Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 06:39 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:71jrj5tifrme4i0bujtc36d64pbspu43e4(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:08:33 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"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. > > It isn't incoherent. So you lied .. not surprising, seeing you're a known liar > It is plain bullshit from start to finish...but you > wouldn't have the brains to see that. I have the brains to see that its not. >>totally believe those admission, as his posts here clearly show he has no >>regard for the truth and is unwilling or incapable of learning. > > The plain truth is that variable star curves prove that light travels > across > space at c wrt the source star and c+v wrt Earth. Nope
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 06:41 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:a8jrj55m5dpeknpvddiqs6ufh40cd122fc(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:59:08 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:lnuqj55tj9b86degjoc486knmiflbuq287(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:22:53 +0100, YBM <ybmess(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>>So you claim that according to PoR (the "correct" one as you said), if >>>>any two physical quantities of the same kind are equal in one frame, >>>>they are equal in all. Right? >>> >>> two quantities that do no contain L/T >> >>So lets consider three colinear objects with A distance L from B and B >>distance L from C >> >>A......B......C >> >>In B's frame of reference, the distance away from origin of C is L and the >>distance away from origin of A is L. >> >>In A's frame of reference, the distance away from origin of C is 2L and >>the >>distance away from origin of A is 0. >> >>Hmm .. same quantity, different values. And no L/T. I see you can't argue with that > I'm just realising I'm arguing with a real nutcase.. You talking to yourself again? >>If we assume Newtonian physics, you can have values that include L/T in >>their dimensions that are equal in multiple frames of reference. >> >>Back to the drawing board, Henry. > > You really don't have aclue... I proved you wrong. I've more of a clue than you ! > even little eric is now brighter than you. Maybe. I'm not sure how clever he is .. but he does seem quite bright. I'm not in any competition for brightness.
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 06:42 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:5cjrj5t76enk3fidj69tefn7hbua0306ee(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:06:47 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:iruqj5ld1i45dsdq7153u71gvscc9ciggm(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:08:35 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>>>>> 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've hinted at him to look at such examples. Especially as he gave one >>>>himself without realising in his 'moving Rods' post. >>>> >>>>=== >>>>Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other >>>>inertially at v. >>>> >>>>_______R1________ O- >v/2 ________R2_______->v >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal >>>>lengths >>>>in >>>>all other frames. >>>>=== >>>> >>>>Note that in O's frame of reference, the rods move away from each O with >>>>speed v/2 (but in opposite directions) >>>> >>>>But in R1's frame, R1 has a speed of zero, and R2 a speed of v >>>> >>>>So the equal speeds of R1 and R2 that O measures is not equal when >>>>measured >>>>from R1's frame. >>>> >>>>You can do the same with positions. At any given time, R1 and R2 has >>>>the >>>>same distance from O. But R2 is twice as far from R1 and O is. >>>> >>>>For some reason, Henry is happy with those equal values not being equal >>>>in >>>>other frames .. but when it comes to time, he balks and says it >>>>contradicts >>>>the principle of relativity. >>> >>> who has the logic deficiency now? >> >>You. Next question >> >>> My statement that 'two quantities (that do not contain L/T) are the same >>> in one >>> frame' must be the same in all frames', >> >>That was not your original statement. You have changed your statement >>since. That's somewhat dishonest (as expected from you). >> >>Your statement above was: >> >>"Well, if two things are equal they can hardly be made unequal just >>because >>somebody else looks at them." I just refuted that. > > hahahaha! Don't kid yourself.. I'm not kidding myself .. i showed it. There are lots of things that are equal valued in one frame and not in another. >> does not imply that the statement 'two >>> quantities (not containing L/T) whose magnitudes are in a particular >>> ratio >>> in >>> one frame must retain that ratio in all frames' is not permitted. >> >>So .. are you now claiming that if something contains L/T in its >>dimensions >>it MUST be frame dependent (ie you must get different values in all other >>frames for it)? So, for example, having the speed of light the same 'c' >>in >>all frames is wrong because that means it is not frame dependent even >>though >>it has L/T dimensions? > > Of course. And acceleration proves that wrong > Light speed is c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at -v wrt > the > source. Except it isn't
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 18:06 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:6rjsj5t8ngptj9nvi7fjj4n96nc0apnges(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 22:41:29 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:a8jrj55m5dpeknpvddiqs6ufh40cd122fc(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:59:08 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>news:lnuqj55tj9b86degjoc486knmiflbuq287(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:22:53 +0100, YBM <ybmess(a)nooos.fr.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>So you claim that according to PoR (the "correct" one as you said), if >>>>>>any two physical quantities of the same kind are equal in one frame, >>>>>>they are equal in all. Right? >>>>> >>>>> two quantities that do no contain L/T >>>> >>>>So lets consider three colinear objects with A distance L from B and B >>>>distance L from C >>>> >>>>A......B......C >>>> >>>>In B's frame of reference, the distance away from origin of C is L and >>>>the >>>>distance away from origin of A is L. >>>> >>>>In A's frame of reference, the distance away from origin of C is 2L and >>>>the >>>>distance away from origin of A is 0. >>>> >>>>Hmm .. same quantity, different values. And no L/T. >> >>I see you can't argue with that >> >>> I'm just realising I'm arguing with a real nutcase.. >> >>You talking to yourself again? >> >>>>If we assume Newtonian physics, you can have values that include L/T in >>>>their dimensions that are equal in multiple frames of reference. >>>> >>>>Back to the drawing board, Henry. >>> >>> You really don't have aclue... >> >>I proved you wrong. I've more of a clue than you ! >> >>> even little eric is now brighter than you. >> >>Maybe. I'm not sure how clever he is .. but he does seem quite bright. >>I'm >>not in any competition for brightness. > > well you wouldn't be. Nobody likes to come last at anything.... I don't need to worry about that .. I've got you and Andy and Porat and Seto and any number of crackpots all so far behind me there is no worry about me being last in the intelligence stakes .. its not an issue for me if there are people more intelligent than me or not.
From: Inertial on 1 Jan 2010 19:09
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:t0tsj5t9bsc3a2mkcofat68g6998annumo(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:41:27 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>> >>> So why are some things frame dependent and not others? >> >>Yes, Ralph, why are some things frame dependent and other are not? >> >>You seem to think time and length are frame independent while being >>completely unable to consider otherwise. But why is velocity and kinetic >>energy frame dependent while length and time are not? What's so special >>about those? >> >>> >>> They must contain L/T or (L/T)^2 >> >>There's that curious assumption about L/T again. You keep bringing it up >>as >>if it somehow proved a point. > > you don't even know how to define your 'frame'. You really shouldn't be the one pointing out what people don't know .. after all your admissions that you don't know what SR says and you don't care what it says. Of course .. all you are doing is diverting away from yet another demonstration of your ignorance. Why do you even both posting, old man? You should know by now that as you are no good at physics and can't be bothered to learn it, you should find another hobby for your retirement. |