Some troubling assumptions of SR

Lester Zick says...

Furthermore I once again have occasion to note that you just omit many
of my comments, justifications, and explanations without any response
or even any acknowledgment as if they were never there. This is
unacceptable in science and the search for truth when the whole
problem is that you characterize what I say as wrong and the product
of confusion and misunderstanding on my part.

Lester, you lack all the basics in understanding physics. It doesn't
make any sense for me to go through each and every one of your comments
and explain what's wrong with them. What's a much more efficient use of
everyone's time is for you to take some introductory course in physics.
I would gladly go through it with you online.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:02:10 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:57:09 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Can you give some evidence for this? I haven't seen any such evidence on
sci.math.

Meanwhile you have your evidence :-)

Are you just saying that he is trying to be provocative or do you also
think that he really knows when he says something incorrect?

Since DvdM appears to have nothing further specific to add please
allow me to put in my two cents worth.

As I recollect most recently on this current thread DvdM lectured on
the commonly held opinion that "time is what a clock measures" and I
had the temerity to ask what a clock was?

Even a retard knows what a clock is :-)

Unfortunately you don't. Says more for retards than you.

~v~~

On 13 Feb 2007 12:37:02 -0800, (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

Lester Zick says...

And I still have no idea what you're talking about with "rotation".

Okay, I see that you lack certain prerequisites for discussing
physics. You don't know what a rotation is? Do you know what a
coordinate system is?

Is it what rotates?

~v~~

On 13 Feb 2007 12:39:55 -0800, (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

Lester Zick says...

Furthermore I once again have occasion to note that you just omit many
of my comments, justifications, and explanations without any response
or even any acknowledgment as if they were never there. This is
unacceptable in science and the search for truth when the whole
problem is that you characterize what I say as wrong and the product
of confusion and misunderstanding on my part.

Lester, you lack all the basics in understanding physics.

I know. It's the bane of my existence. Fortunately I know more than
you.

It doesn't
make any sense for me to go through each and every one of your comments
and explain what's wrong with them.

Of course not. Especially when you can't.

What's a much more efficient use of
everyone's time is for you to take some introductory course in physics.
I would gladly go through it with you online.

You mean like rotating coordinate systems, Daryl? Is that anything
like playing dodgeball with questions? Oh goodie. I can hardly wait.

~v~~

On 13 Feb 2007 10:09:03 -0800, (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

Lester Zick says...
(Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Lester Zick says...
(Daryl McCullough) wrote:

As I understand the phrase "reference frame", it doesn't make
sense to ask whether an object is *in* a reference frame, it only
makes sense to ask whether an object is *at rest* relative to a
reference frame.

A distinction without a difference as far as I can tell.

Then please use my terminology, if it doesn't make any
difference to you.

I didn't say it makes no difference to me.

Then why did you call it a "distinction without a difference"?

Because it's a distinction without a difference to you not to me.

Fact is that your usage is longer and leaves the impression that an
object can be "not at rest" in a frame of reference.

And that impression is the correct impression. If I specify a
reference frame F, then some objects are at rest in that frame,
and some are not.

Then in SR they're in different reference frames.

Every object has its own characteristic frame
of reference determined by its velocity and certain characteristics
and properties in SR determined by that velocity. And one of those
characteristics is a second order velocity dependent contraction as a
function of 1-vv/cc needed to explain the isotropically constant c
postulated by Einstein.

No, that's not true. 3-space velocity is a relationship between
*two* reference frames. It is not a property of any single reference
frame.

Good. That's undoubtedly why Einstein proposed his postulate for each
and every reference frame and relied on it to explain the failure of
relative motion studies such as MM in its own frame of reference
because such a thing as his postulate is not a property of any single
reference frame.

1. The distance between two events, as measured in one frame,
is different from the distance between the same events, as measured
in another frame.

What "distance between"? Events can be interstitial and overlap one
another.

In the terminology of Special Relativity, an "event" is a *point*
in spacetime. In a given coordinate system, an event is characterized
by 4 values: x,y,z, and t.

So now we whiz off into spacetime to explain what Einstein explained
simply with anisometric contraction? So a "distance" between "events"
is a measure of how far we whiz?

Nor do I understand exactly what you mean by "events" and
"distance between" since "events" are presumably temporal in nature
and "distance" a metric.

Then you need to back up and actually learn Special Relativity.

Well it might help if you could explain what you're talking about
first. I mean if you could just explain how it is Einstein explained
how his postulate of an isotropically constant relative c was to be
explained in the context of FLT for single frames of reference? I mean
let's begin with the simplest single frame of reference first and then
progress to more complicated problems.

~v~~

"Lester Zick" wrote in message ...
On 13 Feb 2007 12:39:55 -0800, (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

Lester Zick says...

Furthermore I once again have occasion to note that you just omit many
of my comments, justifications, and explanations without any response
or even any acknowledgment as if they were never there. This is
unacceptable in science and the search for truth when the whole
problem is that you characterize what I say as wrong and the product
of confusion and misunderstanding on my part.

Lester, you lack all the basics in understanding physics.

I know. It's the bane of my existence. Fortunately I know more than
you.

It doesn't
make any sense for me to go through each and every one of your comments
and explain what's wrong with them.

Of course not. Especially when you can't.

What's a much more efficient use of
everyone's time is for you to take some introductory course in physics.
I would gladly go through it with you online.

You mean like rotating coordinate systems, Daryl? Is that anything
like playing dodgeball with questions? Oh goodie. I can hardly wait.

Daryl, still not convinced that you're dealing with a troll?
Sorry - couldn't resist :-)

Dirk Vdm

Lester Zick wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 10:09:03 -0800, (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:
Lester Zick says...

Nor do I understand exactly what you mean by "events" and
"distance between" since "events" are presumably temporal in nature
and "distance" a metric.

Then you need to back up and actually learn Special Relativity.

Well it might help if you could explain what you're talking about
first. I mean if you could just explain how it is Einstein explained
how his postulate of an isotropically constant relative c was to be
explained in the context of FLT for single frames of reference? I mean
let's begin with the simplest single frame of reference first and then
progress to more complicated problems.

Care to give an example of a "FTL for a single frame of reference"?

--
David Marcus

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:24:47 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Can you give some evidence for this? I haven't seen any such evidence on
sci.math.

Meanwhile you have your evidence :-)

Are you just saying that he is trying to be provocative or do you also
think that he really knows when he says something incorrect?

Both, of course.
Just sit back and watch...

I'm watching, but so far he seems to actually be confused. But, I'll
keep watching...

Please do. And while you're keeping watch allow me to comment on a
point you raised about a week ago concerning the greater convenience
modern mathematikers find in associating points with real numbers.

The point is that one can associate points with rationals and one can
associate points with irrationals such as the square root of 2, 3 etc.
through right angle rac construction However one cannot just associate
points with transcendentals such as pi etc. whether convenient or not
at least if the point of the association is codelineation with points
associated with rationals and irrationals because points associated
with transcendentals lie on curves and not straight lines like those
modern mathematikers find more convenient to point out rationals and
irrationals on.Of course I seem to actually be confused. Who wouldn't?

~v~~

On Feb 13, 4:37 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 10:09:03 -0800, (Daryl





McCullough) wrote:
Lester Zick says...
(Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Lester Zick says...
(Daryl McCullough) wrote:

As I understand the phrase "reference frame", it doesn't make
sense to ask whether an object is *in* a reference frame, it only
makes sense to ask whether an object is *at rest* relative to a
reference frame.

A distinction without a difference as far as I can tell.

Then please use my terminology, if it doesn't make any
difference to you.

I didn't say it makes no difference to me.

Then why did you call it a "distinction without a difference"?

Because it's a distinction without a difference to you not to me.

Fact is that your usage is longer and leaves the impression that an
object can be "not at rest" in a frame of reference.

And that impression is the correct impression. If I specify a
reference frame F, then some objects are at rest in that frame,
and some are not.

Then in SR they're in different reference frames.

No, sir, that is incorrect. Suppose you have objects A, B, and C and
they are all in motion relative to each other. Object A shines a
light.

Now, there is a reference frame F1 in which A is measured to have
velocity 0 m/s, B is measured to have velocity 38 m/s toward the
right, and C is measured to have velocity 15 m/s toward the left. In
this frame of reference, the light traveling from A travels with speed
299792458 m/s.

There is a reference frame F2 in which A is measured to have velocity
12 m/s toward the right, B is measured to have velocity 50 m/s toward
the right, and C is measured to have velocity 3 m/s toward the left.
In this frame of reference, the light traveling from A travels with
speed 299792458 m/s.

There is a reference frame F3 in which A is measured to have velocity
38 m/s toward the left, B is measured to have velocity 0 m/s, and C is
measured to have velocity 53 m/s toward the left. In this frame of
reference, the light traveling from A travels with speed 299792458 m/
s.

There is a reference frame F4 in which A is measured to have velocity
15 m/s toward the right, B is measured to have velocity 53 m/s toward
the right, and C is measured to have velocity 0 m/s. In this frame of
reference, the light traveling from A travels with speed 299792458 m/
s.
(In all of these cases, the precision of the velocity measurement is
no better than 0.1 m/s.)

Frames F1, F2, F3, and F4 are all inertial reference frames and are
equivalent in terms of the physics, and you'll note all the objects A,
B, and C live in all three reference frames.

You have it in your head that A lives only in F1, B lives only in F3,
and C lives only in F4, and none of the objects live in F2. I don't
know where you got that idea.

Regardless whether that is YOUR notion of a frame of reference, it is
certainly NOT the case that it is SR's notion of a frame of reference.

PD


Every object has its own characteristic frame
of reference determined by its velocity and certain characteristics
and properties in SR determined by that velocity. And one of those
characteristics is a second order velocity dependent contraction as a
function of 1-vv/cc needed to explain the isotropically constant c
postulated by Einstein.

No, that's not true. 3-space velocity is a relationship between
*two* reference frames. It is not a property of any single reference
frame.

Good. That's undoubtedly why Einstein proposed his postulate for each
and every reference frame and relied on it to explain the failure of
relative motion studies such as MM in its own frame of reference
because such a thing as his postulate is not a property of any single
reference frame.

1. The distance between two events, as measured in one frame,
is different from the distance between the same events, as measured
in another frame.

What "distance between"? Events can be interstitial and overlap one
another.

In the terminology of Special Relativity, an "event" is a *point*
in spacetime. In a given coordinate system, an event is characterized
by 4 values: x,y,z, and t.

So now we whiz off into spacetime to explain what Einstein explained
simply with anisometric contraction? So a "distance" between "events"
is a measure of how far we whiz?

Nor do I understand exactly what you mean by "events" and
"distance between" since "events" are presumably temporal in nature
and "distance" a metric.

Then you need to back up and actually learn Special Relativity.

Well it might help if you could explain what you're talking about
first. I mean if you could just explain how it is Einstein explained
how his postulate of an isotropically constant relative c was to be
explained in the context of FLT for single frames of reference? I mean
let's begin with the simplest single frame of reference first and then
progress to more complicated problems.

~v~~- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lester Zick wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:24:47 -0500, David Marcus
wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Can you give some evidence for this? I haven't seen any such evidence on
sci.math.

Meanwhile you have your evidence :-)

Are you just saying that he is trying to be provocative or do you also
think that he really knows when he says something incorrect?

Both, of course.
Just sit back and watch...

I'm watching, but so far he seems to actually be confused. But, I'll
keep watching...

Please do. And while you're keeping watch allow me to comment on a
point you raised about a week ago concerning the greater convenience
modern mathematikers find in associating points with real numbers.

"Associating"? I don't recall saying that.

The point is that one can associate points with rationals and one can
associate points with irrationals such as the square root of 2, 3 etc.
through right angle rac construction However one cannot just associate
points with transcendentals such as pi etc. whether convenient or not
at least if the point of the association is codelineation with points
associated with rationals and irrationals because points associated
with transcendentals lie on curves and not straight lines like those
modern mathematikers find more convenient to point out rationals and
irrationals on.Of course I seem to actually be confused. Who wouldn't?

Are you saying that you are not trolling? Although, if you were, you
would probably say you weren't.

--
David Marcus