Cinci claims direction doesn't matter. I guess it doesn't matter in his universe. It matters when considering the Doppler shift. It matters when doing the train gedankin.

Nobody seems to have noticed that if the measurement from the platform to the train is started at the back of the train, or the rear mark on the platform, the outcome of the logic is that the train is longer. Not shorter. Do it. Do the logic.

Spank me if I'm wrong.

If I am right, I expect you to bow down and worship me.

Curt, Actually direction does matter, and if Cincirob says it doesnt then he is confused. The Lorentz transforms only work for the positive direction. Motion as defined in the books. If you go the other way you get a different result. Cincirob relies on the textbooks and simply repeats what they say without any understanding of the issues involved. He doesnt undertand the physics and he doesnt understand the math involved. He just cites contradiction and thinks that is an argument.

We discussed this problem on the phone. If you go in the negative direction you get a dilation of distance and not a contraction. This is because the relativity theory only works in one direction of motion. Actually there is no contraction at all. Experiments have never detected a length contraction. The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment is claimed by relativists to refute the evidence for length contraction.

Curt: Cinci claims direction doesn't matter. I guess it doesn't matter in his universe. It matters when considering the Doppler shift. It matters when doing the train gedankin.

cinci: I said it didnt matter in terms of length contraction. The equation is

L = Lo(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5.

Plug +v or -v into it and tell me the difference.
***************************

Curt: Nobody seems to have noticed that if the measurement from the platform to the train is started at the back of the train, or the rear mark on the platform, the outcome of the logic is that the train is longer. Not shorter. Do it. Do the logic.

cinci: How about you doing the logic or at least give me a complete description of what you 're talking about. My discussion didn't have anything to do with trains. Again, show me the math. I showed you mine, it's your turn.
**********************

Curt: Spank me if I'm wrong.

cinci: I pass. You're too anxious.
*************************

Curt: If I am right, I expect you to bow down and worship me.

cinci: I knew it, a god-complex.
**********************

Harry: Curt, Actually direction does matter, and if Cincirob says it doesnt then he is confused. The Lorentz transforms only work for the positive direction. Motion as defined in the books. If you go the other way you get a different result. Cincirob relies on the textbooks and simply repeats what they say without any understanding of the issues involved. He doesnt undertand the physics and he doesnt understand the math involved. He just cites contradiction and thinks that is an argument.

cinci: Lorentz transformations only work in the positive direction? Even AAF won't agree with this. Why don't you enlighten us by deriving the negative Lorentz transformations. (Hint: Just substitute (-v) for (v) in the "positive" Lorentz transformations.) The derive the length contraction formula from your "negative" transformations.
***************************

Harry: We discussed this problem on the phone. If you go in the negative direction you get a dilation of distance and not a contraction.

cinci: So if the guy in the train station turns and looks the other way, the train gets longer instead of shorter? That would be awesome indeed.
*************************

Harry: This is because the relativity theory only works in one direction of motion. Actually there is no contraction at all.

cinci: So now the train doesn't get longer or shorter no matter which way it goes? You know, you have now taken all three possiblilities, longer shorter and no change. You're going to be right 33% of the time I guess, but you're a little hard to follow.
*********************************

Harry: Experiments have never detected a length contraction.

cinci: Well yes, so far we haven't been able to accelerate an object to speed high enough that you could hold up your yard stick and make a direct measurement. But you can't explain the Michelson-Morely experiment any other way.
*********************

Harry: The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment is claimed by relativists to refute the evidence for length contraction.

cinci: Really? Relativists claim this? Care to cite a reference for this astounding news?
********************************

Cinci, If you didnt know this about the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment then heaven help you. Where have you been all these years. When you attack others you should get YOUR FACTS CORRECT. The entire point of that experiment was to demonstrate there was no Lorentz contraction effect. Read the textbooks!!! Come back when you are knowledgable on the subject you are discussing. See you in ten years, you have a lot to learn.

Obviously you haven't done it. Doesn't take much math. Just logic. Maybe you can only do math, not logic?

Just start at the back of the train instead of the front. I could hold your hand, but I'm not that kind of guy.

Anon: Cinci, If you didnt know this about the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment then heaven help you. Where have you been all these years. When you attack others you should get YOUR FACTS CORRECT. The entire point of that experiment was to demonstrate there was no Lorentz contraction effect. Read the textbooks!!! Come back when you are knowledgable on the subject you are discussing. See you in ten years, you have a lot to learn.

cinci: Pardon me sport, but here's what I read at this site: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Kennedy-Thorndike

"R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, “Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time”, Phys. Rev. 42 400–418 (1932).

This uses an interferometer similar to Michelson's, except that its arms are of different length, and are not at right angles to each other. They used a spectacular technique to keep the apparatus temperature constant to 0.001°C, which gave them sufficient stability to permit observations during several seasons. They also used photographs of their fringes (rather than observing them in real time as in most other interferometer experiments). Their apparatus was fixed to the Earth and could only rotate with it. Their null result is consistent with SR."

Notice, the subject of the experiment, the "Relativity of Time". I don't think it has much to say about length contraction. And I have modern text books none of which deny the contraction effect. Now maybe teh K-T may be saying that Lorentz's idea that aether causes the contraction is wrong, but no relativist that I know of is denying the contraction effect.

So give me something beyond your ideas, I ain't buying it on just your say so. I'll give you 10 years to get back to me.
********************************************************************

Curt: Obviously you haven't done it.

cinci: Haven't done what? Ther are train gedanken experiments for simultaneity, length contraction and time dilation. All I asked you to do was clue me in to whatever you're talking about but I guess you can't do that.
************************

Curt: Doesn't take much math. Just logic. Maybe you can only do math, not logic?

Just start at the back of the train instead of the front. I could hold your hand, but I'm not that kind of guy.

cinci: If it doesn't take much math then derive the length contraction going forward and then derive it going backwards and prove your point. Why is it antirelativists know how all these things work out but none of them are willing to show it? Are you trying to keep it a secret?
***********************************

Direction makes a difference in the Doppler shift, right? Wave length is a distance right? The wave length distance is shorter approaching, right? The wave length distance is longer receding, right? What is the formula for this?

. . . Next?

Curt: Direction makes a difference in the Doppler shift, right? Wave length is a distance right? The wave length distance is shorter approaching, right? The wave length distance is longer receding, right? What is the formula for this?

. . . Next?

cinci: Next is that it makes a difference in where you wind up, but it doesn't make any difference to length contraction and clock rate.


...........Next?
**************

Where Do You wind up? Most modern robots run on batteries or solar power.

EMR of a definite wave length is emitted. It is received at the same wave length. The radiation has the image of a ruler encoded within it. The received image of the ruler, when adjusted for perspective, appears to be the same length.

Now the same transmitted wave length is received as a shorter wavelength. (blueshifted) The ruler appears shorter when adjusted for perspective.

Yet. now, the same transmitted wavelength is received as a longer wavelength. (redshifted) Now the ruler appears longer when adjusted for perspective.

The same happens with frequency and the apparent duration of events.

I suppose this is beyond your comprehension.

Curt: Where Do You wind up? Most modern robots run on batteries or solar power.

EMR of a definite wave length is emitted. It is received at the same wave length. The radiation has the image of a ruler encoded within it. The received image of the ruler, when adjusted for perspective, appears to be the same length.

Now the same transmitted wave length is received as a shorter wavelength. (blueshifted) The ruler appears shorter when adjusted for perspective.

Yet. now, the same transmitted wavelength is received as a longer wavelength. (redshifted) Now the ruler appears longer when adjusted for perspective.

The same happens with frequency and the apparent duration of events.

I suppose this is beyond your comprehension.

cinci: If you're saying that Doppler shift casues objects to be shorter or longer, then yes, it's beyond my comprehension. Will this phenomenon expalin why the mass of a relativley moving object is more than it is at rest?
**********************************

Cinci asks: Will this phenomenon explain why the mass of a relatively moving object is more than it is at rest?

The mass increase is directional too, isn't it? Can the mass increase be measured without stopping the mass? Isn't the mass increase a lot like momentum? One could measure approaching mass. What procedure measures receding mass? Does the gravity field increase along with the mass increase? If it did, wouldn't the Doppler shift be biased in the redshift direction? What does your formula compute for this?

d

dd

Cinci asks: Will this phenomenon explain why the mass of a relatively moving object is more than it is at rest?

Curt: The mass increase is directional too, isn't it?

cinci: No.
*********************

Curt: Can the mass increase be measured without stopping the mass?

cinci: Of course. The most comon way is to deflect a beam of charged particles. Their mass can be easily deduced. This has to be done to properly control particles in a circular accelerator.
*****************

Curt: Isn't the mass increase a lot like momentum?

cinci: Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. In that respect they are related.
*****************************************

Curt: One could measure approaching mass.

cinci: Direction doesn't make any difference.
*********************

Curt: What procedure measures receding mass?

cinci: See above for the precedure but approaching and receding make no difference.
***********************

Curt: Does the gravity field increase along with the mass increase?

cinci: Yes.
***************************

Curt: If it did, wouldn't the Doppler shift be biased in the redshift direction?

cinci: The mass of anything you could reasonable accelerate wouldn't produce a sufficient gravity field to make much of a Doppler shift.
*****************

Curt: What does your formula compute for this?

cinci: I dont' have a formula for this.
*********************

Cinci said: The mass of anything you could reasonable(sic) accelerate wouldn't produce a sufficient gravity field to make much of a Doppler shift.

Curt asks: As an object approaches the speed of light it's mass approaches infinity. What part of infinity don't you understand. If mass goes to infinity, wouldn't gravity go there also? Wouldn't the electron, or proton, as it is accelerated, become a black hole? How come they don't? How come the guys at CERN aren't worried? Don't they believe their own stuff?

Cinci said: The mass of anything you could reasonable(sic) accelerate wouldn't produce a sufficient gravity field to make much of a Doppler shift.

Curt asks: As an object approaches the speed of light it's mass approaches infinity. What part of infinity don't you understand. If mass goes to infinity, wouldn't gravity go there also? Wouldn't the electron, or proton, as it is accelerated, become a black hole? How come they don't? How come the guys at CERN aren't worried? Don't they believe their own stuff?

cinci: Come on Curt, is this the best you have? Yes, I believe their stuff but acclerating anything to the point that its mass approaches infinity, means that you wuld have to supply infinite energy. do you realy think somebody has access to infinite energy.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider you can find this statmement:

"At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7,500 and move at about 99.999999% of the speed of light."

The rest mass of a proton is 1.672 X 10^-27 kg so 7500 times that would be a magnificient

1.254 X 10^-23 kg.

I'll guess we'll feel the gravitational tug of that proton all the way over here in Ohio, don't you?

Do you guys ever think about anything you post before you post it?
************************************

Naw, we just type stuff in to see if you're going to fall for it.

So anyhow, the guys at CERN can accelerate just one proton at a time around the 80 gazillion peso LHC. Damn, that's pretty amazing. How do they find that one little bugger to see what it'll do next? I betcha they scoot a whole batch of 'em at once. Then, shouldn't they fall in love with each other, seeing how massive each one of 'em is?

Curt asks: As an object approaches the speed of light it's mass approaches infinity. What part of infinity don't you understand. If mass goes to infinity, wouldn't gravity go there also? Wouldn't the electron, or proton, as it is accelerated, become a black hole? How come they don't? How come the guys at CERN aren't worried? Don't they believe their own stuff?

That's right Curt as mass approaches C its mass increases toward infinity as does its gravity but, all is not lost, its energy exceeds infinity by the factor E=MC^2, don't forget that part.

bob s

What? E=mc^2 is just a conversion factor, the energy is just in different units, Joules for example, with m as Kilograms.

There are A LOT of Joules in a Kilogram, but you can't simply reach infinite anything inside of this finite universe, and just to be purely technical, even though infinities are absurd.

Adding anything to infinity... gives infinity. Not infinity +.

Curt: Naw, we just type stuff in to see if you're going to fall for it.

So anyhow, the guys at CERN can accelerate just one proton at a time around the 80 gazillion peso LHC. Damn, that's pretty amazing. How do they find that one little bugger to see what it'll do next? I betcha they scoot a whole batch of 'em at once. Then, shouldn't they fall in love with each other, seeing how massive each one of 'em is

cinci: Nah, they actually strip all the electrons out of a Volkswagen and shoot it around.

Of course if the Google button on your computer wasn't broken or maybe if you learned how to use it, you'd know about how many protons (anti protons too, Toto) that they use. But it's pretty clear that ain't going to happen.
***************************

See? No wonder Volkswagens are getting scarce. German electrons. I always knew there was something about those Germans.

Google button? I keep pushing my belly button. Gah! No wonder! It's an inny.

Re: Max™ Direction doesn't matter???????????? September 27 2008, 8:08 PM

What? E=mc^2 is just a conversion factor, the energy is just in different units, Joules for example, with m as Kilograms.

There are A LOT of Joules in a Kilogram, but you can't simply reach infinite anything inside of this finite universe, and just to be purely technical, even though infinities are absurd.

Adding anything to infinity... gives infinity. Not infinity +.

It is not my infinity+ Max, it is Einstein’s, motion increases mass, an increase of mass increases energy so the faster you go the more power you have. There are people who are working on Time travel based on that increase of energy, I am not one of them. I know, I know, anything I say can and will be used against me in the court of forum review.

bob s

...

Converting to Energy from Mass doesn't increase a value, that is absurd.

It is the same amount of Energy, Mass is merely a different way to describe it.

Einstein didn't postulate the infinities, they emerged when his theory was applied to a mathematical framework, and is a sign of the limits of that framework.