Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 23:48 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:43uqj517kk7i4mrdgu5sm3ubhl59bcus9s(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:46:26 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:jslqj5ldkqjlk8d9hvh5qtcsnbk5lg7v3o(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:26:18 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>>>> We are discussing the time taken for a light pulse to go from points >>>>> A >>>>> to >>>>> B, >>>>> which are rigidly connected. In the points' frame, the pulse takes the >>>>> same to >>>>> go from B to A. >>>> >>>>Yeup >>>> >>>>> Are you trying to tell me that this condition changes just because a >>>>> lot >>>>> of >>>>> different observers start moving around all over the universe. >>>> >>>>Nope >>>> >>>>But other observers will disagree about the time taken as measured by >>>>them >>> >>> that is not important. >> >>Yes .. it is >> >>> The actual times (which are equal in mirror frame) can have a different >>> value >>> in each frame if you want to believe in SR contractions. >> >>Yeup .. no problem with that >> >>> That does not mean they go from being equal to being unequal in >>> different >>> frames >> >>Yeup .. no problem with that > > HOORAY. INERTIAL AS FINALLY BEEN CONVERTED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nope. The original frame always has them as equal values .. other frames measuring them does not change the values measured in the original frme from being equal to being unequal values. That's what I assume you meant as otherwise your two statements above are self-contradictory. You first sentence saying the values in some other frame are different and second sentence saying that are equal. Mind you .. I should be used to you making contradictory statements. Perhaps you meant that SR says that, in every frame, the two time readings are going to be equal, but each frame will give a different result for that value. If so, that is not what SR says. Anyway .. we all know you have know idea of what SR actually says, and don't care what it says. >>>>This is basic stuff. >>> >>> It IS. That's why I can't understand why you are having trouble with it. >> >>You're the one confused, old fart. > > You have just accepted my theory. What .. your theory is that you are a confused old fart? Then I accept that fully > I'm so glad you have finally seen the light. I've seen the light for a long time, old fart >>>>Your current line of non-thought also refutes the PoR in simple >>>>classical >>>>Newtonian physics. Look at velocities. Can you find the equivalent >>>>argument there? Or do you need me to spoon feed you? >>> >>> It does not...because in NM, the light reflects back from the mirror at >>> c+2v >>> wrt the source. >> >>That's what Newton got wrong. > > hahahahhhahha! Its not funny.. Newton did the best he could with the measurements and observations he could make. What is funny is how you can't get physics at all.
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 23:51 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:dmuqj5pnkoj704l56hsg8fug96abmei5bc(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:03:48 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:hhjmjo$lku$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:54:08 -0800, eric gisse >>>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[...] >>>>> >>>>>>>Really? The laws of physics only apply to light? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Are you SURE? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's what you people are trying to make out even if you aren't >>>>>> aware >>>>>> of the fact. >>>>> >>>>>No, Ralph, this is simply the latest way you have made yourself >>>>>misunderstand relativity. I suppose it is an improvement over 'tick >>>>>faeries'. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Newton's law of relativity applies to everything that contains L/T. >>>>> >>>>>I don't recall that distinction ever being made. Could you show where >>>>>that's the case? >>>> >>>> Christ! Surely you know that much... >>> >>> In about 5 years of university, and about a thousand pages of classical >>> mechanics textbooks not once was this mentioned. Perhaps you could tell >>> me >>> which of your books on the subject says what you claim so I could read >>> it >>> for myself? >> >>Maybe this is what he means. >> >>The principle of relativity dates back to Galileo. However, in classical >>physics it is usually combined with Newton's laws of motion, which all >>happen to involve terms in them somewhere that have at least an L/T, that >>the apply in the same way in all inertial frames of reference. This is >>often called Galilean Relativity. >> >>In SR, the principle of relativity is extended (not reduced) to cover all >>laws of physics, not just the laws of motion, as they apply in inertial >>frames of reference. In particular, the constancy of the speed of light, >>irrespective of the motion of the source, is one of the things that SR >>postulates is the case for all inertial frames of reference. > > Yeah! And that stuffs up P1. Nope .. it doesn't. How can saying that the speed of light is the same in all frames stuff up the principle that says laws of physics are the same in all frames. Its perfectly consistent with it. The PoR ends up extended to apply in more cases in SR. That doesn't stuff it up .. it makes it even more applicable. But you wouldn't know as you admit that you neither care nor know what the postulates say.
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 23:59 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:m8uqj5h4niaatdjlvg4c00ngnqmbrhmob8(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:28:08 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:54:08 -0800, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>> >>>>[...] >>>> >>>>>>Really? The laws of physics only apply to light? >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you SURE? >>>>> >>>>> That's what you people are trying to make out even if you aren't aware >>>>> of the fact. >>>> >>>>No, Ralph, this is simply the latest way you have made yourself >>>>misunderstand relativity. I suppose it is an improvement over 'tick >>>>faeries'. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Newton's law of relativity applies to everything that contains L/T. >>>> >>>>I don't recall that distinction ever being made. Could you show where >>>>that's the case? >>> >>> Christ! Surely you know that much... >> >>In about 5 years of university, and about a thousand pages of classical >>mechanics textbooks not once was this mentioned. Perhaps you could tell me >>which of your books on the subject says what you claim so I could read it >>for myself? > > Sometimes it's good to use your brain instead of relying on books. In your case you have neither to rely on.
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 00:08 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hhjv83$fg0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:28:08 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:54:08 -0800, eric gisse >>>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[...] >>>>> >>>>>>>Really? The laws of physics only apply to light? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Are you SURE? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's what you people are trying to make out even if you aren't >>>>>> aware >>>>>> of the fact. >>>>> >>>>>No, Ralph, this is simply the latest way you have made yourself >>>>>misunderstand relativity. I suppose it is an improvement over 'tick >>>>>faeries'. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Newton's law of relativity applies to everything that contains L/T. >>>>> >>>>>I don't recall that distinction ever being made. Could you show where >>>>>that's the case? >>>> >>>> Christ! Surely you know that much... >>> >>>In about 5 years of university, and about a thousand pages of classical >>>mechanics textbooks not once was this mentioned. Perhaps you could tell >>>me >>>which of your books on the subject says what you claim so I could read it >>>for myself? >> >> Sometimes it's good to use your brain instead of relying on books. > > And the pattern of you refusing to reference a book continues. Have you > ever > read a book on physics? He attempted to read SR, but (he admitted) it was incoherent to him, which, of course, was no problem for him because he does not care what (he admitted) its postulate say, let alone the theory that follow from it. I totally believe those admission, as his posts here clearly show he has no regard for the truth and is unwilling or incapable of learning.
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 06:39
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:5pjrj514g6tosf7a71m1be46v48dfivaqt(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:00:54 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:9buqj599vm97udkfnqdkb9bv1ia3cvdotd(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:27:40 -0800 (PST), blackhead >>> <larryharson(a)softhome.net> >>> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> Well, if two things are equal they can hardly be made unequal just >>>>> because >>>>> somebody else looks at them. >>>> >>>>Take the kinetic energy of 2 masses moving at the same velocity >>>>towards one another in some frame - they're equal. In every other >>>>frame they're not. >>> >>> I thought we were talking about 'things' that do not contain L/T. >> >>Nope .. you added that condition in later on in the discussion >> >>> K.E. : ....M(L/T)^2 >>> >>> Naturally it is frame dependent. >> >>But you can have things with L/T in its dimensions that are NOT frame >>dependent. > > If you are thinking of acceleration L/T/T, you are wrong. > > Going from 0 m/s to 10 m/s in ten seconds, in one frame is not the same as > going from 10 m/s to 20 m/s in ten seconds in a frame moving at -10 m/s > wrt the > first one. Yes it is .. exactly the same acceleration. > The KE change is very different for one thing. The acceleration is the same .. not the kinetic energy. Different quantity. So not everything that has dimensions of L/T in it is frame dependent in classical physics. |