Relativity

[newts]

what are square seconds representing?

Square seconds are a feature of Newtonian mechanics, which is just a mathematical convenience and not a proper description of the universe. The fact that Newtonian mechanics deals with energy, but never includes the mass of the energy in equations, clearly illustrates this.

 

If you crash a car into a wall at 300 m/s, then you can calculate the energy released, using ½ mv², and you get an answer in kg m²/s² or joules. But you can also use the equation ½ m(v/c)², and get the energy released in units of kg, in this case half a trillionth of the mass of the car.

 

Near the speed of light these equations fail completely, and energy has to be expressed in its proper units of mass. Using ½ mv², the energy attached to an object moving at light speed, would only be half its rest mass. This is clearly nonsense, and shown in the Higgs hunting fiasco, where protons accelerated to nearly the speed of light had a mass 3500 times their rest mass, once the mass of the energy was included. Square seconds represent a mathematical device, which is not a proper description of nature.

[dmaiski]

i think you are misinterpreting some things

look up length expansion, in relation to relativity

 

the simplest way to explain things is "high energy does weird things to the normal laws of physics"

mass dose not increase as you accelerate towards C, rather the amount of energy required to change the objects vector increases

this can be described as an increase in mass, but its technically wrong

what it actually is, is "length expansion" or in simpler terms the differential between the time that the object(the one being accelerated) and the force are in

simply put from your perspective the object is travelling at 90% the speed of light

from the objects perspective its travelling and many times faster then the speed of light

 

the theory of relativity, designed to screw with your mind

[newts]

the theory of relativity, designed to screw with your mind

Why would you choose to believe in, and defend, a theory that screws your mind?

[ACG52]

Why would you choose to believe in, and defend, a theory that screws your mind?

 

Because it works astoundingly well.

[newts]

Because it works astoundingly well.

For somebody who wants to believe that the universe is mystical and mysterious, and wants to have their mind screwed, I guess it does.

Edited September 19, 2012 by newts

[ACG52]

Relativity has been experimentally confirmed numerous times and with great accuracy over the last hundred years.

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so.

[dmaiski]

i understand it... im just saying 90% of everyone else doesn’t

and it really dose make sense, and actually quite simple once you get it

you just need to get over the hurdle of length expansion(its a fiddly way to say time-space bends)

 

 

[md65536]

and it really dose make sense, and actually quite simple once you get it

 

Yes, and I think that in the future more of our daily experience will involve relativistic effects compared to now, and kids will learn about relativity when they first learn about time and distance (rather than having the first 11 years of education treating length and time as universal, as was the case for me), and eventually it will be a commonly understood thing that few rarely think about enough to question.

[swansont]

Why would you choose to believe in, and defend, a theory that screws your mind?

There is nothing that guarantees that nature will behave in a way that is understandable to us. We don't get to to make that call.

 

Relativity works. That's reason enough to "defend" it, until something better comes along.

[ACG52]

For somebody who wants to believe that the universe is mystical and mysterious, and wants to have their mind screwed, I guess it does.

 

We're talking about experimental results.

 

Now you've long implied that actual results have no meaning for you, and you keep bringing up the 'mystical and mysterious'.

All that says is that since you don't understand physics, it can't be real.

[michel123456]

Square seconds are a feature of Newtonian mechanics, which is just a mathematical convenience and not a proper description of the universe. The fact that Newtonian mechanics deals with energy, but never includes the mass of the energy in equations, clearly illustrates this.

 

If you crash a car into a wall at 300 m/s, then you can calculate the energy released, using ½ mv², and you get an answer in kg m²/s² or joules. But you can also use the equation ½ m(v/c)², and get the energy released in units of kg, in this case half a trillionth of the mass of the car.

 

Near the speed of light these equations fail completely, and energy has to be expressed in its proper units of mass. Using ½ mv², the energy attached to an object moving at light speed, would only be half its rest mass. This is clearly nonsense, and shown in the Higgs hunting fiasco, where protons accelerated to nearly the speed of light had a mass 3500 times their rest mass, once the mass of the energy was included. Square seconds represent a mathematical device, which is not a proper description of nature.

 

 

O.K.

Is there any equation around with m^4 or kg^2, or J^56 ?

[michel123456]

-----------

Enjoying the silence.

----------

[Janus]

O.K.

Is there any equation around with m^4 or kg^2, or J^56 ?

 

Well, there is the equation for finding the time for tidal locking of a satellite :

 

[math]t =

\frac{\omega a^6 IQ}{3Gm_p^2 k_2 R^5}[/math]

 

Here, a is the semi-major axis of the satellite's orbit (m^6), m_p is the mass of the planet(kg^2) and R the radius of the satellite (m^5)

[michel123456]

I'd thought that tidal locking time was profoundly unknown.

But thank you for the info, Janus.

[newts]

-----------

Enjoying the silence.

----------

I could not reply immediately, as I was sentenced to house-arrest for repeatedly hijacking threads with my pet theories. Since your thread was apparently one of those I hijacked, please accept my apologies. The problem is that now the thread has been split, if I answer your post, I could be accused of hijacking a thread about relativity with my own pet theories about units, and be burnt at the stake.

 

My post was a model-independent explanation as to why the units kg m²/s² disagree with the experimental evidence. But it drew the most religious relativity-believers out of the woodwork, incensed that I had failed to recite chapter and verse of special relativity. They then recite the physics-believer's version of the Emperor's new clothes, claiming that non-believers are all intellectually inferior to true believers, backed up by the chorus "proved by experiment". However the fact is, all I did was point out generally agreed experimental evidence. I would also remind relativity-believers, that SR is officially deigned to give the same experimental results as the Lorentz aether, so for people without their own ideas, opting for either is just a lifestyle choice.

 

One of the problems with units, is that physics formulae often do not reflect the true nature of the universe. Also, historically physicists were practical people, so then tended to choose units convenient for their own branch, rather than designing them for the benefit of rare people like yourself who want to make sense of the universe.

[michel123456]

I could not reply immediately, as I was sentenced to house-arrest for repeatedly hijacking threads with my pet theories. Since your thread was apparently one of those I hijacked, please accept my apologies. The problem is that now the thread has been split, if I answer your post, I could be accused of hijacking a thread about relativity with my own pet theories about units, and be burnt at the stake.

 

My post was a model-independent explanation as to why the units kg m²/s² disagree with the experimental evidence. But it drew the most religious relativity-believers out of the woodwork, incensed that I had failed to recite chapter and verse of special relativity. They then recite the physics-believer's version of the Emperor's new clothes, claiming that non-believers are all intellectually inferior to true believers, backed up by the chorus "proved by experiment". However the fact is, all I did was point out generally agreed experimental evidence. I would also remind relativity-believers, that SR is officially deigned to give the same experimental results as the Lorentz aether, so for people without their own ideas, opting for either is just a lifestyle choice.

 

One of the problems with units, is that physics formulae often do not reflect the true nature of the universe. Also, historically physicists were practical people, so then tended to choose units convenient for their own branch, rather than designing them for the benefit of rare people like yourself who want to make sense of the universe.

 

"rare people"

That's very disappointing.

 

--------------

I didn't notice you were sentenced for a post in this thread.

Edited October 2, 2012 by michel123456

[newts]

"rare people"

That's very disappointing.

I think humans have always wanted to believe the world is magical and mystical. With Newton and the enlightenment, it became fashionable for scientists to try to make sense of things; but now people who claim to be scientists, again want to see the universe as incomprehensible.

 

Relativity is a classic example. Lorentz tried to explain the MMX in mechanical terms, but the fantasists won the day with their god of Relativity. Relativity is primarily an experimental fact which needs to be explained; unfortunately physics-believers see it instead as a doctrine than it is sinful to question.

 

The experimental evidence clearly shows that motion is absolute not relative. If you were to fire 2 protons in opposite directions round the LHC both at ½ lightspeed; then repeat the experiment with one going at nearly lightspeed and the other barely moving, the particles produced in the 2 collisions would be very different. I am not saying that disproves SR; but that is because SR is a religious belief, hence unfalsifiable.

 

I didn't notice you were sentenced for a post in this thread.

The inference was based on the fact I was accused of being a prolific offender, despite having seldom contributed to threads other than my own, and that your thread was snipped at my post.

[uncool]

I think humans have always wanted to believe the world is magical and mystical. With Newton and the enlightenment, it became fashionable for scientists to try to make sense of things; but now people who claim to be scientists, again want to see the universe as incomprehensible.

You have been corrected on this time and again, newts. Once again, it may seem incomprehensible to you, but just because you are unable to comprehend does not make it incomprehensible to others.

Relativity is a classic example. Lorentz tried to explain the MMX in mechanical terms, but the fantasists won the day with their god of Relativity. Relativity is primarily an experimental fact which needs to be explained; unfortunately physics-believers see it instead as a doctrine than it is sinful to question.

Congratulations for misrepresenting literally everything about relativity. First, relativity does explain the Michelson Morley experiment mechanically. Second, there is no "god of Relativity". Third, many people question relativity; the problem is with people who (like you) do so baselessly and without any understanding of 1) what it is, 2) what it says, 3) how it got accepted, and 4) the scientific method.

 

Until you learn how theories become accepted, you simply will continue to joust with windmills - and the windmill will keep on turning, oblivious to the fact that you've attempted to poke it.

The experimental evidence clearly shows that motion is absolute not relative. If you were to fire 2 protons in opposite directions round the LHC both at ½ lightspeed; then repeat the experiment with one going at nearly lightspeed and the other barely moving,

A test for you. Assume that the "other" is barely moving. What percentage of lightspeed would be required for the two to be considered equivalent under SR?

 

If you know anything about SR, you should be able to answer this question.

the particles produced in the 2 collisions would be very different.

Please name the specific experiment which showed this.

I am not saying that disproves SR; but that is because SR is a religious belief, hence unfalsifiable.

I'm curious; is your belief that SR is a religious belief falsifiable?

 

Do you want me to list the specific, quantifiable predictions of special relativity, let alone general relativity?

 

The inference was based on the fact I was accused of being a prolific offender, despite having seldom contributed to threads other than my own, and that your thread was snipped at my post.

"Seldom"? You have 159 posts. Of those, 5 are in the "what is matter" thread, 4 in the "Spotting pseudoscience" thread, 8 in the "what do you think the final theory will look like" thread, 5 in this thread, 1 in "Time travel is impossible", 1 in "Is our science wrong?", and 4 in "Simple but logical expanations have legs" for a total of 28 posts outside of "your" thread where you complain about or were about to complain about quarks and relativity. Excluding the posts where you actually manage to do some physics (23), that's more than 1 in 5 on your favorite topic outside of "your" thread.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

The experimental evidence clearly shows that motion is absolute not relative. If you were to fire 2 protons in opposite directions round the LHC both at ½ lightspeed; then repeat the experiment with one going at nearly lightspeed and the other barely moving, the particles produced in the 2 collisions would be very different. I am not saying that disproves SR; but that is because SR is a religious belief, hence unfalsifiable.

How could that possibly disprove SR? SR says that velocity addition is not Newtonian. Two particles moving at 0.5c have a closing speed of 0.8c as measured by either particle. A particle moving at 0.999c and the other at rest will have a closing speed of 0.999c. IOW, SR predicts that these will not be equivalent.

 

Relativity is a classic example. Lorentz tried to explain the MMX in mechanical terms, but the fantasists won the day with their god of Relativity. Relativity is primarily an experimental fact which needs to be explained; unfortunately physics-believers see it instead as a doctrine than it is sinful to question.

Yeah, science gets all prickly with ad-hoc explanations. Also, there's all this Maxwell's equations crap that demands that c be invariant. It's not like that Electrodynamics works or anything. [/sarcasm]

[newts]

A test for you. Assume that the "other" is barely moving. What percentage of lightspeed would be required for the two to be considered equivalent under SR?

 

If you know anything about SR, you should be able to answer this question.

I know that SR is deemed to give the same results as the Lorentz aether, so to make the energies equivalent I would suggest .645. Swansont thinks .8, and is never wrong; so either I have made an error, or perhaps the two theories are not exactly equivalent?

 

Please name the specific experiment which showed this.

I just theorised using the energies of collisions; you presumably have access to proper data, so please correct me if I am wrong.

 

"Seldom"? You have 159 posts. Of those, 5 are in the "what is matter" thread, 4 in the "Spotting pseudoscience" thread, 8 in the "what do you think the final theory will look like" thread, 5 in this thread, 1 in "Time travel is impossible", 1 in "Is our science wrong?", and 4 in "Simple but logical expanations have legs" for a total of 28 posts outside of "your" thread where you complain about or were about to complain about quarks and relativity. Excluding the posts where you actually manage to do some physics (23), that's more than 1 in 5 on your favorite topic outside of "your" thread.

It is fantastic to see you finally produce some evidence, even if it is not exactly physics. The statistic I am interested in, is what fraction of your posts in the past year have been responses to me? When I get banned, will you rejoice at the demise of a heretic, or lament the loss of a sparring partner?

Edited October 10, 2012 by newts

[ACG52]

When I get banned, will you rejoice at the demise of a heretic, or lament the loss of a sparring partner?

 

Breath a sigh of relief?

[uncool]

I know that SR is deemed to give the same results as the Lorentz aether, so to make the energies equivalent I would suggest .645. Swansont thinks .8, and is never wrong; so either I have made an error, or perhaps the two theories are not exactly equivalent?

You are the one who is in error; swansont is correct.

 

Making sure the energy is equal is not what makes the situation equivalent. What makes the situation equivalent (assuming two particles in both cases, and equivalent particles) is making sure that the extractable energy is equivalent. Not all energy can be extracted from the two particles, because momentum must be preserved.There are several ways to do this; I'll demonstrate the one that swansont probably used.

 

In our first chosen frame, we have one particle moving to the right at 0.5c, and one particle moving to the left at 0.5c (both relative to this frame). We wish to change to a frame where the right-moving particle is at rest, and find the velocity of the left-moving particle. The relative velocity of the two frames is therefore 0.5c. By the velocity addition formula (which can be derived from the basics of relativity) then says that the velocity of the left-moving particle is (0.5c + 0.5c)/(1 + (0.5c*0.5c)/(c^2)) = c/(1 + .25) = 4c/5 = .8c.

 

I could have derived this from the basics of relativity; however, the velocity addition formula is already there. And yes, this is exactly what Lorentz aether theory also predicts.

 

Now, the fact that you don't even know the correct answer to this basic question should make you stop a second. Should make you think that maybe you don't know enough about special relativity to be making pronouncements on it.

 

I just theorised using the energies of collisions; you presumably have access to proper data, so please correct me if I am wrong.

You claimed "The experimental evidence clearly shows that motion is absolute not relative. If you were to fire 2 protons in opposite directions round the LHC both at ½ lightspeed; then repeat the experiment with one going at nearly lightspeed and the other barely moving, the particles produced in the 2 collisions would be very different." The implication of that statement is that the experiment had been done and the outcome had been different particles. In other words, deceptive phrasing at best.

 

If you are saying that the first sentence of that paragraph is separate from the rest, then what is your "experimental evidence [that] clearly shows that motion is absolute and not relative"?

 

It is fantastic to see you finally produce some evidence, even if it is not exactly physics.

You continue to misrepresent what has happened in other threads; plenty of evidence has been posted to support quarks. You have ignored it.

The statistic I am interested in, is what fraction of your posts in the past year have been responses to me? When I get banned, will you rejoice at the demise of a heretic, or lament the loss of a sparring partner?

Neither. Heretic implies religion. Sparring partner implies some kind of equivalence. Neither are true. At best, I'd feel bad that you had rejected yet another chance to understand anything of what science is about.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

I know that SR is deemed to give the same results as the Lorentz aether, so to make the energies equivalent I would suggest .645. Swansont thinks .8, and is never wrong; so either I have made an error, or perhaps the two theories are not exactly equivalent?

As uncool also points out, my calculation was not for the energy, it was for the relative speeds, which I clearly stated.

[md65536]

If you know anything about SR, you should be able to answer this question.

So the velocity composition formula is the very first thing one typically knows about SR?

Did you really mean to emphasize the word anything? Perhaps it was a mistype of "quite a bit"?

[uncool]

So the velocity composition formula is the very first thing one typically knows about SR?

Did you really mean to emphasize the word anything? Perhaps it was a mistype of "quite a bit"?

The velocity composition formula is relatively simply derivable from the transformations, which should be the first thing one knows about SR after the postulates. So yes, I put in a bit of hyperbole, but no, "quite a bit" would not be the appropriate phrase there.

=Uncool-