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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427876

Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing!

Show all headers | View raw

Ned Latham wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> You are arguing out of your ignorance of what has been observed.
> 
> Bullshit. You are pretending that interpretations are observations.

No, we *know* that there are elementary particles that have the same 
properties as electrons except slightly greater mass, that we call “mu 
leptons”, or “muons” for short.  We know *precisely* how they interact, how 
they decay, and we can measure the decay products.  So we *can* *measure* 
muons.  You could have known that had you bothered to read what I referred 
to:

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muonex.html#c2>

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/lepton.html#c3>
 
See also:

<http://pdg.lbl.gov/2017/tables/contents_tables.html>

<http://home.cern/about/how-detector-works>
<http://cms.cern/detector/detecting-muons>

> No. What you *interpret* as consistency.

What a nonsense.
 
>> If the basic principle of relativity holds,
> 
> Which basic principle of relativity would that be,

There are different ways to formulate it.  For example:

A) The laws of mechanics are the same in every inertial reference frame.

B) There is no preferred inertial reference frame.

(That you do not even know *that* is evidence that you have no idea what you 
are talking about.)

> Pointy Head.?

That is neither my name nor my nickname.  Your childish attempts at 
insulting me are pointless and ridiculous.
 
>> and that it holds has been confirmed since Galilei,
> 
> Oh? So you're talkin g about Galilean relativity, are you?

Of course.  The special principle of relativity as stated by Einstein in 
1905 is but an extension of the Galilean (“basic”) principle of relativity:

It states that not only the laws of mechanics, but *all* laws of physics, 
including Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics, are the same in every inertial 
reference frame. (postulate #1)

It additionally raises the thesis of Maxwell’s electrodynamics, supported by 
prior observations, that the speed of light c is the same for all observers 
(in all reference frames), and therefore does not depend on the motion of 
the light medium relative to the observer – c = 1∕√(ε₀ µ₀ ε_r µ_r); ε₀, µ₀, 
ε_r, µ_r are constants, so must be c –, to a principle (principle of light 
constancy). (postulate #2)

From that follow the *observed* special-relativistic effects: relativity of 
simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction; and the *observed* 
effects that follow from that (like the unexpected outcome of the Fizeau 
experiment about 50 years earlier, and the Michelson–Morley experiment about 
15 years earlier).  And they are ultimately succinctly expressed in and 
predicted by the Lorentz transformation (which Lorentz, about 10 years 
earlier, thought were just a mathematical trick to explain observations).

> Real physics as opposed to that fantasy of Einstein's?

Both are real physics, but it turns out that the older, Galilean 
transformation is only an approximation of what really happens, and what can 
be calculated with the Lorentz transformation, for relative speeds that are 
much less than the speed of light.  This is unsurprising as in the about 
300 years since the Galilean transformation had been devised, measurement 
accurancy had increased, and is still increasing, dramatically.

These are the Lorentz transformation equations for a frame S' that is moving 
at speed v relative to a frame S along an axis (unprimed coordinates are 
measured in S, primed coordinates are measured in S'):

  x = γ (x' + v t)

  t = γ (t' + v∕c² x')

where

  γ = 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²)

These are the Galilean transformation equations for the same case 
(parentheses kept intentionally):

  x =   (x' + v t)

  t =   (t')

It is rather easy to see that as v approaches zero, i.e. becomes small 
compared to the speed of light c, γ approaches 1, and the Lorentz 
transformation equations approach the Galilean transformation equations, and 
are equivalent to them if v = 0 (at relative rest).

From the Lorentz transformation also follows that speeds do not simply add.  
For a relative speed u' = dx'∕dt' of a frame T measured in a frame S' moving 
at speed v = dx∕dt relative to a frame S along an axis, the measured 
relative speed u of T in frame S is

  u(v, u') = (v + u')∕(1 + v u'∕c²).

Again, one can easily see that if v and u' are small compared to the speed 
of light c, the relativistic composition of speeds reduces to the Galilean 
addition of speeds:

    lim    (v + u')∕(1 + v u'∕c²) = v + u'.
  v u' → 0

That is, the addition of speeds is a good approximation for the actual, 
relativistic composition of speeds for speeds that are small compared to the 
speed of light.  One can also see from that why speeds that are faster than 
the speed of light have not been observed: even

  u(v = c, u' = c) = (c + c)∕(1 + c²∕c²) = (2 c)∕2 = c.

And it has been experimentally confirmed numerous times that the Lorentz 
transformation, _not_ the Galilean transformation, is in accordance with 
what is being measured, for *any* relative speeds.

Therefore, to say that special (or general) relativity is “a fantasy” is  
outright ridiculous.  But so say the utterly ignorant – those who do not 
know and do not want to know.  Like you.

Probably because even this simple arithmetic (if the speed of light is the 
same in every reference frame, then clocks in the moving frame cannot be 
observed to be synchronized as one clock is moving *away* from one light 
pulse and one is moving *towards* the other pulse) and geometry (application 
of the Pythagorean theorem shows time dilation) just goes well over their 
head.  
 
>> In this case, the number of atmospheric muons that are *measured*
>> (or whose predicted effects are measured - that does not make any
>> difference) to reach the surface of Earth.
> 
> You're a moron: the effects detected at the ground are assumed
> to be the effects of the very same phenomena as those detected
> at altitude.

Yes, of course.  There is no good reason to assume that the laws of physics
are different in any part of Earth than in another.  In fact, all 
observations so far – and there have been billions, if that is even enough – 
show that they are the *same* *everywhere* in the observable universe.  And, 
more practical, every technology of modern Terran civilization, including 
the computer that you are abusing to insult people, depends on that.

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html#c5>
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 03:07 -0700
  Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Npierre Imaux <tr@ieewerr.cp> - 2017-08-03 10:51 +0000
    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:33 -0700
      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-03 19:53 +0000
        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:22 -0700
  Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 06:08 -0700
    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:33 -0700
      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Vliert Snijders <ouwi@leolaph.wo> - 2017-08-06 09:48 +0000
        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-06 18:48 +0200
          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-06 22:26 +0000
          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-06 21:20 -0500
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-08-07 09:24 +0200
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 00:52 -0700
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-08-07 15:27 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-07 07:08 -0700
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:44 +0000
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 05:05 -0500
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-07 10:26 +0200
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:54 +0000
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 05:14 -0500
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-09 12:40 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 07:32 -0500
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-09 17:03 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-10 01:02 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 16:49 -0500
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-10 01:10 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-09 23:15 +0000
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-10 01:36 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 01:39 -0700
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-10 03:46 -0500
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-10 03:31 -0500
          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 23:27 -0700
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:35 +0000
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 07:55 -0700
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 05:21 -0500
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:17 -0700
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 10:36 -0700
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 16:52 -0500
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:28 -0700
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-10 03:50 -0500
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-09 05:17 -0500
  Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:26 -0700
  Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-03 12:06 -0700
    Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 12:51 -0700
      Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-08-06 11:57 +0200
        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-06 10:59 +0000
        Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 15:54 -0700
          Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-08-07 20:18 +0200
            Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 11:48 -0700
              Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-08-08 22:46 +0200
                Re: In 1905 Einstein Deduced ... Nothing! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 13:50 -0700

csiph-web