Jump to content
Science Forums

Bombadil

Members
  • Content Count

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Bombadil last won the day on July 2 2012

Bombadil had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Bombadil

  • Rank
    Questioning
  1. I have been experiencing an issue whenever I have tried to either visit the hypography home page or sign in at one time. It even had me locked in and would not let me sign out but it did eventually I think that it did sign out although I was unable to navigate the website and kept getting the below error, in any case attempts to navigate the hypography web site have resulted in either the following error or one that is very similar SQL Error An error occured with the SQL server: mySQL query error: SELECT s.id, s.member_id, s.member_name, s.seo_name, s.login_type, s.running_time, s.member_gr
  2. Well to each his own but just out of curiosity, What do you think that the definitions that you use are a consequence of ? I am of course speaking of the very fundamental, most definitions that you use. For instance what did you originally base your definition of the word “length” or “rest” on, or for that matter rest length. Note that I am not asking what rest length is but rather what it is that you base your definition of it on, a very different idea. Not much that can be done, as to understand it someone has to have both the ability to understand it the time to put into it, and mu
  3. It's not that you are not clear and its probably not me at least not from my point of view. I can't say what you think I said, but I think that it's that we don't agree on what is being discussed here, so let me try to clear things up, as I answered your question when I said but perhaps you see that as a somewhat quizzical statement so let me first say that I would be rather surprised if you and I use the same definitions of rest length although we might agree that we can use a particular definition for rest length and I think that we would agree on the rest length of an object. You should
  4. I'm not going to even try to make a serious endeavor into this for the simple reason that I simply don't know much of anything about general relativity or its application, and clearly special relativity no longer applies in the situation of a rotating wheel, maybe AnssiH has a more useful comment on this. If you say so but I really don't even know what the question to ask in this situation is. As for even trying to prove what you just said, well it is just outside of my experience to even fully understand the consequences, and I don't have the time right now to dive into the topic. If yo
  5. AnssiH before I go into responding to your posts I want to see if I can explain a few things that I think are giving you a different view of these proofs then is intended by their author as so far I don't have the same opinion of these papers as you seem to be having, but I think that it is not so much a case of incorrect analysis of the problem, by you are as put forth by Terrell, but rather I think that it is a question of how the problem is thought about and what the question is. I suspect that the first thing to consider is that the papers are mathematical proofs and so when they were do
  6. I think that I will hold off on commenting on this until you have read about Terrell rotation. As the other option is for me to redo a derivation that I did when this thread was just starting, and didn't post because I thought that it was what this thread was about. Now I am starting to wish that I had just wrote it all out then so that at least we would be on the same page. Although it was nothing more then a special case of Terrell rotation, and I seem to remember my approach being a little bit messy. Well until you read that document it just sounds like I am making stuff up any way. I h
  7. I assume that when you are correcting for aberration of light you are also correcting for Lorentz contraction, if this is the case then I will agree with you, but if you are doing as it sounds like you are purposing and that is only correcting for adoration of light then I have to differ with you, and think that you will get the length given by the Lorentz contraction. If on the other hand you don't correct for Lorentz contraction or aberration of light you might still be able to convince me that at least in some cases both observers will agree on the distances measured. Actually its kind of
  8. OK I can see how this works, one thing that was throwing me though at first was that you mean literately the front of the car that is the side of the car orthogonal to the wall of the building or parallel to the one that some one is standing behind, there is something else here that seems worth noting and that is that for the person hiding behind the wall the front of the car is never truly visible, for some reason I was thinking originally that a situation could not be created that resulted in only one direction that light could make the trip in, or in this case that a bullet could be fired f
  9. Doctor Dick I think that you are going to have to convince me of this. From what I have read about Terrel rotation the result is that they will agree on the angle to the star, what they wont agree on is the orientation of the objects that they see. As a example lets return to your thought experiment where there is a pulse that is traveling in the direction of the rest observer and the moving ship timed so that at some point the light pulse will pass though the end of the pipe. Lets say that it is a laser and we can in fact see the laser inside of the pipe by filling the pipe with smoke. The
  10. If by main stream you mean the ones that everyone follows that just wants to know something about the topic so that they can say that they know something about it, then I would agree with you. I think that the real issue is though, that most people just want to be able to make up their own theories and say that they know better then the experts, or at least as much, or they want to say that they understand string theory or supper symmetry or whatever the latest theory is. I actually have no idea what the latest theory is and I really don't have any need to look up what it is as I would rather
  11. I've read the opening post several times and the only conclusion that I can come to is that you are trying to say that both a moving observer and a rest observer will measure the same distance to a star. Actually after quite a bit of thought on the matter and a reading about relativity this makes a little bit of sense that this is the case. While this is not what I did, after reading some on special relativity, something that I should have done some time ago and clearly need to read more on, something that I am doing. What I think that I did was inadvertently stumbled on the idea of Ter
  12. After reading doctor dicks post I have to say that what the biggest problem has been is that I have been assuming that what relativity was introducing was the needed transformations to describe “how the universe looks if the speed of light is invariant under velocity transformations”. After reading doctor dicks post though, this is clearly not what he is saying, and not what the case is. After reading his post I decided to ask if we were to calculate what the universe looks like given a finite speed of light, in particular if a ship is traveling away from us at some speed v, how long will it n
  13. So are you saying that when we use the Lorentz contraction to convert from one frame to another and then take into consideration the time that it takes for the light to get to us that the effect that the Lorentz transformation has vanishes and the universe once again appears Newtonian in nature? I am of course referring here to the Galilean transformations when I say Newtonian in nature. If this is the case, is the Lorenz transformation just there to simplify parts of the math and is ultimately not needed? Also how do you account for ideas like what anssiH is referring to when he says,
  14. In truth I think of Michio Kaku as little more then a public face that is meant to try to shorten the gap between the scifi fans and the physicists, although I wonder if some of the stuff he says isn't closer to scifi then not, and I also wonder at times if he's not doing more harm then good. In truth I can't hardly stand watching him at times, but I don't think that I am missing anything by not watching him either although I did watch the video that you posted, partly just so that I could say that I did. Oh by the way, the part that I find almost the best is when they start saying that... o
  15. So both observers have identical ships? If this is the case and both observers are measuring the distance between the photon detectors and between the windows then you have not proven that both observers will measure the same distance on their ship as on the other ship. Now you also don't seem to be making it very clear how you plan to actually calculate the distance to the star and so my first thought is that you are going to use an angle side angle representation of the triangle formed so that you don't actually have to measure the length of the ship. And so this brings me to the question
×
×
  • Create New...