(MT)
Two comments to
my articles I see
particularly suitable for a repeated emphasis on the relative problem. Once in previous
article did this enough
thoroughly on the first "Even Galilei has formulated..." (Anonymous January 30, 2012), now I will focus briefly and on the second.
For clarity, I will execute
again the known staging: Inertial system
K' is moving relative to a
stationary system K with velocity v along the axes
X'=X.
At a
relative peace of the systems
observer K and observer
K' plot on the axis X'
points A' and B'
and determine the distance
between them as a length L0 . After that
system K' starts inertial motion.
The comment refers to
the paradoxical disappearance of length L0 at multiple transfers between
the two systems if the same follow
the conclusions of the special theory,
namely:
Transfer of length L0 in the incorrect conclusions of the Special theory: Observer K with a K clock records the time t1 for
crossing the length L0 from
point B' to point
A' and gets measured length
L1=t1.v, which
should have the shortened value
L1=L0.b (as
we know b=(1-v2/c2)1/2). He affixes
length L1 on the X-axis
as a line segment AB. Now observer K' with
a K' clock records the time t'1 for
crossing the length L1 from
point B to point A and
gets measured length L'1=t'1.v, which should have
the shortened value L'1=L.b, i.e. L'1=L0.b2. In turn, observer
K' affixes length L'1 on
the X'-axis and observer K measures
L'1 as the shortened
value L2=L'1.b=L0.b3 etc. The result is abnormal (paradox): length L0 mysteriously melts away without any change in the initial condition (one
condition – myriad decisions).
I consider that the
example is quite clear. But, in fact, is not so which
can be seen by the said comment. Here is a part of it (copy-paste): Anonymous January 16, 2012
"We will not accept you at the philosophers
- CONSECUTIVE SHORTENING - wrong logic!
Observer K' knows
that observer K is measured at a
shorter. What K plotted as a
line segment has nothing to do with the line segment of K'. So that it is not correct K' to measure from K and correlate it with his line segment." etc.
"Because I
consider that the physics is not
a narrative discipline I have given a particular decision of the example in a few
orders - and mathematical and logical, and
physical." etc.
Cause bewilderment how come,
according to Mr. "Anonymous"
the lengths L1, L2 of K have nothing to do with these L0, L'1 of K' after
being they are connected according L1=L0.b , respectively
L2=L'1.b .
The relativism blindly believes that it is able to find an explanation for any similar ludicrous
situation. Tales of dupes.
The case only means one thing
– the consecutive absurdity caused by the mistaken relative
concept. And the consecutive application of the on duty, pointless and
antipathetic stubborn-tactics of the relativists instead
to acknowledge their powerlessness and
impasse, to sweep
every paradoxical (relatively unsolvable) fact in the darkest corner
of the mind, and let's hope
be forgotten.
As I said, I return
to this comment, because in it shines through full incomprehension of
the physical-philosophy
of the relative reality. And
not only... The same is an
illustration of the frequently encountered superficial attitude to the scientific problems produced by feeble
cognitive possibilities. From wherever to look a man, the comment represents in highest
degree below the mark
model of scientific criticism – ungrounded,
unprincipled and barren, which thoughts, feels and behaves
as exempt from responsibility.
This type of scientific
practice is entirely unacceptable,
but it seems to me, prevalent. Otherwise, at all I would not wasted your time with
such mediocrity.
Either way, it is
appropriate to give and the
proper solution to the above
example.
Transfer of length L0 in the correct conclusions of the Principle of
opposites: Observer K with a K clock
records the time t1 for
crossing the length L0 from
point B' to point
A' and gets measured length
L1=t1.v, which
should have the shortened value
L1=L0.b (for
observer K , i.e. for the stationary viewpoint, is
in force coefficient b). He affixes
length L1 on the X-axis
as a line segment AB. Now observer K' with
a K' clock records the time t'1 for
crossing the length L1 from
point B to point A and
gets measured length L'1=t'1.v, which should have the
elongate value L'1=L1/b , respectively, L'1=L0 (for
observer K', i.e. for the moving viewpoint, is in force coefficient 1/b, which the relativists not comprehend). This is the normal result – as soon as
the condition did not change, at observer
K' returns the initial length L0 (one condition – one solution).
The amateurish interest
to the problem relatively mild grasped the essence of example. Therefore,
it passes belief that
one scientist implicates in it, emphasizing entirely wrong arguments. Because one is to make scientific
error – with it
creates prerequisites for the emergence
of cognitive driving force. And quite another thing is the error-joke of inadequacy
– it is useless...except that caricatures the mind, which invented it. Actually, maybe just that is why the comment is anonymous – approach which categorically must be rejected and condemned.
To a similar
style in science – tolerance "zero"!
[Explanation of the error in the illustrated transfer of length: Since in nature become not miracles, ergo, there are no paradoxes, the error is as follows: The Special theory discovered the law with form L=L'.b . The mathematically (course, and philosophical, and physical) perfect reverse sort on the same form without any doubt, is L'=L/b (L=L'.b and L'=L/b are the same form of the law, along with the L/L'=b and L'/L=1/b). The theory, however, after making the first transfer with the correct form of the law L=L'.b , at the return transfer uses not rightful reverse sort L'=L/b , and another, created form L'=L.b (does not retain the form of the law). Then apply again the correctly, then again the created etc. And precisely the rights form L=L'.b and its reverse sort L'=L/b are confirmed by the experience of Michelson-Morley.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Alexandar Nikolov © 2010-2013 All rights reserved (COPYRIGHT © 2010-2013)
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар