Basic postulates of SR
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: curvature of spacetime
Next: Hard SR questions?
From: Peter Kinane on 3 Aug 2006 13:18 "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote in message news:IDoAg.4779$ee1.2772(a)trnddc06... > "Peter Kinane" <pkinane(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:easm9o$814$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "Effectuationism Navigation Model", >> http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/69/73.html?1153656126 >> This arises out of - is in formed by - the "Effectuationism Philosophy >> System", http://www.effectuationism.com >> > [hanson to Pete] > What is your clincher, your 1-sentence come-on, your 1- or 2-liner > to sell your **Effectuationism** so that people show interest in > your long drawn out explanations. > Take care > hanson Well, I don't know that my "explanations" are "long drawn out" compared to the alternative models. Also, I don't see that it is a matter of clinchers; I see it as a matter of conceptualising my model(s) and then bringing it/them into relationship with whatever alternatives you've got. (Then, one should see which concepts get jolted into 'a black hole', where they belong). So, I'm afraid it is a case of getting stuck into my models. Get back to me when you've a problem, and we'll see if we can make progress with it. -- Peter Kinane http://www.effectuationism.com
From: hanson on 3 Aug 2006 14:32 "Peter Kinane" <pkinane(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eatb70$ec8$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote in message > news:IDoAg.4779$ee1.2772(a)trnddc06... >> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:easm9o$814$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> "Effectuationism Navigation Model", >>> http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/69/73.html?1153656126 >>> This arises out of - is in formed by - the "Effectuationism Philosophy >>> System", http://www.effectuationism.com >>> >> [hanson to Pete] >> What is your clincher, your 1-sentence come-on, your 1- or 2-liner >> to sell your **Effectuationism** so that people show interest in >> your long drawn out explanations. >> Take care >> hanson > [Pete] > Well, I don't know that my "explanations" are "long drawn out" compared to > the alternative models. > Also, I don't see that it is a matter of clinchers; I see it as a matter > of conceptualising my model(s) and then bringing it/them into relationship > with whatever alternatives you've got. (Then, one should see which > concepts get jolted into 'a black hole', where they belong). > [hanson] .... hahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I like your, still long winded, answer which tells me that you merely want to pontificate... ahahaha... ahahahaha.....*** Stan, welcome to the club! ***..... ahahahaha.... .... After all, this is a NEWS group in which by definition people exchange their views on news... in contrast to the Einstein Dingleberries who infest this NG and believe that they make science here... > [Pete] > So, I'm afraid it is a case of getting stuck into my models. Get back to > me when you've a problem, and we'll see if we can make progress with it. > Peter Kinane --- http://www.effectuationism.com > [hanson] .... ahahahaha... It is not quite clear who's getting stuck here with models. But it's a great pontification you delivered, Pete. And even better, dude, I appreciate your offer to become my problem-solver... AHAHAHA... This offer is appreciated and I will take you up on it, should the need arise. Thanks for the laughs!...... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahanson
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 4 Aug 2006 03:41 Paul B. Andersen пиÑ?ал(а): > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Today we are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper > > > > " On correctness of basic postulates of SR " > > ........... > > I think the following passus from the paper illustrates it's quality: > > begin quote << > But if in each frame at the moment of meeting and exchange of time codes > the observer detects that in another frame the time goes slower and in > the same proportion, then in both frames time goes same and proportionality > factor is 1. We can easily prove it. If from the point of stationary observer > the time interval in the moving frame is > > delta_t' = k delta_t (7) > > and from the point of moving observer it is > > delta_t = k delta_t' (8) > > and both time intervals are real (not imaginary) in each frame, > then, joining (7) and (8), yield > > delta_t = k^2 delta_t (9) > > from which it immediately follows > > k = 1 (10) > > If we disprove (10), we have to admit that in some frame the time > really contracts and in another does not, which violates the equivalence > of frames. > >> end quote > > Enough said. > > Paul If you, Paul, cannot analyse papers, say it frankly. These formulas touch a narrow aspect concerned to the Einsteinian contraction. Are you stating that Einsteinâ??s expression Deltatâ?? = Deltat sqrt (1-(v/c)^2) is incorrect? :-) My formulas which you cited expected an aware reader, so k = sqrt (1-(v/c)^2) Have you any claims to the full equivalence of inertial frames? Have you claims to the logic of these formulas? Do you want to say, (10) does not follow from the equal transformation ahead and back? Then you would have to read further, after these formulas, as we substantiated this all. And re-read the section 3 of Einsteinian â??On electrodynamics of moving bodiesâ?? of 1905 where we introduced the third frame moving opposite to the second and, basing on the product of two coefficients, concluded the equality of these coefficients to 1. I would add, in this our paper not the formulas are main. We showed an absurd of Lorentz transformation, and we built this all strongly on the Einsteinian formalism. Otherwise would you kindly point, what namely of Einsteinian formalism did not we account in plotting the Minkowski diagrams? If you do not point it either if you pass to expressions a la dda1, this will show your level which you are trying to attribute to others. :) By the way, to cite here the formula (10), you had to read the preceding part of our paper. As far as I can see, you had no claims to this part. So you automatically admitted physically illegal the Einsteinian postulate of light speed constancy. And the main, you admitted that Einstein has substituted the concept of light speed constancy in the Maxwell theory. What can you tell me after it? Of correctness of what? You showed your level, omitting this all without arguments. And you did not catch the level of our work, as you did not read the analysis of dynamical Minkowski diagram in the moving frame. Could you point me to some authors or web sites who would demonstrate the Minkowski dynamical diagrams? And you omitted silently the analysis of Bornâ??s representation with his absurd graph which we showed. In this graph the observer resting with respect to the moving frame moves in perpendicular to the axis xâ??. In the oblique-angled coordinate system? If speaking of nonsense, this our paper is targeted to debunk the nonsense of Relativity. And if someone sees some nonsense in this paper, he can claim to no one else but to Relativity. Sergey
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 4 Aug 2006 05:06 "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d4EAg.2393$BM7.156712(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... [snip] > But there is a nice little shortcut to this. > Even without knowing what the variables mean, just look at > your equation (9) > Delta(t) = k^2 Delta(t), > from which, according to you, it immediately follows that > k = 1 . > > According to standard mathematical rules this equation > implies that > k = 0 > or > k = 1 or k = -1 > or > Delta(t) = 0 . Dirk Vdm
From: surrealistic-dream on 4 Aug 2006 12:49
hanson wrote: .... > ... After all, this is a NEWS group in which by definition people exchange > their views on news... in contrast to the Einstein Dingleberries who infest > this NG and believe that they make science here... It is just as impossible to 'infest' a relativity NG with relativists as it is to 'infest' a beehive with bees. Bees are supposed to be in beehives. Whether relativists actually "make science" or not is irrelevant to the purpose of the NG. The purpose of sci.physics.relativity is relativity, come what may. |