > fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed. > Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas > that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In > particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a > system of observers that determine the same time for any given event. > Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of > the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply > correctly the Lorentz transformations. > Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel > student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual > experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity > are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to > recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to > have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. > Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an > event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of > measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given > reference frame, and understanding the relationship between > measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in > contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to > the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This > investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these > fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity > meaningful to students. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5778fdf7-4797-47f0-a538-8506f4d35651@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566002 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/27/16 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > > The paper in the link below shows the following past experiments detected absolute motion. > > 1. The Photoelectric experiment. > > 2. The Compton Shift experiment. > > 3. The Double-Slits experiment. > > > > In addition, new doable experiments to detect absolute motion are proposed. > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > > > There is a problem, Seto, as absolute motion requires an absolute > reference frame, and there ain't one, including the stuff you make > up. No absolute Refernce frame ==> no absolute motion. No idiot...... absolute motion does not require an absolute reference frame. An inertial frame in SR is a defined as an absolute reference frame. Each SR observer considers himself to be an absolute reference frame.....that is identical to the LET assumption of the ether frame as an absolute reference frame. That's why SR and LET have identical math. > I suggest you read: > > Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity > and reference frames > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail > > > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of > > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks > > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of > > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate > > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have > > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the > > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented > > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which > > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity > > harmoniously co-exist. > > > Conclusions > > > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that > > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the > > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of > > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are > > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining > > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret > > the phrase "relativity of simultaneity" as implying that the > > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of > > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity > > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different > > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity > > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to > > confront the startling ideas of special relativity. > > > Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble > > relating measurements made by observers in different reference > > frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels, > > do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the > > speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently > > fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed. > > Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas > > that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In > > particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a > > system of observers that determine the same time for any given event. > > Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of > > the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply > > correctly the Lorentz transformations. > > > Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel > > student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual > > experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity > > are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to > > recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to > > have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. > > Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an > > event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of > > measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given > > reference frame, and understanding the relationship between > > measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in > > contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to > > the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This > > investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these > > fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity > > meaningful to students. > > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndkc8i$s0q$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #567057 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: >> There is a problem, Seto, as absolute motion requires an absolute >> reference frame, and there ain't one, including the stuff you make >> up. No absolute Refernce frame ==> no absolute motion. >No idiot...... absolute motion does not require an absolute reference >frame. An inertial frame in SR is a defined as an absolute reference >frame. How can you argue against SR if you don't even understand SR? SR doesn't have an absolute reference frame. The "R" stands for "Relativity", that's the whole point, no absolute anything needed. An inertial reference frame is defined as one with zero acceleration, and Newton's First Law is valid (all physical laws valid for SR) > Each SR observer considers himself to be an absolute reference >frame.....that is identical to the LET assumption of the ether frame as >an absolute reference frame. That's why SR and LET have identical math. This isn't true, it's just crap you made up. Learn SR for once.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ccde0d0-8b1c-4715-9cc6-09e5c809a724@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567075 |
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:36:13 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 6:11:25 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > > >> There is a problem, Seto, as absolute motion requires an absolute > >> reference frame, and there ain't one, including the stuff you make > >> up. No absolute Refernce frame ==> no absolute motion. > > >No idiot...... absolute motion does not require an absolute reference > >frame. An inertial frame in SR is a defined as an absolute reference > >frame. > > How can you argue against SR if you don't even understand SR? SR doesn't > have an absolute reference frame. The "R" stands for "Relativity", that's > the whole point, no absolute anything needed. An inertial reference frame > is defined as one with zero acceleration, and Newton's First Law is valid > (all physical laws valid for SR) Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists on earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition. That's why SR and LET derived the same math. > > > Each SR observer considers himself to be an absolute reference > >frame.....that is identical to the LET assumption of the ether frame as > >an absolute reference frame. That's why SR and LET have identical math. > > This isn't true, it's just crap you made up. > > Learn SR for once.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web