IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th November 2020, 11:37 AM   #1201
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,074
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Two inertial observers of the same inertial reference frame/grid see the reality differently even though they are supposed to observer the same reality.
Why is it important what they see?
The observer at the back 'sees' the redshift.
The observer at the front 'sees' the blueshift.
This means the front is receiving more energy than the back.
The interaction is already creating asymmetry.
This is the case even though the source emitted the same energy in both directions.
Do you see the problem here?

To the separated stationary observers in the inertial reference frame, the light source is moving rapidly toward one of them and away from the other. That's the cause of the asymmetry, which is completely consistent with all laws of physics.

If the light source were instead co-moving with both observers, they would see and observe no redshift or blueshift.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 24th November 2020 at 11:39 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 11:48 AM   #1202
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,496
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Two inertial observers of the same inertial reference frame/grid see the reality differently even though they are supposed to observer the same reality.
Why is it important what they see?
The observer at the back 'sees' the redshift.
The observer at the front 'sees' the blueshift.
This means the front is receiving more energy than the back.
The interaction is already creating asymmetry.
This is the case even though the source emitted the same energy in both directions.
Do you see the problem here?
No, it's not a problem.

What you fail to understand is that when a moving source emits a photon, that photon not only carries energy, it also carries momentum. That means that the momentum of the source has to change as well, which means that the kinetic energy of the source changes. And that change isn't the same, depending on which direction the photon emitted in. Ignore that change, and it will look like energy is not conserved. Include that change correctly, and you will see that energy is conserved. The distribution of energy is not invariant, but that's not a problem. The setup is asymmetric, so the results should be asymmetric as well.

You don't have to do special relativity to see this effect. It exists in Newtonian physics as well. Consider a person on a moving train. They throw a ball, either forward or backward, to someone who is off the train. In their frame, the ball has the same energy either way. In the frame of the person on the ground, the energy is not the same. How to reconcile it? Same way: in the ground frame, the kinetic energy of the person on the train decreases when they throw it in the forward direction, and it increases when they throw it in the backward direction. If you ignore this, it will look like a contradiction, but it isn't. The distribution of energy is not invariant, but the conservation of energy is.

The thing is, I already told you about this effect. You didn't listen. Because, as always, you are wrong. Without fail.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 03:58 PM   #1203
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it's not a problem.

What you fail to understand is that when a moving source emits a photon, that photon not only carries energy, it also carries momentum. That means that the momentum of the source has to change as well, which means that the kinetic energy of the source changes. And that change isn't the same, depending on which direction the photon emitted in. Ignore that change, and it will look like energy is not conserved. Include that change correctly, and you will see that energy is conserved. The distribution of energy is not invariant, but that's not a problem. The setup is asymmetric, so the results should be asymmetric as well.

You don't have to do special relativity to see this effect. It exists in Newtonian physics as well. Consider a person on a moving train. They throw a ball, either forward or backward, to someone who is off the train. In their frame, the ball has the same energy either way. In the frame of the person on the ground, the energy is not the same. How to reconcile it? Same way: in the ground frame, the kinetic energy of the person on the train decreases when they throw it in the forward direction, and it increases when they throw it in the backward direction. If you ignore this, it will look like a contradiction, but it isn't. The distribution of energy is not invariant, but the conservation of energy is.

The thing is, I already told you about this effect. You didn't listen. Because, as always, you are wrong. Without fail.
Let us discuss the effect.
The person throws two alike balls in opposite directions at the same time.
No velocity change on the train, just less mass.
The energy is different at the front and at the back off the train in the platform frame.
Yes, the conservation of energy is maintained through velocity deltas and mass change.
If we do the same with photons.
Where is the front/back energy delta coming from when two massless photons of the same frequency in the rest frame left the emitter in opposite directions at the same time?
The energy delta comes from the time delta between the light hitting the front and the back outside observers.
The relative motion is the key factor for the time delta and the Doppler effect.
The relative motion is not changing for any inertial observer along the x-direction.
The transverse shift is different.
As you can see from the paper, the transverse energy centroid shift is frame dependent.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 04:13 PM   #1204
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,496
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Let us discuss the effect.
Let's not. I can't do more than I've already done in trying to explain this to you.

Quote:
The transverse shift is different.
Lots of things are different. So what? All this ultimately comes down to is that it offends your sensibilities. The universe doesn't care. Neither do any of the rest of us.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 06:36 AM   #1205
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,816
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Two inertial observers of the same inertial reference frame/grid see the reality differently even though they are supposed to observer the same reality.
Why is it important what they see?
The observer at the back 'sees' the redshift.
The observer at the front 'sees' the blueshift.
This means the front is receiving more energy than the back.
The interaction is already creating asymmetry.
This is the case even though the source emitted the same energy in both directions.
Where are these two observers?

In the scenario described there is the train observer who never sees any light return and the platform observer who sees both beams return.

Is there another observer in this scenario?

Can you be explicit about which observers are seeing what? If you mean the train and the platform observers, then they are looking at asymmetric cases and you would not expect them to observe the same. And, as I pointed out above, the train observer never sees any light return.

Also, for the beam sent by the platform observer, does it reflect off of a mirror which comoves with the platform, or a mirror that comoves with the train?
Quote:
Do you see the problem here?
You haven't managed to identify a problem in this whole thread.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 25th November 2020 at 07:14 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 02:04 PM   #1206
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,545
Exclamation More lies and ignorance from SDG when he has a relativity textbook

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Right, this is exactly your example...
SDG lies about Ziggurat's post which has no example.

The example is SDG's. SDG takes a figure from a paper on text book relativity (Relativistic Hall Effect - PDF), modifies it and writes idiocy about his cartoon .

What the paper shows is that a rotating wheel passing left to right in front of an observer will appear deformed to that observer.

SDG idiotically adds his own wheel with what he imagines the deformation to be for a right to left motion. SDG is abysmally ignorant about relativity. SDG is in deep denial of the real world where relativity works. The chances are that SDG made up that third wheel by just manipulating the paper's wheel.

SDG lies about the paper which none of his "clear disagreement on the motion/drift of the particles" lie. This is a paper on a "novel type of Hall effect which naturally arises in special relativity" which is similar to other Hall effects.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 02:17 PM   #1207
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,545
Exclamation More lies from SDG when he has a relativity textbook

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
As per the paper above, two inertial observers do not agree on the energy distribution in the y-direction.
SDG lies about Relativistic Hall Effect (PDF) which does not have 2 observers.

SDG lies this is related to the relativistic Doppler effect when the paper only has 1 sentence about an analogy to the relativistic Doppler effect ("This is as a sort of “blue” and “red” wavelength shifts in the relativistic Doppler effect...")

SDG lies that 2 observers disagreeing about the geometric and energy centroids is a problem. Observers are free to disagree about the geometric distribution of what they measure. Observers are free to disagree about the energy distribution of what they measure. They agree on the physics because that is the point of relativity ! Special relativity is how observers agree on the electrodynamics of moving bodies (Einstein's 1905 paper).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 02:32 PM   #1208
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,545
Exclamation More lies from SDG when he has a relativity textbook

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The paper is trying to show an electron drift in the Hall effect.
SDG lies about Relativistic Hall Effect (PDF) from 2012 which has no electron drift in their relativistic example .

SDG lies that observers see an electron drift up or down.

SDG lies that this is not right. Observers moving at different velocities will see different deformations of a wheel with different geometric and energy centroids. Tis is true even in the singe wheel moving at a velocity v in the paper ! That is textbook relativity.

The authors end the letter with deflection from the "spin Hall effect of a Dirac electron moving in an external potential". This deflection differs by a factor of 2 between 2 calculations. There is a factor of 2 difference between the geometric and energy centroids in the relativistic spinning wheel. They suggest that the factor might have the same cause.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th November 2020 at 02:36 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 02:44 PM   #1209
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,545
Exclamation More lies from SDG when he has a relativity textbook

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Two inertial observers of the same inertial reference frame/grid see the reality differently even though they are supposed to observer the same reality....
SDG lies that observers in relativity "are supposed to observer the same reality".
As his textbook will state, observers will observe the same laws of physics. That was why special relativity was created!
As SDG has been told many times, the observers can measure different "realities". Observers can measure that clocks tick at different rates (time dilation). Observers can measure that objects have different lengths (length contraction). Observers can measure that relativistic wheels have different deformations and thus different geometric and energy centroids as in the paper SDG cites.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th November 2020 at 02:46 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 03:06 PM   #1210
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,545
Exclamation SDG writes abysmal idiocy about basic physics

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Let us discuss the effect...
SDG writes abysmal idiocy about basic physics.

A person on a train throws two alike balls in opposite directions. Energy is conserved because whatever energy used to throw the balls ends up as their kinetic energy. There is no "velocity deltas and mass change" idiocy.

If we do the same with photons, energy conservation is similar. Electrons reduce energy levels and that energy ends up as the photon energy. There is no "front/back energy delta" idiocy. Photons with the same wavelength emitted in opposite directions have the same energy. When these photons hit the back and end of the train they will impart the same energy.

An observer not on the train will measure a Doppler effect. Energy will still be conserved.

SDG lies that this has anything to do with Relativistic Hall Effect (PDF) which is the application of textbook relativity with its built-in conservation of energy to a relativistic, rotating wheel. Energy will still be conserved.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th November 2020 at 03:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2020, 09:10 AM   #1211
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
...
You haven't managed to identify a problem in this whole thread.
I showed in my post #1154 how shearing/frame dragging predicts higher frequency on the back side of the motion.




That is a contradiction to experiments that show the Doppler effect:

SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2020, 06:15 PM   #1212
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,496
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
I showed in my post #1154 how shearing/frame dragging predicts higher frequency on the back side of the motion.
And you did that all wrong. So why do you expect us to care that you can't do relativity correctly? That's been well established already.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2020, 06:23 AM   #1213
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,816
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
I showed in my post #1154 how shearing/frame dragging predicts higher frequency on the back side of the motion.

https://i.imgur.com/XNYdhNd.png


That is a contradiction to experiments that show the Doppler effect:

https://i.imgur.com/7Y7MH6N.png
You showed a bunch of wavy lines on a diagram and claimed it was a problem in the vaguest of possible terms, again using the term "frame dragging" wrongly.

As I said, you haven't identified a problem in this entire thread, or any other.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 29th November 2020 at 06:24 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2020, 03:10 PM   #1214
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,545
Exclamation More lies from SDG when he has a relativity textbook

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
I showed in my post #1154 how shearing/frame dragging predicts higher frequency on the back side of the motion....
SDG lies about his #1154 where he has a cartoon with what he imagines to be happening.
SDG lies in #1154 with "does not fit the Relativistic Doppler Effect equation." when he does not use the any SR equations at all !
SDG lies with "shearing/frame dragging" when neither is involved in the Doppler effect. "shearing" is nonsense. Frame dragging is not special relativity - it is general relativity.
SDG lies with "predicts higher frequency on the back side of the motion". In the real world and his textbook, the Doppler effect is symmetrical. The easiest way to see this is looking at the relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect and noting that is only has beta - the ratio of the relative speed of the observers and the speed of light.
SDG lies with "That is a contradiction to experiments that show the Doppler effect:" when SDG follows with a diagram of the classical Doppler effect.
SDG lies with "That is a contradiction to experiments that show the Doppler effect:" when these experiments show that the relativistic Doppler effect happens in the real world.
Direct observation of the transversal Doppler-shift
Quote:
An experiment is reported in which the second order Doppler-shift has been determined by the observation of the Hα-line emitted by linearly moving hydrogen atoms of velocities 2.53×108 cm/s-9.28×108 cm/s. In contrast to previous experiments the direct transversal observation has been used for the first time. The coefficient of the second order term in the relativistic approximation is found to be 0.52±0.03 which compares good with the theoretical value of 1/2.
by Hasselkamp, D.; Mondry, E.; Scharmann, A. in Zeitschrift füur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei, Volume 289, Issue 2, pp.151-155 (June 1979). We performed Einstein's vision of the experimental test of the transverse Doppler effect over 40 years ago !

A Satellite Observation of the Relativistic Doppler Shift (September 1969)

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
Quote:
4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect
The Doppler effect is the observed variation in frequency of a source when it is observed by a detector that is moving relative to the source. This effect is most pronounced when the source is moving directly toward or away from the detector, and in pre-relativity physics its value was zero for transverse motion (motion perpendicular to the source-detector line). In SR there is a non-zero Doppler effect for transverse motion, due to the relative time dilation of the source as seen by the detector. Measurements of Doppler shifts for sources moving with velocities approaching c can test the validity of SR's prediction for such observations, which differs significantly from classical predictions; the experiments support SR and are in complete disagreement with non-relativistic predictions.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th November 2020 at 03:26 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 07:26 AM   #1215
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You showed a bunch of wavy lines on a diagram and claimed it was a problem in the vaguest of possible terms, again using the term "frame dragging" wrongly.

As I said, you haven't identified a problem in this entire thread, or any other.

Here is a text book and it is good, right?





I did this ant it is vague.






To clarify, here is the spacetime diagram for my scenario.
What is it, that is not clear about the roundtrip?





When we add the polarized light of a specific wavelength 1cs then we see this from the platform frame point of view.



SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 07:28 AM   #1216
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And you did that all wrong. So why do you expect us to care that you can't do relativity correctly? That's been well established already.
What is wrong about the polarized light wave roundtrip?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 07:38 AM   #1217
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,496
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
What is wrong about the polarized light wave roundtrip?
Everything.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 11:56 AM   #1218
SDG
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Everything.
You lost the argument about the energy centroid, still mad?
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 02:34 PM   #1219
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,496
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
You lost the argument about the energy centroid, still mad?
Oh my. Trying to be cheeky, I see.

No, I'm not mad. Why would I be mad? You've been wrong about everything, why would I get upset about being wrong once?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 02:45 PM   #1220
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,816
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Here is a text book and it is good, right?
So are you saying that if you put your bunch of wavy lines next to a proper diagram in a text book then it is less meaningless?

If you check your textbook you will find that those diagrams are accompanied by a careful description of what is happening and a mathematical argument.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 1st December 2020 at 02:48 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 03:18 PM   #1221
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,816
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
To clarify, here is the spacetime diagram for my scenario.
What is it, that is not clear about the roundtrip?


Again, you show a spacetime diagram in two dimensions to describe a three dimensional scenario.

Also, no events have been defined on this diagram making it impossible to see what it is supposed to be describing.

Thirdly, this space time diagram appears to be wrong (or I have not understood the scenario).

Since no event can appear in two places in the same space time diagram then one of those lines is wrong. If the red round trip starts and finishes at the same place as the blue round trip then the same should be the case on your spacetime diagram. (Or is the red line not meant to represent that round trip.

This is the opposite of a clarification.

Quote:
When we add the polarized light of a specific wavelength 1cs then we see this from the platform frame point of view.



This is the "bunch of wavy lines" I am talking about. What is this diagram supposed to show? What are the three sets of blue lines supposed to represent?

And, finally, what is the point you are trying to make?

And, as I asked earlier, does the platform observers beam of light reflect from a mirror that is comoving with the platform, or comoving with the train?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 1st December 2020 at 03:30 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 04:54 PM   #1222
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,545
Exclamation SDG lies that he is doing textbook physics.

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Here is a text book and it is good, right?
...
SDG lies that he is doing textbook physics.
Textbook platform/train diagrams have little to do with what he imagines to be in a "spacetime diagram for my scenario" or his cartoon.

A bit of "polarized light of a specific wavelength 1cs" ignorance. The Doppler effect has nothing to do with light polarization.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2020, 05:07 PM   #1223
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,545
Exclamation SDG lies that an argument about the energy centroid was lost

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
You lost the argument about the energy centroid, still mad?
SDG lies that an argument about the energy centroid was lost or that Ziggurat was mad about it.

Ziggurat never disagreed that the energy centroid was different probably because that is what a paper using textbook relativity found. That is the paper that SDG cited !
What Ziggurat wrote was All this ultimately comes down to is that it offends your sensibilities. The universe doesn't care. Neither do any of the rest of us. SDG thinks the universe must obey whatever he thinks up even when he has a relativity textbook and easy access to the physical evidence that the universe matches SR and GR.

Different observers measure different energies is classical physics! Kinetic energy = 1/2 m v2. Observers with different v will state that an object has different kinetic energy. A different distribution of that energy is a feature added by relativity.
Relativistic Hall Effect - PDF
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.