MMx math
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What molecular arrangment leads to transperency?
Next: Vibrating in time and probability of particle location
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 20 Jul 2010 14:20 In my prior thread "How can the MMx math be corrected?" On May 19, 9:42 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> Why not just say that different observer's get different "lengths" >> for a "moving" rod because their absolutely asynchronous clocks >> cannot pin down or locate the rod's end points truly simultaneously? > We don't say that, because it is just plain wrong. A rather ambiguous reply, but I assume that you are claiming that inertial observers *can* locate a passing rod's endpoints truly or absolutely simultaneously. Would you mind telling us how this is done? ~RA~
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 18:56 On Jul 21, 4:20 am, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > In my prior thread "How can the MMx math be corrected?" > On May 19, 9:42 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > > >> Why not just say that different observer's get different "lengths" > >> for a "moving" rod because their absolutely asynchronous clocks absolutely *A*synchronous? What a useless notion. > >> cannot pin down or locate the rod's end points truly simultaneously? There is no "truly" (ie not frame dependent) simultaneity > > We don't say that, because it is just plain wrong. > > A rather ambiguous reply, It seemed very clear to me. You were just plain wrong. > but I assume that you are claiming that > inertial observers *can* locate a passing rod's endpoints Yes they can .. using their synchronised clocks > truly or > absolutely simultaneously. There is no true absolute simultaneity. > Would you mind telling us how this is > done? It isn't .. because there is no true absolute simultaneity
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Jul 2010 21:49 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > In my prior thread "How can the MMx math be corrected?" > On May 19, 9:42 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >>> Why not just say that different observer's get different "lengths" >>> for a "moving" rod because their absolutely asynchronous clocks >>> cannot pin down or locate the rod's end points truly simultaneously? > >> We don't say that, because it is just plain wrong. > > A rather ambiguous reply, but I assume that you are claiming that > inertial observers *can* locate a passing rod's endpoints truly or > absolutely simultaneously. Would you mind telling us how this is > done? Since you omitted the context, I cannot definitively point to my discussion. But in that post you quoted, or in its context, I surely mentioned that I was discussing SR. In SR your claims are indeed just plain wrong. Since you obviously do not understand SR, your "assumption" about what I meant is also just plain wrong. For instance, in SR an inertial observer can indeed "pin down or locate the rod's end points truly simultaneously". This is of course also true in the world we inhabit. "Being simultaneous" depends on which frame is used, which is why it has no aspect of being "absolute". But an observer can indeed determine whether two events are "truly simultaneous" in her frame; we do it all the time in our everyday lives, and metrologists do it all the time with vastly better accuracy (they call it synchronizing clocks). Indeed, without any definition of "absolute synchronization" your statement is meaningless (of course you really need to make a definitive statement, not that word salad above). If you try to state such a definition, be sure it actually corresponds to the world we inhabit. Note that zillions of measurements show that is not possible. Tom Roberts
From: blackhead on 21 Jul 2010 09:36 On 20 July, 19:20, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > In my prior thread "How can the MMx math be corrected?" > On May 19, 9:42 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > > >> Why not just say that different observer's get different "lengths" > >> for a "moving" rod because their absolutely asynchronous clocks > >> cannot pin down or locate the rod's end points truly simultaneously? > > We don't say that, because it is just plain wrong. > > A rather ambiguous reply, but I assume that you are claiming that > inertial observers *can* locate a passing rod's endpoints truly or > absolutely simultaneously. Would you mind telling us how this is > done? > > ~RA~ Why the obsession with an experiment from 1887, when it's 2010? Seriously, save yourself time by picking a few modern experiments from: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html You should be able to get the papers from your local library. The MMX is open to all sorts of interpretations depending on what theory you want to promote and you could spend years, if not a lifetime stuck with the mindset of someone in the late 1800s, early 1900s.
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 26 Jul 2010 14:03
[Tom's "out-of-context" complaint is silly - the prior thread was fully cited] On Jul 20, 9:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Indeed, without any definition of "absolute synchronization" your > statement is meaningless (of course you really need to make a definitive > statement, not that word salad above). If you try to state such a > definition, be sure it actually corresponds to the world we inhabit. > Note that zillions of measurements show that is not possible. First of all, no definition of absolute synchronization is needed in this case; second, I do have such a definition, and it definitely "corresponds to the world we inhabit"; third, since, as you should well know, it is not possible to prove a negative, *no* experiment, much less zillions of them, can "show that it is not possible." > "Being simultaneous" depends on which frame is used, which is > why it has no aspect of being "absolute". So we agree that SR does not have absolute simultaneity or synchronization. Can we now agree that a correct measurement of the length of a passing rod requires absolute synchronization? ~RA~ |