First, you have really livened things up. I've having a good time catching up.
Now, the question...
You have been doing a great deal of challenging people to show there math and yet I don't recollect you showing any yourself.
Special Relativity Is Refuted
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
First, you have really livened things up. I've having a good time catching up.
Now, the question...
You have been doing a great deal of challenging people to show there math and yet I don't recollect you showing any yourself.
What?
The paper proved the light postulate cannot be satisified in both frames.
That was the goal. Can you use math and prove the paper false?
The paper shows the math. Now what?
Here's a better idea, and this is how science works.
Can you refute RPenner's statements? Can you demonstrate that it was done correctly?
I don't need to - RPenner has already demonstrated this.
If you think RPenner's assertions are wrong, it's up to you to disprove them.
Belief has nothing to do with this conversation - only what I infer on the basis of experimental evidence, among other things.
We're discussing science, not philosophy or religion, belief has nothing to do with it.
No.
Refute RPenner's post, or admit you were wrong.
Where's my brain when I need one?
Refute RPenner's post, or admit you were wrong.
I did refute it.
I am waiting on his comeback. In fact, I killed his math.
Now,if you would like to take his position and understand and prove his case, then have at it.
So, far we have a correct application of the partial derivative and that refutes SR.
Can you add something?
And as I promised I will give the evidence of no length contraction.
Study careful the next device.
Laser rangefinder:
I will highlight only the most important parts.
1) Laser rangefinder,Precision:
Since the speed of light relative to the receiver is not constant but depends on the speed of the receiver.
2) The difference of speed of light due to different atmospheric conditions (temperature, pressure, humidity) is within the error of precision given by the manufacturer.
If there is length contraction, then the error at different speed of light would be much higher.
Do the calculations yourself.
3) But exactly the same device is used for mapping the ocean floor.(Bathymetric maps) with the device called Bathometer.
Laser-Bathometer:
This devices takes into account only the speed of light in water but not length contraction, and yet works.
Try to convince the manufacturers of these devices to consider the length contraction for their devices.They would not even bother to answer.
For that length contraction is only pseudoscience.
Study careful the next device.
Laser rangefinder:
I will highlight only the most important parts.
1) Laser rangefinder,Precision:
Why depends on the speed of the receiver ?
Since the speed of light relative to the receiver is not constant but depends on the speed of the receiver.
2) The difference of speed of light due to different atmospheric conditions (temperature, pressure, humidity) is within the error of precision given by the manufacturer.
If there is length contraction, then the error at different speed of light would be much higher.
Do the calculations yourself.
3) But exactly the same device is used for mapping the ocean floor.(Bathymetric maps) with the device called Bathometer.
Laser-Bathometer:
This devices takes into account only the speed of light in water but not length contraction, and yet works.
Try to convince the manufacturers of these devices to consider the length contraction for their devices.They would not even bother to answer.
For that length contraction is only pseudoscience.
Special relativity is refuted by chinglu?
You mean like [thread=105498]last time[/thread]?
Hahahaha!
Notice, by the way, that the linked thread was unfinished, because chinglu slunk away from his disgrace there.
If you want to take matters up where you left off, chinglu, start by replying to this post.
You mean like [thread=105498]last time[/thread]?
Hahahaha!
Notice, by the way, that the linked thread was unfinished, because chinglu slunk away from his disgrace there.
If you want to take matters up where you left off, chinglu, start by replying to this post.
A laser range finder uses light pulses and measures the time a sequece takes to bounce back. The receiver has to be fast to provide fined detail accuracy. Actually that is the same way radar works. The difference is that with light your signal is better confined and the speed of light is affected less by atmospheric conditions than would sonar or radar.
They can be designed to report velocity and direction as well as range. Lidar is another specialized application.
@ Emil. Laser Rangefinder precision. Your Quote.
Precision
The precision of the instrument is determined by the rise or fall time of the laser pulse and the speed of the receiver. One that uses very sharp laser pulses and has a very fast detector can range an object to within a few millimeters.
Yes, that quote is correct, but for the following two reasons:
1. Speed of Calculation
If the object is moving, and the detector takes time to make a calculation, then the detector will be working out where the object was, not where it is.
2. Speed of pulse.
Say the pulses were one per second, if the object was moving at 20 MPH
then by the time the rangefinder sent its next pulse, the object could have travelled 30 feet, or it could have stopped.
The inaccuracies are due to the efficiency of the computer, and the number of pulses per second, not variations in the speed of light.
Precision
The precision of the instrument is determined by the rise or fall time of the laser pulse and the speed of the receiver. One that uses very sharp laser pulses and has a very fast detector can range an object to within a few millimeters.
Yes, that quote is correct, but for the following two reasons:
1. Speed of Calculation
If the object is moving, and the detector takes time to make a calculation, then the detector will be working out where the object was, not where it is.
2. Speed of pulse.
Say the pulses were one per second, if the object was moving at 20 MPH
then by the time the rangefinder sent its next pulse, the object could have travelled 30 feet, or it could have stopped.
The inaccuracies are due to the efficiency of the computer, and the number of pulses per second, not variations in the speed of light.
Yes, I agree with that.
But,
I argue that the relativ speed of laser pulses to the receiver is different when the laser pulses direction is to the target so the same as the receiver,
and when thel laser pulses return from the target, so is contrary to the receiver speed.
It cannot have the same constant speed relative to the target that is stationary and relative to the receiver that is in motion.
You assert that the speed is the same, and I disagree.
I didn't get that.
Can you give an example?
Can you give an example?
Re Light v Sound Waves.
Given that atoms are mostly empty space, what stops photons from passing straight through them?
Given that atoms are mostly empty space, what stops photons from passing straight through them?