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

Groups > sci.physics > #711230 > unrolled thread

kilogram to be redefined

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:54 +0000
    Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:26 -0400
      Re: kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 18:07 +0000
      Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:29 +0100
        Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:26 -0400
          Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 21:48 +0100
            Re: kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:57 +0000
    Re: kilogram to be redefined Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-03 16:01 -0700
      Re: kilogram to be redefined yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-04 00:46 -0700
        Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 09:00 +0100
    Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:23 -0700
      Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 08:15 +0100
        Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 01:11 -0700
          Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 09:35 +0100
            Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 04:34 -0800
              Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:14 +0100
                Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 19:52 -0800
                  Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:58 +0100
                    Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:37 +0100
                    Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:33 -0800
                      Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 08:19 +0100
                    Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:44 -0800
                      Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 21:56 -0500
                      Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 07:53 +0100
      Re: kilogram to be redefined yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-04 00:36 -0700
        Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 08:51 +0100
    Re: kilogram to be redefined Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 14:41 -0600
      Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 16:33 -0500
        Re: kilogram to be redefined Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 23:38 -0600
          Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 17:33 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#711230 — kilogram to be redefined

Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
became fixed. 

In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
c. 

Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
constants. 


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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#711245

On 11/3/2018 10:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
> became fixed.
> 
> In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
> c.
> 
> Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
> constants.

Odd, this is just one more step in the destruction of Physics!
EVERYBODY is aware that relativity is utter nonsense and the speed of 
light depends upon Galilean transforms which means that the speed of 
light is determined by the speed of it's source! This much is clear 
logic! So Now when the length of a meter stick is defined by light it 
means that now length, mass, and all the other physical measurements are 
no longer fixed and are totally messed up! This is where modern physics 
insanity has led us! (Banjo will give you more details if you need it) 
You are an idiot for promoting this nonsense!

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

#711258

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/3/2018 10:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
>> became fixed.
>> 
>> In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
>> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
>> c.
>> 
>> Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
>> constants.
> 
> Odd, this is just one more step in the destruction of Physics!
> EVERYBODY 

Everybody but the body of scientists and engineers who are codifying this
measure. But they don’t count, do they?

> is aware that relativity is utter nonsense and the speed of 
> light depends upon Galilean transforms which means that the speed of 
> light is determined by the speed of it's source! This much is clear 
> logic! So Now when the length of a meter stick is defined by light it 
> means that now length, mass, and all the other physical measurements are 
> no longer fixed and are totally messed up! This is where modern physics 
> insanity has led us! (Banjo will give you more details if you need it) 
> You are an idiot for promoting this nonsense!
> 
> 



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

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

#711284

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 11/3/2018 10:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c> became fixed.> > In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of> c.> > Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical> constants.Odd, this is just one more step in the destruction of Physics!EVERYBODY is aware that relativity is utter nonsense and the speed of light depends upon Galilean transforms which means that the speed of light is determined by the speed of it's source! This much is clear logic! So Now when the length of a meter stick is defined by light it means that now length, mass, and all the other physical measurements are no longer fixed and are totally messed up! This is where modern physics insanity has led us! (Banjo will give you more details if you need it) You are an idiot for promoting this nonsense!

I imply you think you are EVERYBODY. It is an interesting deviation.

The scientific community is well aware a new kilogram definition
 is needed, for the current one being vulnerable and 
 drifting.

There is not need any other evidence 
about your scientific  credibility,
giving preference to failing common sense instead of non intuitive
 hard evidence.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#711307

On 11/3/2018 3:29 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 11/3/2018 10:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c> became fixed.> > In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of> c.> > Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical> constants.Odd, this is just one more step in the destruction of Physics!EVERYBODY is aware that relativity is utter nonsense and the speed of light depends upon Galilean transforms which means that the speed of light is determined by the speed of it's source! This much is clear logic! So Now when the length of a meter stick is defined by light it means that now length, mass, and all the other physical measurements are no longer fixed and are totally messed up! This is where modern physics insanity has led us! (Banjo will give you more details if you need it) You are an idiot for promoting this nonsense!
> 
> I imply you think you are EVERYBODY. It is an interesting deviation.

Clearly it is strange that for a postmodern Marxist you cannot read.

Why do you say something so ignorant as I think I am everybody. That is 
clearly idiotic like most of your posts. One only need read the majority 
of posts here and in sci.physics.relativity to quicly observe the 
scientific consensus on this and other important scientific topics such 
as global warming which you do accept.

> The scientific community is well aware a new kilogram definition
>   is needed, for the current one being vulnerable and
>   drifting.

So now YOU think you are the "scientific community"! Like all lefties 
you accuse everyone else of doing what you do. Cute.

> There is not need any other evidence
> about your scientific  credibility,
> giving preference to failing common sense instead of non intuitive
>   hard evidence.

Science is all about common sense. Ask anyone here. You just parrot your 
idiotic religion! But then you Warmballers all believe that whatever you 
can imagine somehow becomes reality for everyone. That's called insane.

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

#711317

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

You said everybody knows.
As it is not true in usual meaning of the word, you must mean you
 are everybody and then it would be true.
So either you are mentally ill or a liar.

>  That is clearly idiotic like most of your posts. 

That takes you on the same level as Mr. Porat.


> So now YOU think you are the "scientific community"!

You say so, not me. 
I deny I think so.


> Science is all about common sense.

Not if evidence is in contrary to common sense, what is very
 common in areas far from human experience.

As you have nothing better to say,
you as usually divert to your usual offenses.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#711321

Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> 
> You said everybody knows.

And he’s implying that “everyone” is the posting population here. Which is
still a false claim.  

> As it is not true in usual meaning of the word, you must mean you
>  are everybody and then it would be true.
> So either you are mentally ill or a liar.
> 
>> That is clearly idiotic like most of your posts. 
> 
> That takes you on the same level as Mr. Porat.
> 
> 
>> So now YOU think you are the "scientific community"!
> 
> You say so, not me. 
> I deny I think so.
> 
> 
>> Science is all about common sense.
> 
> Not if evidence is in contrary to common sense, what is very
>  common in areas far from human experience.
> 
> As you have nothing better to say,
> you as usually divert to your usual offenses.
> 



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

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

#711344

On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 7:54:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
> became fixed. 
> 
> In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
> c. 
> 
> Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
> constants. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables



Great!  Nothing uncertain or variable about Planck's constant, much less c.

Double-A

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

#711427

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 1:01:27 AM UTC+2, Double-A wrote:
> On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 7:54:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
> > became fixed. 
> > 
> > In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
> > Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
> > c. 
> > 
> > Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
> > constants. 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 
> 
> Great!  Nothing uncertain or variable about Planck's constant, much less c.
> 
> Double-A
yes
I think we can  take 
Planck constant as a basic physics constant 
is it practical*** for any evert day life ??
 I wonder
 for a carpenter that  is  building a cupboard 
it is  not relevant ...     
=============
Y.P
=================== 

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

#711429

yporat08@gmail.com Wrote in message:

> > Double-AyesI think we can  take Planck constant as a basic physics constant is it practical*** for any evert day life ?? I wonder for a carpenter that  is  building a cupboard it is  not relevant ...     =============Y.P=============

For the primary etalons/standards, there is no need to be
 practical for everyday use. It  needs to be well defined,
 constant and  reproducible.

For everyday use, the derived secondary and lower level etalons
 and standards are made, based on practical technology like a
 wooden folding metre stick s.

Even in old days of Pt-Ir  metre etalons, no carpenter used it.
Neither later defined by krypton spectrum line wavelength, neither
 current  one defined by the light speed.

Similarly for  a second since 1/86400 part of day till the current
 multiple of tge caesium spectrum line period.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#711395

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 1:24:05 AM UTC+10:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
> became fixed. 
> 
> In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
> c. 
> 
> Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
> constants. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

It is immensely interesting. Defining units dependent upon what we believe are fundamentals and or constants. It forces us to really stop and think.

To do the following comment justice one needs to think in terms of human objective and subjective experience regarding "perceived time" and or "perceived length". dependent upon relativistic effects, time dilation and or length contraction.

Ok, heres the thing
A. we take our physical meter ruler and we hold it up to measure a photons velocity. We log our result. 

B. We travel to a different location in space, near a black hole where we know Length contraction has acted upon our ruler. It has contracted our rulers length. 

C. So now we hold up our shortened ruler to measure a passing photons velocity. But the odd thing is, even though we know our ruler has shortened in length, we get the same resulting photon velocity? 

If our ruler is a variable, then how can it measure a constant as a constant?

And of course part of the answer is present within your initial post. That photon velocity is used to define the meter. They are coupled.

But, then how can you use a "constant" speed of photons to define a "variable" parameter, the meter?

If they are coupled, then both have to be constants, or both have to be variables. Right? 

We humans have to allow for what we subjectivity perceive, because we are part of the system that is being augmented by the effects of time dilation and length contraction. So we have to contrast ourselves to obtain the objective reality. Has science got subjective and objective descriptions sorted out?

Dont get me wrong, I dot question the validity of Relativity and its prescribed effects. Just questioning some of the interpretations. Interpretations are important, because thats basically our understanding of what is objectively actually occurring. So one cant be too semantic about such things.

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

#711424

Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> A. we take our physical meter ruler and we hold it up to measure a photons velocity. We log our result. B. We travel to a different location in space, near a black hole where we know Length contraction has acted upon our ruler. It has contracted our rulers length. C. So now we hold up our shortened ruler to measure a passing photons velocity. But the odd thing is, even though we know our ruler has shortened in length, we get the same resulting photon velocity? If our ruler is a variable, then how can it measure a constant as a constant?

The relativistic length contraction is just a space-time
 projection effect for moving observer. Nothing happens to
 lengths.

Nearby black holes sticks get physically dilated and broken to
 pieces by tidal force.

The length contraction is  somewhat analogical to a distant rod
 length calculated from the distance and the angle
 size.
If the rod is tilted, the  rod seems smaller than it is. Various
 observers would come with the various rod length, depending from
 where they observe it.

For meter and a nearby observer in rest wrt it, it has still the
 same lenght. And for photons, their local  speed wrt locally
 inertial frame is still c.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#711430

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 5:46:02 PM UTC+10:30, Libor Striz wrote:
> Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > A. we take our physical meter ruler and we hold it up to measure a photons velocity. We log our result. B. We travel to a different location in space, near a black hole where we know Length contraction has acted upon our ruler. It has contracted our rulers length. C. So now we hold up our shortened ruler to measure a passing photons velocity. But the odd thing is, even though we know our ruler has shortened in length, we get the same resulting photon velocity? If our ruler is a variable, then how can it measure a constant as a constant?
> 
> The relativistic length contraction is just a space-time
>  projection effect for moving observer. Nothing happens to
>  lengths.
> 
> Nearby black holes sticks get physically dilated and broken to
>  pieces by tidal force.
> 
> The length contraction is  somewhat analogical to a distant rod
>  length calculated from the distance and the angle
>  size.
> If the rod is tilted, the  rod seems smaller than it is. Various
>  observers would come with the various rod length, depending from
>  where they observe it.
> 
> For meter and a nearby observer in rest wrt it, it has still the
>  same lenght. And for photons, their local  speed wrt locally
>  inertial frame is still c.
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Hi Libor Striz

I agree with you that time dilation and length contraction are two different aspects of the one phenomena. Two sides of a same coin, so to speak. But, if gravity waves are real, then their method of detection requires that Length contraction has a physical manifestation that is measurable. Thats What LIGO's interferometer achieves. Length contraction is a real effect.

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

#711433

Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> I agree with you that time dilation and length contraction are two different aspects of the one phenomena. Two sides of a same coin, so to speak. But, if gravity waves are real, then their method of detection requires that Length contraction has a physical manifestation that is measurable. Thats What LIGO's interferometer achieves. Length contraction is a real effect.

Distinguish gravity  and gravitational waves.
The former  term is historically dedicated to  ordinary waves like
 surface waves.
The latter relates to space time waves.

But the time dilation/length contractions are measureable and
 therefore real effects.

Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders
 below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the
 mean value remains.
-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#711440

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 7:06:00 PM UTC+10:30, Libor Striz wrote:
> Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > I agree with you that time dilation and length contraction are two different aspects of the one phenomena. Two sides of a same coin, so to speak. But, if gravity waves are real, then their method of detection requires that Length contraction has a physical manifestation that is measurable. Thats What LIGO's interferometer achieves. Length contraction is a real effect.
> 
> Distinguish gravity  and gravitational waves.
> The former  term is historically dedicated to  ordinary waves like
>  surface waves.
> The latter relates to space time waves.
> 
> But the time dilation/length contractions are measureable and
>  therefore real effects.
> 
> Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders
>  below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the
>  mean value remains.
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Can you please elaborate on this? I dont take your meaning?

"Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders 
 below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the 
 mean value remains."

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

#711444

Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Can you please elaborate on this? I dont take your meaning?

"Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders 
 below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the 
 mean value remains."

What part particularly ?






-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#711583

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 11:44:24 PM UTC+10:30, Libor Striz wrote:
> Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> 
> > Can you please elaborate on this? I dont take your meaning?
> 
> "Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders 
>  below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the 
>  mean value remains."
> 
> What part particularly ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

The part where this recent statement
"Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders 
 below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the 
 mean value remains." 
"

 reaffirms your original statement
"The relativistic length contraction is just a space-time 
 projection effect for moving observer. Nothing happens to 
 lengths. "

I assume thats its purpose?

I understand that we cant trust our perception of time dilation and perceived length of objects. However, I had come to the conclusion that the problem with our perception is that it cant perceive the physical variation if we travel to different environments alongside the object we are assessing. We change uniformly as the object does, so there is no contrast to perceive. 

You have arrived at a different conclusion, that the effects of length contraction are not real, but just a product of our distorted perception, caused by time dilation. Do I have this generally correct?

Do you have a simple argument to defend this view?

I suggested that LIGO's method of detecting gravitational waves relys on Length contraction being a physical effect. Or else there would be no fluctuation in photon frequency caused by LIGO's length contracted arms. 

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

#711598

Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> The part where this recent statement "Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders  below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the  mean value remains."

He he, it is funny, I was asking what part of the above... :-)
------
> " reaffirms your original statement"The relativistic length contraction is just a space-time  projection effect for moving observer. 

Kinematic time dilation and space-time oscillations of G. waves
 are not related. The former happens even in perfectly stable flat
 spacetime. OTOH, for g waves time is not dilated.
---------
Nothing happens to  lengths. "I assume thats its purpose?I
 understand that we cant trust our perception of time dilation and
 perceived length of objects.

We know that for most cases the difference is far below the
 resolution of our measurements. Usually , measurements have to be
 specially designed not to be.

It is question of interpretation.
It can be also said the length of time duration is observer
 dependent and that the "real" values for the observer in rest wrt
 measured phenomena is just our convention.
----------
 > However, I had come to the conclusion that the problem with our
 perception is that it cant perceive the physical variation if we
 travel to different environments alongside the object we are
 assessing. 

There are no changes.
-------
> We change uniformly as the object does, so there is no contrast to perceive. 

Do you think you shrink when I start moving wrt you ?
------------

You have arrived at a different conclusion, that the effects of
 length contraction are not real, but just a product of our
 distorted perception, caused by time dilation. Do I have this
 generally correct?Do you have a simple argument to defend this
 view?

Every good textbook has arguments for that. The key is to realize
 a motion is not absolute.

_--------------------

> I suggested that LIGO's method of detecting gravitational waves relys on Length contraction being a physical effect.

No, it does not.
--------
 Or else there would be no fluctuation in photon frequency caused
 by LIGO's length contracted arms. 

As spacetime oscillates, it would  provide it without kinematic
 time  dilation.
-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#711605

Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> Wrote in message:

> The part where this recent statement "Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders  below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the  mean value remains.

This means the technical  reproducibility of a metre standard
 based on light speed and time has some small physical
 uncertainty. I.e. multiple repetitions of the procedure would
 provide some mean value and a confidential interval.

The eventual g. waves would very slightly  affect that interval,
 but not the mean value, supposing sufficient number of
 measurements is done.
But the ordinary influences like mechanical vibrations or not
 compensated thermal dilations would have much stronger
 effect.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#711792

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 4:28:07 PM UTC+10:30, Libor Striz wrote:
> Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > The part where this recent statement "Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders  below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the  mean value remains."
> 
> He he, it is funny, I was asking what part of the above... :-)
> ------
> > " reaffirms your original statement"The relativistic length contraction is just a space-time  projection effect for moving observer. 
> 
> Kinematic time dilation and space-time oscillations of G. waves
>  are not related. The former happens even in perfectly stable flat
>  spacetime. OTOH, for g waves time is not dilated.
> ---------
> Nothing happens to  lengths. "I assume thats its purpose?I
>  understand that we cant trust our perception of time dilation and
>  perceived length of objects.
> 
> We know that for most cases the difference is far below the
>  resolution of our measurements. Usually , measurements have to be
>  specially designed not to be.
> 
> It is question of interpretation.
> It can be also said the length of time duration is observer
>  dependent and that the "real" values for the observer in rest wrt
>  measured phenomena is just our convention.
> ----------
>  > However, I had come to the conclusion that the problem with our
>  perception is that it cant perceive the physical variation if we
>  travel to different environments alongside the object we are
>  assessing. 
> 
> There are no changes.
> -------
> > We change uniformly as the object does, so there is no contrast to perceive. 
> 
> Do you think you shrink when I start moving wrt you ?
> ------------
> 
> You have arrived at a different conclusion, that the effects of
>  length contraction are not real, but just a product of our
>  distorted perception, caused by time dilation. Do I have this
>  generally correct?Do you have a simple argument to defend this
>  view?
> 
> Every good textbook has arguments for that. The key is to realize
>  a motion is not absolute.
> 
> _--------------------
> 
> > I suggested that LIGO's method of detecting gravitational waves relys on Length contraction being a physical effect.
> 
> No, it does not.
> --------
>  Or else there would be no fluctuation in photon frequency caused
>  by LIGO's length contracted arms. 
> 
> As spacetime oscillates, it would  provide it without kinematic
>  time  dilation.
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/


Thank you for taking the time to reply. I think the contrast between our individual understandings would make for a good conversation if we were talking across a coffee table. But its perhaps difficult to progress within a forum context. The dialog just doesnt flow as efficiently here. 

There are too many points to cover, but I'll mention this one. Youre suggestion that 
"Kinematic time dilation and space-time oscillations of G. waves 
 are not related."

Thats more or less the same as saying "inertial mass and gravitational mass are not related" Although the evidence suggests there is a relation which science hasn't grasped yet. 

Your comment
"Every good textbook has arguments for that. The key is to realize 
 a motion is not absolute. "

Ok, so this regards whether or not there are preferred reference frames. And without a preferred reference frame nobody can decide who is and who isnt moving. SR rejects a preferred reference frame and suffers the paradox that "your clock is running slower than my clock, while my clock is running slower than your clock". For all practical purposes a gravitating body services all the attributes of being   a preferred reference frame, and so this is what I have come to adopt. This more or less mashes SR and GR into a single construct, in a manor of speaking.

My reasoning are much more detailed than this, but its just too much work to explain it. 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web