Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his first relativity paper.
Androcles
Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
1920.
"An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
Einstein
<http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg>
Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
which acts in a tangential direction.
NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon.
The lying idiot Einstein doesn't know the meaning of radial.
Proven by experiment!
Proven by peer review!
papa...@gmail.com
wrote:
Once more, drunken Andro has done it!!
Put your heavy and dirt ass on a free wheel cart on a carousel
platform (those with wooden horses that you so much like) and later
inform us if your ass moves tangentially or radially, with respect to
the carousel center.
Big moron!!!
Don Stockbauer
Einstein is no match for the Global Brain, thus he is ridiculed today.
k...@kymhorsell.com
> On 7 ene, 08:32, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
> Once more, drunken Andro has done it!!
> Put your heavy and dirt ass on a free wheel cart on a carousel
> platform (those with wooden horses that you so much like) and later
> inform us if your ass moves tangentially or radially, with respect to
> the carousel center.
Are we gunna have to re-invent orbital mechanics to make Warty happy?
--
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_ae>, 30 Dec 2010 10:53 UTC:
> Einstein's calculation is tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
> ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
> 2.2usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2) = 0.098362 usec
> and NOT the measured 64 usec.
You have got t and tau around the wrong way.
-- Peter Webb, 31 Dec 2010
[And later:]
The only error is Einstein's, you snipping ignorant cunt.
-- "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j>, 07 Jan 2011 04:20 UTC
Androcles
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ea648dc-0e32-464a...@z19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On 7 ene, 08:32, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j>
wrote:
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
>
> Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
> 1920.
>
> "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
> Einstein
>
> <http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg>
> Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
> Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
> An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
> which acts in a tangential direction.
>
> NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
> Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a
> right
> line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
> thereon.
>
> The lying idiot Einstein doesn't know the meaning of radial.
> Proven by experiment!
> Proven by peer review!
Once more, drunken Andro has done it!!
=================================
Once more, the skank papabozo puts his head up his arse
and denies experiment. Still, we don't expect waps, dagos,
kikes and wetback morons to understand plain English.
papa...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <papar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It is also evident that this wacko is asserting that, when he takes a
right corner inside his car at 50 km/hr, he feels a "force" that
impulses him "forward" or "backwards" with respect to the drive wheel,
while the rest of us feel a "force" pushing our bodies to the "left"
of the car.
k...@kymhorsell.com
> It is also evident that this wacko is asserting that, when he takes a
> right corner inside his car at 50 km/hr, he feels a "force" that
> impulses him "forward" or "backwards" with respect to the drive wheel,
> while the rest of us feel a "force" pushing our bodies to the "left"
> of the car.
For someone that keeps delving into the mathematics of SR
he seems to appreciate less math and physics than a typical freshman.
Since at least Newton is still "good" as far as Warty is concerned,
he *should* be able to analyse acceleration on a round-a-bound in
terms of a_r (acceleration in the radial direction) and a_theta
(accel in the +ve "theta" direction).
I.e. a_theta = 1/r d/dt (r^2 omega).
Given r and omega (the rate of rotation) are apparently constant
in his example, a_theta = 0. So all forces are radial.
From the numerous quotes and attempts to find contradiction
between decades-apart publications, I guess we're dealing
with rhetoric 101 rather than mathematics 101.
--
nice try, but wikipedia is not a credible source.
-- Animal06 ["10,000 lakes"] <Wher...@Friday.com>, 03 Dec 2010 13:05:47 -0500
Androcles
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d518507-96f9-48dd...@c2g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
A papabozo who is sitting in car going around a corner
is sensible of a force which acts INwards in a radial
direction - the door.
Open the door to remove the force and the car will
continue around the corner.
You won't, you'll carry on in a straight line.
PD
wrote:
Ah, so if an object moves in a certain direction, then that must be
the direction of the force acting on it, according to Androcles.
Thus, we are to understand that because the Earth moves around in a
nearly circular orbit around the Sun, under the influence of gravity,
then the direction of the gravitational force must be in the direction
of the Earth's motion, tangent to the orbit. At least according to
Androcles.
Androcles claims to be a devout believer in Newtonian mechanics and
yet this kind of crap comes out of his mind.
hanson
a loudmouthing, raving Einstein Dingleberry without balls,
to have proven yet that his tripe below has any merit,
and neither his claim that Gravity is no force. So...
< http://tinyurl.com/Paparios-prove-it-by-jumping>
out of a 5th story window to make your fellow
Einstein Dingleberries cheer... ahahahaha....
>
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
>> <papar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
Andro wrote:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
>> > Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity:
>> > The Special and General Theory. 1920.
>> > "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is
>> > sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
>> > Einstein
>> > <http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg>
>> > Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
>> > Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially. An observer
>> > who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
>> > which acts in a tangential direction.
>>
>> > NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
>> > Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform
>> > motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that
>> > state by forces impressed thereon.
>>
>> > The lying idiot Einstein doesn't know the meaning of radial.
>>
Paparios wrote:
>> Once more, drunken Andro has done it!!
> platform (those with wooden horses that you so much like) and later
> inform us if your ass moves tangentially or radially, with respect to
>
Androcles wrote:
>> Once more, the skank papabozo puts his head up his arse
>> and denies experiment. Still, we don't expect waps, dagos,
>> kikes and wetback morons to understand plain English.
>
> It is also evident that this wacko is asserting that, when he takes a
> right corner inside his car at 50 km/hr, he feels a "force" that
> impulses him "forward" or "backwards" with respect to the drive wheel,
> while the rest of us feel a "force" pushing our bodies to the "left"
> of the car.
>
> Einstein is no match for the Global Brain, thus he is ridiculed today.
>
>
>
... AHAHAHAHA... So much for the unfulfilled wonders of
Relativity. SR/GR are truly useless models, except for its
breeding of Dingleberries, without balls, who worship AE's
sphincter, like Paprios does. So to prove your tripe above
< http://tinyurl.com/Paparios-prove-it-by-jumping> out of
a 5th story window, which should also prove, according
to you, with Einstein blessings, that Gravity is no force, &
it would save hordes of your fellow Einstein Dingleberries
from depression & being a laughing stock... Till then
****************************
Androcles 17 : Rios 0, zero, zilch, null, nada
***************************
Thanks for the alughs, though, guys.. ahahahanson
papa...@gmail.com
[....]
The usual incoherent wobbling of the wacko hanson who, the same as
Andro, has lost his mind long ago.
What a pity!
hanson
<papa...@gmail.com> who "has lost his mind long ago"
wishes to see what "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
OK, here it is again for your benefit , Migi:
Androcles
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7c69e35-a4e9-4d53...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
[....]
Darwin123
> From the numerous quotes and attempts to find contradiction
> between decades-apart publications, I guess we're dealing
> with rhetoric 101 rather than mathematics 101.
There is a serious difference between the two.
Darwin123
> Androcles claims to be a devout believer in Newtonian mechanics and
> yet this kind of crap comes out of his mind.
Androcles really doesn't know the first thing about Newtonian
physics.
Further, you remember the days that he used to praise H.A.
Lorentz? He didn't understand, or even have read, anything by
Lorentz.
I got Androcles off of Lorentz.
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97d76511-5c43-4b6f...@f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
What drosen posts is opinionated rumour rather than mathematics and physics.
There is a serious difference between the two.
--
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.
480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 = 1
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant, the velocity of
light in empty space." --§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity --
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity"--§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
--ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the
part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in
Relativityland.
Androcles
===========================================
Oh boy, are you ever deranged. I have NEVER praised Lorentz,
the cretin was an aetherialist. In your dreams you got me off.
I suppose it isn't really lying if you have hallucinations.
k...@kymhorsell.com
> On Jan 7, 11:28?am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Androcles claims to be a devout believer in Newtonian mechanics and
>> yet this kind of crap comes out of his mind.
> Androcles really doesn't know the first thing about Newtonian
> physics.
Sure doesn't seem to think much of Kepler. :)
--
[Full metal rebuttal:]
Not true.
-- John Stafford <nh...@droffats.net>, 08 Dec 2010 10:16:59 -0600
Blissfull
> In sci.math Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jan 7, 11:28?am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Androcles claims to be a devout believer in Newtonian mechanics and
> >> yet this kind of crap comes out of his mind.
> > Androcles really doesn't know the first thing about Newtonian
> > physics.
>
> ...
>
> Sure doesn't seem to think much of Kepler. :)
>
> --
> [Full metal rebuttal:]
> Not true.
.
.
Viva.. the great hero of science Androcles .
Viva… Viva… Viva
Androcles footwear superior than the head of Einstein hordes ,
which they became a laughing stock all the time.
Pal
-
Chris.B
attention. Look at his recent behaviour where he interupted thread
after thread to dangle his bait. (Kelleher style) Now he has your
attention he can argue any nonsense which come into his head, Which is
most of the time. Default defence, when cornered is the foul-mouthed
infant act. He is the screaming kid, rolling on the floor at the
supermarket, while his sham parent is sorting 24 x 7 verbal garbage on
their cell phone.
He is no different from Kelleher, Retch and all the other desperate
inadequates of this world. They can't stand not being in the
limelight. Attention deficiency order by proxy. His pedantic acolytes
have the same problem as Oriel's. They suffer from rabid naivety. By
all means take the piss out of him but for god's sake don't take the
bait! It wouldn't surprise me, in the least, to discover that
Kelleher, Hanson and Andrex are one and the same. The playground
teaser who never grew up. One completely unrecognised clot claiming
superiority to Einstein, Newton and Napoleon combined? And you respond
in serious debate? Would you discuss Relativity outside the bus
station with a raving bag lady? Perhaps you would?
Andrew Smallshaw
>
> "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
> Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
So do you care to explain how the observer may simultaneously be
on the roundabout and not on the roundabout after having been thrown
off?
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
Androcles
"Andrew Smallshaw" <and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:slrn3vfsiigek...@sdf.lonestar.org...
| On 2011-01-07, Androcles <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
| >
| > "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
| > K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
|
| > Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
|
| So do you care to explain how the observer may simultaneously be
| on the roundabout and not on the roundabout after having been thrown
| off?
|
Or even why you snip text at all?
Is it to deliberately confuse others or just because you are an idiot?
"An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
Andrew Smallshaw.
Is this ball on the roundabout?
<http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov>
What sensible force does it experience?
Jerry
wrote:
Acceleration and velocity vectors are not required to be
collinear. It would be a very boring world if they were.
Jerry
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:721a7007-0471-41fa...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Jerry
=====================================
Jerry
wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
As usual, you keep switching scenarios. The ball rolls freely on
the roundabout, and is therefore in two-dimensional freefall. An
inertial observer sees the ball's path as a straight line. On the
other hand, the inertial observer sees that each child sitting on
the roundabout experiences continuous acceleration along a radial
vector directed at all times towards the center of the roundabout.
A child sitting on the roundabout experiences this as "a force
which acts outwards in a radial direction."
If a child turns around to face outwards and releases the ball,
she will see the ball accelerating away from the center. The
inertial observer, however, sees the ball moving tangentially in
a straight line.
So what is your problem?
Jerry
Andrew Smallshaw
>
> "Andrew Smallshaw" <and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
> news:slrn3vfsiigek...@sdf.lonestar.org...
>| On 2011-01-07, Androcles <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
>| >
>| > "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
>| > K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
>|
>| > Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
>|
> Or even why you snip text at all?
> Is it to deliberately confuse others or just because you are an idiot?
Try reading any guide on netiquette. No one needs to read the same
stuff over and over, particuarly when it is half baked rubbish such
as this.
Now, do you have a substantive reply or are your ad hominem arguments
an admission you don't have one. For that matter, try explaining
the difference between an overly simplistic mathematical model
which point masses with a more thorough treatment that handles the
forces within realistic, non-point masses. Those are the forces
the observer directly feels and is what Einsteind was getting at.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
Joe
Poor drunken drocels will spend the rest of his pathtic life trying to
disprove
the smartest minds of our time becuase he sees him self as a wannabe
Einstein.
Drunken drocles will never amount to shit and can't admit he's just an
average
idiot.
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote in message
news:HRCVo.18485$zr1....@newsfe10.ams2...
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
>
> Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
> 1920.
>
> "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
> Einstein
>
> <http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg>
> Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
> Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
oriel36
Don't you know that all orbits are not equal ?
It is not possible to treat the orbital motion of the moon around the
Earth the same way as the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun
as those two orbits display completely different characteristics.
The moon shows the same face to the Earth as an orbital characteristic
while the Earth slowly and unevenly turns through 360 degrees and
coincident with an orbital period.Any intelligent person knows this as
the polar coordinates ,as a consequence of that orbital turning to the
Sun,spend 6 months in daylight followed by 6 months of darkness and
none of it due to daily rotation.
All this wasted effort with early 20th century wordplays and guys who
are still terrified of Isaac Newton,celestial orbits can't be reduced
to a one-size-fits-all phenomena but as I am not an empiricist,these
things fascinate me when I encounter them while empiricists ignore the
differences.
Androcles
| On 2011-01-08, Androcles <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
| >
| > "Andrew Smallshaw" <and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
| > news:slrn3vfsiigek...@sdf.lonestar.org...
| >| On 2011-01-07, Androcles <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
| >| >
| >| > "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
| >| > K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial
direction" --
| >|
| >| > Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
| >|
| > Would you care to explain why you snip the attribution?
| > Or even why you snip text at all?
| > Is it to deliberately confuse others or just because you are an idiot?
|
| Try reading
I can read. Obviously you cannot, you fucking snipping imbecile.
--
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Androcles
===========================================
And what are those two dimensions?
An inertial observer sees the ball's path as a straight line.
===========================================
An external observer, inertial or not, sees the ball's path as radial.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
As usual, you keep switching jargon.
What's your problem with that, faux female faggot?
Androcles
"Joe" <Nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:iga2gb$3u4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
|
| Poor
k...@kymhorsell.com
[...]
> Try reading any guide on netiquette. No one needs to read the same
> stuff over and over, particuarly when it is half baked rubbish such
> as this.
While he's doing that, perhaps peruse something on Narcissitic
Personality Disorder to get an insight into why snipping the
"holy words" eventually ends in Warty's interesting farewell soliloquy.
--
If there was no warming or cooling trend, then the chance of 2007
being tied with 1998 [130 year record!] would be quite high.
-- No Pressure <no.pressu...@gmail.com>, 11 Dec 2010 05:20:39 -0800
oriel36
> On 2011-01-08, Androcles <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Andrew Smallshaw" <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
> >news:slrn3vfsiigek...@sdf.lonestar.org...
> >| On 2011-01-07, Androcles <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
> >| >
> >| > "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> >| > K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
> >|
> >| > Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
> >|
> > Would you care to explain why you snip the attribution?
> > Or even why you snip text at all?
> > Is it to deliberately confuse others or just because you are an idiot?
>
> Try reading any guide on netiquette. No one needs to read the same
> stuff over and over, particuarly when it is half baked rubbish such
> as this.
>
> Now, do you have a substantive reply or are your ad hominem arguments
> an admission you don't have one. For that matter, try explaining
> the difference between an overly simplistic mathematical model
> which point masses with a more thorough treatment that handles the
> forces within realistic, non-point masses. Those are the forces
> the observer directly feels and is what Einsteind was getting at.
>
> --
> Andrew Smallshaw
Here is the statement which is supposed to link Kepler's proposals for
variable orbital speed and elliptical orbital geometry with
experimental sciences,at least as Isaac Newton saw it -
'PHÆNOMENON IV.'
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is
now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun
revolves about the earth.." Isaac Newton
What Isaac was trying to do with Kepler's 'periodic times argument' is
make the Ra/Dec framework a common denominator for observations and
modeling which may sound fine to a theorist or those who predict and
compute celestial paths based on the calendar system,after all,we can
predict when a lunar or solar eclipse occurs as a date within a
calendar system but as this technique runs everything off right
ascension,basically trying to force the Earth's orbital motion into
the calendar framework,what might look a good idea will soon start to
show cracks which will turn into canyons.
There is a lovely intimacy to all this that is far removed from the
screaming that goes on here in these forums and even though I am not
an empiricist, I can see that even for Einstein,the relationship
between Newton's and Kepler's work was more important than what the
world thought of him,in some ways he redeems himself that way -
Far from lying,I think Einstein's generation just got fed up with the
system inherited from Newton and they had good reason to as the
'predictive' element of Newton's system is the misuse of the calendar
system.Now I realize that mathematicians would rather die a thousand
deaths than deal with interpretative astronomy where all this gets
sorted out but seemingly their is a natural intransigence anyway to
alter judgments when the whole point of the exercise was to shift
emphasis away from the geometrical language of astronomy to a less
accurate treatment by forces,masses,ect.
Daryl McCullough
>y.
>> 1920.
>>
>> =A0"An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
>> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
>> Einstein
>>
>> <http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg>
>> Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
>> Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
>> An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
>> which acts in a tangential direction.
>>
>> NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
>ht
>> line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
>> thereon.
>>
>> The lying idiot Einstein doesn't know the meaning of radial.
>> Proven by experiment!
>> Proven by peer review!
>
>Acceleration and velocity vectors are not required to be
>collinear. It would be a very boring world if they were.
There is something reassuring about the fact that Androcles
understands Newtonian physics no better than he understands
Special Relativity.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Androcles
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:igajo...@drn.newsguy.com...
There is nothing reassuring about a stupid bigot like McCullough
who doesn't know multiplication from division.
--
Peer reviewed publication.
< http://ivanik3.narod.ru/TimeLifeMezon/301-305Nature.pdf >
Bailey, Borer et. al:
tau = tau0 / [(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] = gamma.tau0
Einstein: tau = t * [(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] =
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif>
Somebody doesn't know multiplication from division.
Somebody is cooking the books to get the result they want.
Somebody is LYING.
While no theory can be proven, it can be disproven by example.
Bailey, Borer et. al. have DISPROVEN relativity.
So much for peer-review.
Darwin123
> A papabozo who is sitting in car going around a corner
> is sensible of a force which acts INwards in a radial
> direction - the door.
> Open the door to remove the force and the car will
> continue around the corner.
> You won't, you'll carry on in a straight line.
Andorkles posted a link to a picture of a catapult. He didn't
explain how that picture is relevant. Let me explain.
Androcles basically believes in Aristotle mechanics, not
Newtonian mechanics. He believes a "force" is required for objects to
travel in a straight line. Therefore, he believes that the circular
motion of the catapult imposes a tangential force on the missile being
propelled.
The catapult that he showed was popular in the time of Aristotle.
It is not even a trubuchet, which is a more advanced design used in
medieval times.
Andorkles was making a visual statement that he doesn't believe
Isaac Newton. Objects require force to move in a straight line. All
those statements that he made about Newton is irrelevant since he
hasn't really studied Newton. Andorkles is promoting Aristotle.
Andorkles worked on an assembly line that manufactured
transformers. All he did was wrap wire around a ferromagnetic core.
This has lead to a rather strange view of mechanics. He has somehow
wrapped electromagnetic theory around a core of Aristotles mechanics.
I should be fair. Andorkles makes Aristotle look worse than he
really was.
Chris.B
>
> So much for peer-review.
When you are in a black hole:
Stop digging! (at people)
Never shoot the messenger.
Particularly then they are carrying Andrex.
You never know when you'll be caught short.
(of suitable swear words to sustain your argument)
"Its only puppy love, tra-la"
Refs:
Osmond D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
k...@kymhorsell.com
[Warty]
...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Here's another article that likely obtains:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury
--
[Full metal rebuttal:]
Not true.
-- John Stafford <nh...@droffats.net>, 08 Dec 2010 10:16:59 -0600
Darwin123
There is an interesting variation on this that neither you nor
Andorkles mention. The ball rolling on the roundabout experiences
static friction which produces torque. Thus, the ball actually behaves
in a fashion more complex than what you or Andorkles describe.
Keplers Laws don't nearly apply to the rolling ball. The rolling
ball can go into an "orbital" mode on the roundabout. This isn't quite
what Andorkles meant. However, what you said may not be literally true
either.
I read an interesting article on the trajectory of a rolling ball
on the round a bout. I don't have the citation handy. However, the
experiment is easy to do.
Not that this has anything to do with relativity, per se.
Newtonian physics can be weird enough without relativity.
Androcles
==========================================
The Krebs cycle doesn't nearly apply to the rolling ball, dorksen0000.
Biochemistry can be weird enough without relativity.
Plate tectonics doesn't nearly apply to the rolling ball, dorksen0000.
Geology can be weird enough without relativity.
Santa Claus doesn't nearly apply to the rolling ball, dorksen0000.
Xmas can be weird enough without relativity.
What do Kepler's laws have to do with the Coriolis effect, dorksen0000?
This has everything to do with Galilean relativity, per se, dorksen0000.
The ball is accelerated TANGENTIALLY by friction with the disc,
not radially as Einstein claims.
As usual, the faux female faggot Tom&Jeery doesn't answer my question.
--
Given:
tau =(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Substitute vt for x,
=(t-v.vt/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
=(t-v^2.t/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Factorise t,
= t(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and since sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (1-v^2/c^2),
tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
by very simple schoolboy algebra, which Einstein states in
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif>
You really should have paid attention in school, drosen, instead of telling
others they don't understand. That makes YOU a dork, dumb drosen.
Androcles
On Jan 7, 11:18 am, "Androcles"
> A papabozo who is sitting in car going around a corner
> is sensible of a force which acts INwards in a radial
> direction - the door.
> Open the door to remove the force and the car will
> continue around the corner.
> You won't, you'll carry on in a straight line.
Andorkles posted a link to a picture of a catapult. He didn't
explain how that picture is relevant. Let me explain.
Androcles basically believes in Aristotle mechanics, not
Newtonian mechanics. He believes a "force" is required for objects to
travel in a straight line.
You lying Ashkenazi bastard, drosen.
drosen basically believes in Aristotelian mechanics, not
Newtonian mechanics. He believes a "force" is required for objects to
travel in a straight line.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
--
Given:
tau =(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Substitute vt for x,
=(t-v.vt/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
=(t-v^2.t/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Factorise t,
= t(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and since sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (1-v^2/c^2)
= t * (1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Hence
oriel36
You talk about 'Newtonian physics' but much of what is eventually
attributed to Newton was already being discussed 20 years before the
Principia in a format that still retained terrestrial effects such as
tides as a link between speculation and interpretation -
http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA206&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
The thing about this is that with 21st century technology and
especially imaging technology,there is an easier route from effects
and experiences to their actual causes .The orbital modification is
equal to or greater than the refinement Kepler introduced as it works
off the known observation that the polar coordinates experience a
single daylight/darkness cycle arising from the orbital behavior of
the Earth.
Readers looking at the letter from John Wallis to Robert Boyle should
be fascinated at the attention to detail these guys had and were it
not that Newton got greedy and short-circuited the reasonable
empirical approach which uses analogies at a human level to apply to
planetary dynamics and their effects,we would not be stuck here in the
21st century with an ideology that could be found in the science
fiction section of a bookstore in 1898.
I guess too many paychecks still rely on Newton's approach to make a
difference but honestly,once a more common approach relying on
tangible effects returns,this worthless charade will continue.
hanson
<http://tinyurl.com/Negative-Dingleberry-Chris-B
... Excellent!... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
>
The Negative "Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:4fb5e515-6f77-4489...@w2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
... ahahahahaha.. Yea, true to your handle, your tripe was as
negative, just as you have profiled yourself... Of course your
negative tripe above is in reality simply your anger over:
<http://tinyurl.com/Negative-Dingleberry-Chris-B>, which
still galls you and makes you crank yourself... AHAHAHA...
It says in that link: "Androcles towers over your sub-intellect
like Newton towers over Einstein"....Thanks for the laughs
though, Chris, you fine & feeble mind... ahahahaha... ahahaha...
I appreciate that you like my splendid pearls of wisdom...
----------- AHAHAHAHA -----------
Uncle Ben
wrote:
> ....
> The ball is accelerated TANGENTIALLY by friction with the disc,
> not radially as Einstein claims.
(I snip the rest, because the quoted paragraph is the only part of the
post I am replying to. This is usually considered good netiquette,
not censorship, because anyone who wants to read the rest can find it
above.)
Let's see what Newton's calculus says:
-------------------------
The circular motion of the ball glued to the surface of the round-
about is described by
x = A cos wt, y = sin wt, where A is the radius of the circle and w is
the angular velocity.
------------------------
The velocity of the ball is the first derivative of its position:
vx = -wA sin wt, vy = wA cos wt,
which has magnitude wA and is tangential to the path of the ball.
------------------------
The acceleration of the ball is the first derivative of its velocity:
ax = -w^2 A cos wt, ay = -w^2 A sin wt,
which has magnitude Aw^2 and points to the center of rotation.
------------------------
The force exerted by the glue prevents the ball from rolling off the
round-about by giving the ball the needed acceleration towards the
center.
------------------------
The reader can judge Androcles's remarks in this Newtonian light.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:2ee77cab-b930-4dc2...@j25g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 9, 12:09 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j>
wrote:
> ....
> The ball is accelerated TANGENTIALLY by friction with the disc,
> not radially as Einstein claims.
....
(I snip the rest, because the quoted paragraph is the only part of the
post I am replying to. This is usually considered good netiquette,
not censorship, because anyone who wants to read the rest can find it
above.)
The force exerted by the glue prevents the ball from rolling off the
round-about by giving the ball the needed acceleration towards the
center.
=================================================
(I snip the rest, because the quoted paragraph is the only part of the
post I am replying to. This is usually considered good netiquette,
not censorship, because anyone who wants to read the rest can find it
above.)
THANK YOU, Bonehead!
So we agree at last!
Confirm, please. You agree Einstein got it wrong?
No going back now, make up your mind!
Uncle Ben
wrote:
=================================================
Let's see:
Androcles: "The ball is accelerated TANGENTIALLY by friction with the
disc, not radially as Einstein claims.
Bonehead: "The force exerted by the glue prevents the ball from
rolling off the round-about by giving the ball the needed acceleration
towards the
center.
(I haven't checked Einstein's words, but since you have always read
him closer than I have, I'll accept your quotation of him.)
If you believe that your words agree with my calculation, then
congratulations! I'll have a beer in your honor.
Uncle Ben
Jerry
wrote:
> "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
> The force exerted by the glue prevents the ball from rolling off the
> round-about by giving the ball the needed acceleration towards the
> center.
> =================================================
> (I snip the rest, because the quoted paragraph is the only part of the
> post I am replying to. This is usually considered good netiquette,
> not censorship, because anyone who wants to read the rest can find it
> above.)
>
> THANK YOU, Bonehead!
> So we agree at last!
> Confirm, please. You agree Einstein got it wrong?
> No going back now, make up your mind!
No, Einstein got it right. The acceleration towards the center
implies that the ball "is sensible of a force which acts outwards
in a radial direction."
Jerry
Androcles
=================================================
Let's see:
========================================
Androcles: That's your problem, you snip instead of reading what the
moron Einstein writes.
Bonehead: If you believe that your words agree with my calculation, then
congratulations! I'll have a beer in your honor.
Uncle Ben
=====================================
Androcles: I'm giving you a second chance. Look before you leap.
Confirm, please. You agree Einstein got it wrong?
No going back now, make up your stupid mind!
Androcles
Jerry
=====================================
That's not what Bonehead says, he disagrees with Einstein.
You being a dumbfuck can't read and always snip or I'd
point it out to you, but I'm not going back over old posts
just because you have your head up your arse.
Jerry
wrote:
> That's not what Bonehead says, he disagrees with Einstein.
> You being a dumbfuck can't read and always snip or I'd
> point it out to you, but I'm not going back over old posts
> just because you have your head up your arse.
Your method of quoting makes for a complicated tangle trying to
distinguish who said what, so of course I snip.
Uncle Ben wrote:
The force exerted by the glue prevents the ball from rolling
off the round-about by giving the ball the needed acceleration
towards the center.
The acceleration towards the center implies that the ball will be
"sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction."
If you accelerate a car by stepping on the gas pedal, you are
sensible of a force which acts backwards, pushing you into the
seat. This is BASIC, BASIC Newtonian mechanics.
Jerry
Androcles
On Jan 9, 11:41 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j>
wrote:
> That's not what Bonehead says, he disagrees with Einstein.
> You being a dumbfuck can't read and always snip or I'd
> point it out to you, but I'm not going back over old posts
> just because you have your head up your arse.
Your method of quoting makes for a complicated tangle trying to
distinguish who said what, so of course I snip.
=======================================
Oh, right, your snipping is my fault, but you changed over to
google groups and your crap fucks up the indenting with its
stupid "-show quoted text-", "-hide quoted text-" nonsense that
was supposed to do your snipping for you. I've made no changes
in seven years, usenet worked fine then and still does. I don't have
any indenting trouble writing to Wilson.
Google groups is full of shit and so are you.
<rest of your crap deliberately snipped, just to be fucking awkward
like you, snipping cunt >
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Darling, whatever do you mean? I left the reading of Einstein up to
you, who do it so well. All I did was to apply calculus to circular
motion. You say that Einstein disagrees with calculus. If so, hats
off to you, but pray tell what he said that disagrees with calculus?
Uncle Ben
Bonehead to you, sweet teaser
oriel36
I think this calls for an appropriate song -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwAmpn8ISV0
After all,you have the technical details of Newton's botched attempt
to link experimental sciences directly with orbital dynamics but where
his distortions are systematic and can be righted,that mess you call
relativity is merely an attempt to imitate Newton and not correct him.
Andrew Smallshaw
>
> I can read. Obviously you cannot, you fucking snipping imbecile.
I notice the lack of a substantive reply. A plonk without a reply
is basically an admission that there is no sane response.
> --
> *plonk*
Gee, how am I going to sleep at night?
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
Androcles
=========================================
As I suspected, you want to sit on the fence.
Bonehead: "The force exerted by the glue prevents the ball from
rolling off the round-about by giving the ball the needed acceleration
towards the center.
Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction"
Androcles: "The ball is accelerated TANGENTIALLY by friction with the
disc, not radially as Einstein claims.
Nature:
<http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov>
I don't see any glue, I see tangential acceleration. You and Einstein
are both lying, but at least you don't agree with each other.
Tell is again with your calculus, Bonehead, is it a radial inward
force, a radial outward force, or a tangential force?
Are all American rednecked faggots illiterate, Bonehead?
Tell is again with your calculus, Bonehead, do moving rods contract?
--
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine
the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod" --
Einstein
"The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the length
of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein
"This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall
find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
AND THE ANSWER IS...
"xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
It differs from rAB, too, "where rAB denotes the length of the moving
rod--measured in the stationary system."
In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote 'for v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the "stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures', whereas his own equation shows they stretch to infinity...
sqrt(1-c^2/c^2) = 0.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A -tA) = c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in
empty space." -- Einstein
He was right. The distance from A to A divided by the time it takes
to get there is undefined. Anyone that divides by zero is a lunatic.
Uncle Ben
wrote:
> As I suspected, you want to sit on the fence.
>
> Bonehead: "The force exerted by the glue prevents the ball from
> rolling off the round-about by giving the ball the needed acceleration
> towards the center.
>
> Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction"
>
> Androcles: "The ball is accelerated TANGENTIALLY by friction with the
> disc, not radially as Einstein claims.
>
Oh, that!
In the approximately inertial frame of the earth, calculus shows that
the ball is accelerated toward the center of the round-about, just as
the moon is accelerated toward the earth by its gravity. That is a
radial force inward.
In a rotating frame of reference moving with the turntable, or
whatever you call it, there are fictitious forces at work, just as
they are on a person in a car negotiating a traffic circle. A person
feels a centrifugal force throwing himself to the outside of the
turn. (If he were free to move out of the car, he would feel the
coriolis force as well. But if his safety belt is secure and the car
doesn't roll over, the coriolis force is zero.) The centrifugal force
is radial outward. This is what Albert was talking about.
This centrifugal force is the (fictional) reaction to the real force
toward the center that makes the ball negotiate its curved path. Both
are radial. In an inertial frame, there is no centrifugal force; the
real force makes the path curve toward the center of rotation, just as
the path of the moon is continually turning toward the earth, (but not
getting much closer to it).
There is no tangential force on the ball. If there were, the speed of
the ball would change.
If the friction (or the glue) disappears, the ball will fly off
tangentially. But no force in that direction is needed to make the
ball go tangentially. It *already has velocity in that direction*, and
it continues in that direction at constant speed in agreement with
Newton's First Law, not his Second Law, with no force required.
In summary, there is a radial force inward, making the path curve
towards the inside. There is a fictitious force radially outward in a
rotating frame, an illusion that seems quite real to a car passenger.
And there is a tangential velocity that makes the car continue to
coast over the ice when road friction fails to keep the car going
around the circle
It has been fun to review 1st year physics with you, John.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
On Jan 9, 9:31 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j>
wrote:
> As I suspected, you want to sit on the fence.
>
> Bonehead: "The force exerted by the glue prevents the ball from
> rolling off the round-about by giving the ball the needed acceleration
> towards the center.
>
> Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction"
>
> Androcles: "The ball is accelerated TANGENTIALLY by friction with the
> disc, not radially as Einstein claims.
>
Oh, that!
In the approximately inertial frame of the earth
====================================
Oh, that old Ptolemaic crap.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Bonehead waves his geocentric hat again!
Is the Earth flat too, stupid snipping Bonehead?
Will we fall off the edge?
papa...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Andro:
Once more you have been proved to be just a moron. Deal with it!
Tangential forces.....your ass!!!
Don Stockbauer
That could spin you around.
Androcles
<papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3992863e-b22e-4ff5...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Nature:
<http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov>
Queer papabozo:
I don't see any glue, I see tangential acceleration. You, Bonehead and
Einstein are lying bastards only interested in arse, you fuckin' faggot.
Once more you have been proven to be just a blind stupid cunt. Deal with it!
--
Bonehead (aka "I'm not sue") is grieving, he's in denial that the moving
xi is greater than x' and angry at Androcles for murdering his precious
"LT".
Poor Uncle Bonehead, can't his bonehead out of his arse.
Bwhahahahaha!
Chris.B
> Bwhahahahaha!
There you are then. I said you were Hanson.
Barking, a singular pair.
Now all we have to do is tie in Kelleher and we have singular triplets
trolled up into one long, complete moron.
hanson
.ahahahaha... So, you STILL crank yourself over this:The Negative "Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> whined &wrote:
<snip the Negative Danish crap, to save him embarrassment>
which he ended, negatively, with
"Kelleher, Hanson and Androcles are one and the same"
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.. and all 3 tower over you like Newton towers
over Einstein.. which of course cranks you grievously,...
... ahahahahaha.. &, true to your handle, your tripe was as
negative, just as you have profiled yourself... Of course your
negative tripe above is in reality simply your anger over:
<http://tinyurl.com/Negative-Dingleberry-Chris-B>, which
still galls you and makes you crank yourself... AHAHAHA...
Chris.B
<bin the usual puppy poo>
With every word you type you further prove you are Andrex.
You really are, all, one very sick mutt.
How do you type with only one paw?
hanson
So, Chrissy-pooh, you STILL crank yourself over this:
<http://tinyurl.com/Negative-Dingleberry-Chris-B>
don't ya,... Excellent!... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...<snip his Negative Danish crap, to save him embarrassment>
which he,Chrissy-pooh, ended, negatively, with
"Kelleher, Hanson and Androcles are one and the same"
>
hanson wrote:
Well, CB, to bad, that all 3 tower over you like Newton
Darwin123
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
>
You didn't explain your pictures. I see two possible
interpretations.
1) The line represents of rolling ball in contact with the round-a-
about, where static friction acts on the point of contact.
2) This is Andorkles brain, spinning its wheels.
Androcles
On Jan 9, 12:23 am, "Androcles"
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
>
You didn't explain your pictures.
============================================
This is the explanation.
http://tinyurl.com/4dscwrc
I see two possible
interpretations.
1) The line represents of rolling ball in contact with the round-a-
about, where static friction acts on the point of contact.
2) This is Andorkles brain, spinning its wheels.
======================================
Whoever Andorkles is, he has a brain. drosen0000 has zero nought nil nothing
brain. Your intepretation is wrong, drosen0000. There is no static friction,
only a point of view. The same event seen in FrameA is seen from a different
point of view in FrameB. If you had a brain to spin, drosen, you could spin
a yarn of a thousand words, but you can't even read pictures.
An animation is worth 60,798 words:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_(computing)>
Darwin123
wrote:
> 1) The line represents of rolling ball in contact with the round-a-
> about, where static friction acts on the point of contact.
> 2) This is Andorkles brain, spinning its wheels.
> ======================================
> Whoever Andorkles is, he has a brain. drosen0000 has zero nought nil nothing
> brain. Your intepretation is wrong, drosen0000.
> There is no static friction,
> only a point of view. The same event seen in FrameA is seen from a different
> point of view in FrameB.
tangential force acting on the ball in all frames. Let us look at both
diagrams.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
This is what the observer sees who is moving at a fixed velocity
in Newton's "absolute space. This observer is not under the action of
any external force. Neither is the ball.
There is no tangential acceleration seen by this observer. No
tangential force acting on the ball here. The ball is going in a
straight line at a constant velocity.
All three Newton's Laws of motion, as described in Principia, are
strictly followed for this observer. Since there is no action, there
is no reaction. Newton's Third Law isn't violated.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
This is what the observer sees who is standing on the round-
about. This observer is subject to a static frictional force exerted
on him by the round-about. If there was no frictional force on this
observer, then could not stand on the round-about. However, there is
no friction on the ball. You just said so. I one could grease the ball
so there is no significant friction on the ball. Or one could choose a
very small ball so the moment of inertia is insignificant.
To this observer, there is a tangential acceleration. However,
there is no real force on the ball. To have a real force on the ball
would violate Newton's Third Law. The force is being exerted on the
ball, so that is an action. However, no other object is experiencing a
force from the ball. Hence there is no reaction. Therefore, this can't
be a real force.
To the observer, the tangential acceleration indicates the
existence of a tangential pseudo-force. It is not a real force,
because it violates Newton's third law. If the ball is not pushing
against the floor of the round about, then the source of the reaction
is completely hidden to the observer.
The pseudo-force that causes the looping is called the Coriolus
force. However, it is not a true force as described in Principia. A
true force must cause an equal and opposite force on some other
object.
There is a real force causing the looping motion. However, it is
not the Coriolus force. What is causing the appearance of looping
motion is the force on the observer. If the observer starts to observe
himself, rather than the ball, he will note that he is on the floor.
There is a static frictional force on his shoes or butt. He could feel
it. Therefore, he will know that the force is acting on him. There is
no real force acting on the ball.
I will designate this the centripetal paradox. The centrifugal and
Coriolus force are those pseudo-forces proportional to the
acceleration of an object observed by an observer. However, this
acceleration is not caused by a real force on the object. It is caused
by a real force on the observer.
Both the centrifugal and the Coriolus "force" are pseudoforces
because they are unpaired. Newton's Third Law implies that every real
force on an object has to be paired with a force on a completely
different object. The force on the different object has to be equal in
magnitude but opposite in direction. So every force in Principia is
associated with at least two objects. Pseudoforces aren't paired.
See, Newtonian all the way. There are no tangential forces on a
properly greased ball that is placed on a round-about.
Your knowledge of Newtonian physics is seriously deficient.
Androcles
On Jan 12, 2:35 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j>
wrote:
> 1) The line represents of rolling ball in contact with the round-a-
> about, where static friction acts on the point of contact.
> 2) This is Andorkles brain, spinning its wheels.
> ======================================
> Whoever Andorkles is, he has a brain. drosen0000 has zero nought nil
> nothing
> brain. Your intepretation is wrong, drosen0000.
Androkles was spinning his wheels.
> There is no static friction,
> only a point of view. The same event seen in FrameA is seen from a
> different
> point of view in FrameB.
Let us suppose that is true.
Of course it is true. That's how I drew it, I only changed the point of
view, not the objects.
Your hypothesis is that there is a
tangential force acting on the ball in all frames.
================================
Bullshit. No force acts on the ball at all, it still obeys Newton's first
law. I formed no hypothesis.
The hypothesis of vortices is pressed with many difficulties. That every
planet by a radius drawn to the sun may describe areas proportional to the
times of description, the periodic times of the several parts of the
vortices should observe the duplicate proportion of their distances from the
sun; but that the periodic times of the planets may obtain the sesquiplicate
proportion of their distance from the sun, the periodic times of the parts
of the vortex ought to be in the sesquiplicate proportion of their distance.
That the smaller vortices may maintain their lesser revolutions about
Saturn, Jupiter, and other planets, and swim quietly and undisturbed in the
greater vortex of the sun, the periodic times of the parts of the sun's
vortex should be equal; but the rotation of the sun and planets about their
axes, which ought to correspond with the motions of their vortices, recede
far from all these proportions. The motions of the comets are exceedingly
regular, and are governed by the same laws with the motions of the planets,
and can by no means be accounted for by the hypothesis of vortices; for
comets are carried with very eccentric motions through all parts of the
heavens indifferently, with a freedom that is incompatible with the notion
of a vortex. -- Principia Mathematica, Sir Isaac Newton.
Let's suppose you are an idiot.
Darwin123
> Let's suppose you are an idiot.
force on the planets, asteroids, and comets.
There is no radial force on the ball, either. In that way, it is
different from the planets, asteroids, and comets. There is a radial
force on the planets, asteroids and planets that is pointed toward the
sun.
Your claim was that Einstein was wrong because he supposedly
ignored the tangential force on the ball. Others (not me) pointed out
that there was no tangential force on the ball. You kept on blurbing
about that tangential force on the ball.
You have changed your story. Either this is because you don't
know Newtonian physics, or because you don't know English. My
hypothesis is that you have a problem with both.
If you knew there were no forces on the ball, you didn't make it
clear to all those posters. Even after dozens of posts. However, my
suspicion is that you initially misunderstood the physics. You really
thought there was a force on the ball. You are redirecting your
argument because you don't want to be seen as wrong.
Yes, there are no forces on the ball in the diagram you drew in
either picture. There is no force on the observer either, in the first
diagram you drew. However, in the second diagram, there is a force on
the observer. The observer wouldn't see a curved trajectory unless
there was a force acting on him.
What everyone is trying to tell you is that even in Newtonian
physics, the forces on the observer are important.
Okay, back to relativity. What I have been arguing with you and
others is that even in SR, the forces on the observer are important.
Newton placed a rather formal description of the absolute space which
precludes forces on the observer. Einstein placed a rather formal
description of the inertial frame which precludes forces on the
observer. Most of the "relativistic paradoxes" come about because some
people try to ignore the fact that a force is exerted on at least one
of the "observers."
I don't know about those reviewers that rejected Einstein's
paper. Maybe you misunderstood what they said. Maybe they actually
caught Einstein in error. Errors happen even to the best of us. In any
case, he sent them the article and they rejected it. So he wasn't a
lying idiot.
If the reviewers were right, and Einstein wrong, then this says
nothing about Einstein or the reviewers. After all, that is what the
review system is for. The reviewers are supposed to find mistakes. All
it would mean is that the reviewers did a good job. However, no one
can make out from your posts what Einstein's mistake was. So some of
us conjecture that the mistake was yours.
My hypothesis is that Einstein wasn't an idiot, the reviewers
were not idiots, and you are the idiot.
Androcles
On Jan 12, 4:37 pm, "Androcles"
> Let's suppose you are an idiot.
There is no force on the ball, just as there is no tangential
force on the planets, asteroids, and comets.
There is no radial force on the ball, either.
So now we've come full circle, back where this thread started.
Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his first relativity paper, drosen
zero nil nothing none agrees there is no radial force.
Case closed.
(There is, of course, and being a man I'll agree there is... but that
doesn't mean spacetime is curved or time is dilated or lengths are
contracted or any similar nonsense. Einstein was STILL a LYING IDIOT. I just
wanted to argue for the sake of it as the morons do.)
Jerry
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Naturally, you being a liar and an idiot, you have pulled Darwin's
remarks completely out of context. He wrote earlier:
However, there is no friction on the ball. You just said so.
I one could grease the ball so there is no significant friction
on the ball. Or one could choose a very small ball so the moment
of inertia is insignificant.
Don't think that you can get away with this nonsense, YOU IDIOT.
Jerry
Androcles
On Jan 12, 6:10 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j>
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:81438893-745c-4e67...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 12, 4:37 pm, "Androcles"> Let's suppose you are an idiot.
>
> There is no force on the ball, just as there is no tangential
> force on the planets, asteroids, and comets.
> There is no radial force on the ball, either.
> =====================================
> So now we've come full circle, back where this thread started.
> Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his first relativity paper,
> drosen
> zero nil nothing none agrees there is no radial force.
>
> Case closed.
> (There is, of course, and being a man I'll agree there is... but that
> doesn't mean spacetime is curved or time is dilated or lengths are
> contracted or any similar nonsense. Einstein was STILL a LYING IDIOT. I
> just
> wanted to argue for the sake of it as the morons do.)
Naturally,
=========================================
you being a snipping cunt, have snipped the FrameA and FrameB
animations with NO friction and drosen0000, being a snipping cunt,
has long since snipped the movie with the SMALL friction.
Naturally it is in your nature to ignore the evidence and hide it
whenever you can. Fuck off, faux female nurse faggot. We all
know you are Minor Crank Tom Cat and not Jerry the girlie
Mouse, Jeery. But you'll never own up to it.
Sneers and jeers,
Androcles
spudnik
may be bound-up with Einstein's other problem,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
so, space isn't curved, and
Einstein's extension of gallilean relativity is wrong?
cap&trade voluntary USA verson from 2003 and 2005 is tens
of billions in hedge-fund gaming per annum;
mandatory EU version is much larger;
my Congressman Waxman's bill'd make ours, mandatory,
much as the AB32 in California; hey, it's Free Trade!
the most important thing about CO2 is that it is heavier
than air; and, water vapor is lighter.
anyway, I may have been wrong about Newton, since
I just read that Descartes believed that
lightwaves propogate faster in a denser medium,
contra Snell's law. did Newton take this
as a fact?
the only real difference between biodieselTM
and "regular," is that the biodiesel will have a bouquet
of just certain plants.
Why Green plants hate solar cells
Figure 2.
Solar panels typically absorb about 20 percent of incident sunlight
for conversion to electricity. They contribute nothing to moisture
recycling, and obtain no benefit from precipitation. In fact, they are
most effective with absolutely no clouds in the sky.
Whereas the biogenic migration of atoms is accelerated through the
various biogeochemical cycles intersecting at photosynthesis, it is
disrupted by the presence of solar panels. Further, unlike plants,
solar cells produce, but do not consume, heat in their operation. That
is, much of the sunlight that hits a solar cell is either reflected or
absorbed as heat, without inducing an electrical current. This heat,
as well as that produced in the movement of electricity through
conducting wires, constitutes waste heat. In fact, solar cells work
best at the frigid temperatures found in the vacuum of space.
Then there’s the problem of dust; it is estimated that less than a
tablespoon of dust per square meter can reduce the efficiency of a
typical solar panel by 40 percent. This is roughly the amount
deposited in one week in the desert. Dust, which is a major worldwide
export of deserts like the Sahara, also represents a major ecological
threat, as well as a serious human health hazard from—among other
things—infectious diseases that can be carried with it when blown
across the ocean.
But solar panels themselves also pose a direct threat to the survival
of living organisms. Certain species of aquatic insects, which lay
their eggs in water, are attracted to the polarized light reflected by
solar panels, mistaking it for the reflection from water.
--sell every thing to the highests bidder,
such as carbon-credit hedge-fundamentalism, because
it's the Free Market, the Free Beer, the Free Trade
and freedom!... http://tarpley.net
Darwin123
> teh part about "radial acceleration on the disk,"
> may be bound-up with Einstein's other problem,http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
I am not clear where the problem is supposed to be. "Radial
acceleration on the disk" comes from Newton, not Einstein. A little
calculus, independent of relativity, shows that the material in a
spinning disk has to undergo radial acceleration. This acceleration is
designated centripetal acceleration.
I have read several articles by Einstein. He uses the formulas
for centripetal acceleration quite a lot. I have nver seen anything
wrong with it, and most "relativists" see nothing wrong with it. So
far as I can see, Androcles and you are the first anti-relativist who
have ever seen anything wrong with it.
Henry Wilson DSc
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
This is a very funny thread. The ratpack doesn't seem to have a clue..
Jerry and friends have no idea that the argument is based on which frame is
being considered.
Jerry often gets in a helluva mess when he/she/it tries to use rotating frames,
This is no exception.
Henry Wilson...
Androcles
======================================
Frame of reference, drosen0000.
The ONLY difference between these two images is the frame of reference.
No force takes place at all.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
The rotating disk can only impart a tangential force on the ball,
it imparts no radial force at all.
If the ball is glued to the disc then it is not a separate body, it is
part of the disc. If it suddenly becomes unglued at the rim of
the disc then it moves off tangentially, not radially. No calculus
needed.
--
Test of GR.
Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif>
Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
<http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm>
If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c>
Either way, NIST are useless yankee wankers and WRONG.
All you can honestly do, drosen0000, is agree with me or say
you do not know.
Newton said this:
Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year.
Einstein said this:
we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
and this:
--
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.
480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 = 1
You, drosen0000, claim you 'have nver seen anything
wrong with it, and most "relativists" see nothing wrong with it.'
All "relativists" are either blind or insane.
In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the
part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in
Relativityland.
'Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their
having received it from some person who has their entire confidence,
impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of
their heads.'- Galileo Galilei
'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so,
most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:iq71j6dh4o428aqbv...@4ax.com...
Yeah, and Tusseladd gets himself confused with phase, but Jeery won't go
up against him and straighten his stupid arse out. Jeery knows full well
about initial conditions. You and I will agree on most things but I'll soon
shout at you when you go off the rails. It's the only way to get to the
truth.
Why doesn't Jeery do the same? He's arse-kissing, that's why.
Consider a standing wave.
Since it isn't travelling, but troughs are phase-shifted by pi from crests,
then obviously if E1 = Eo sin(wt) for the crest then E2 = Eo sin(wt + pi)
for the trough.
Tusseladd wants to describe that with the distance between E1 and E2,
half a wavelength, so he says E2 = Eo sin(wt + kz), so as long as kz = pi
(a pure number) it will work, AT THE SAME TIME as the trough is a
crest. Where Tusseladd goes wrong is introducing a velocity to the wave,
AND getting his initial conditions wrong. His Ex and Hy (or By) have
no energy to start the wave in the first place.
Writing down equations is meaningless unless they model reality, and
Tusseladd's sinusoidal energy is just plain ridiculous. How can the
E-field and the B-field both be zero at the same instant? You can't
start a wave with nothing. And then he doubles the frequency!
Darwin123
> Frame of reference, drosen0000.
> The ONLY difference between these two images is the frame of reference.
> No force takes place at all.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
> The rotating disk can only impart a tangential force on the ball,
> it imparts no radial force at all.
You said that the rotating disc CAN impart a tangential force on
the ball. Therefore, you accept the idea that there may be a small
amount of friction between the disc and the ball. Then you say the
disc can not impart radial force at all. However, friction can act in
the radial direction. You really don't know much about friction.
I accept the idea that there are no frictional forces between
disc and ball. The ball is greased and small, so frictional forces are
negligible. There are no tangential forces and no radial forces on the
ball. I accept that fully. However, I will remind you that there are
no frictional forces if you bring it up again.
> If the ball is glued to the disc then it is not a separate body, it is
> part of the disc.
observer. It could be part of the observer that is in the rotating
frame where the disc is stationary. The observer in this reference
frame does not see all the laws in Principia satisfied.
> If it suddenly becomes unglued at the rim of
> the disc then it moves off tangentially, not radially. No calculus
> needed.
tangentially. The absolute frame of reference is by definition a
reference frame where all laws presented in Principia are satisfied.
This is not the only reference frame allowed.
The Newton's Laws of motion are Galilean invariant. Therefore, any
reference frame moving at a constant velocity with respect to the
reference frame are equivalent to the absolute space. Newton's Laws of
motion, as described in Principia, are satisfied in any reference
frame moving at a constant velocity with respect to the absolute
space. Again, these are not the only reference frames allowed.
In the rotating reference frame where the disc is stationary, the
ball without friction starts moving out radially, but in a slightly
curved path. Given enough time, the observer glued to the disc may see
the ball move in a loop. Was that the loop you were showing?
Newton's third law of motion is not satisfied in the rotating
reference frame where the disc is stationary. In order to move in a
curved path according to Principia, the ball has to have a tangential
force acting on it. However, the disc is not applying a force to the
ball. We just said the disc is friction free. Therefore, there is no
reaction force on the ball. Therefore, Newton's Third Law is violated
in this reference frame.
However, Newton would approve because THE ROTATING REFERENCE FRAME
IS NOT ABSOLUTE SPACE. It doesn't even move at a constant velocity
with respect to absolute space. Therefore, only parts of Principia
have to apply in this not so absolute space.
>
> --
> Test of GR.
>
> Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
> side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
> freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
> <http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif>
>
> Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
> <http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
> and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
> Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
>
> If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
> got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
> <http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092...>
Darwin123
> No, Einstein got it right. The acceleration towards the center
> implies that the ball "is sensible of a force which acts outwards
> in a radial direction."
The ball is responding to a force that is acting inwards in a
radial direction. The outward force is a pseudo-force, not a real
force. This is one thing that even Androcles occasionally understands.
Androcles
On Jan 14, 2:17 pm, "Androcles"
> Frame of reference, drosen0000.
> The ONLY difference between these two images is the frame of reference.
> No force takes place at all.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameA.gif
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif
> The rotating disk can only impart a tangential force on the ball,
> it imparts no radial force at all.
Maybe that is confusing everybody else.
You said that the rotating disc CAN impart a tangential force on
the ball.
In practice, yes. There will be some small friction between the ball
and the disc surface. An old fashioned gramophone needle in a
record groove is not "sensible" of a radial force.
Therefore, you accept the idea that there may be a small
amount of friction between the disc and the ball. Then you say the
disc can not impart radial force at all.
=============================================
The path of the ball will miss the centre because it was accelerated
tangentially. The white path will be curved.
However, friction can act in
the radial direction. You really don't know much about friction.
=============================================
You really don't know much about vectors.
I accept the idea that there are no frictional forces between
disc and ball.
================================
You really don't know much about rotating frames of reference.
Let the ball be at rest at the centre. Now disturb it. It will accelerate.
What path does it take in
< http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/FrameB.gif> ?
Answer: the red path.
It is being accelerated TANGENTIALLY. It will leave the
disc tangentially.
You really don't know much about vectors.
The ball is greased and small, so frictional forces are
negligible.
===================================
No grease needed, balls roll.
You really don't know much about balls or grease.
Sticky grease would add friction.
There are no tangential forces and no radial forces on the
ball. I accept that fully.
====================================
You wanted to add friction. The ball is accelerated
tangentially and leaves the disc tangentially by a
tangential force. Without friction it has a circular path
when at rest.
Frame of reference, drosen0000.
The ONLY difference between the two images is the frame of reference.
However, I will remind you that there are
no frictional forces if you bring it up again.
====================================
You can add friction. Just remember that the force is tangential,
the path is the red path. The ball will leave the disc tangentially
when the force ceases. Frame of reference, drosen0000.
The end of the red path is parallel to the rim of the disc.
The "radial" path is the white path, but that's not in the frame
of reference of the "observer who is sitting eccentrically on
the disc", as Einstein claims.
> If the ball is glued to the disc then it is not a separate body, it is
> part of the disc.
However, an object glued to the disc could be part of an
observer. It could be part of the observer that is in the rotating
frame where the disc is stationary. The observer in this reference
frame does not see all the laws in Principia satisfied.
========================================
Well done!
FrameB.gif does not satisfy Newton's laws. You've got it.
> If it suddenly becomes unglued at the rim of
> the disc then it moves off tangentially, not radially. No calculus
> needed.
In the absolute space described by Newton, the ball moves off
tangentially.
==============================================
The ball moves off tangentially from any point of view, rotating or
otherwise. There is no radial force.
The absolute frame of reference is by definition a
reference frame where all laws presented in Principia are satisfied.
================================================
I rather like the absolute mathematical frame. Every moving object
in the Universe has momentum, and the momenta can be summed.
The absolute frame is defined by the sum being zero.
Thus if a rocket has mass M with velocity v, its exhaust gasses
have mass m and velocity V, Mv + mV = 0. So we sum everything
in the Universe and if we find a non-zero sum the universe is moving
as a whole. But since it has nothing to move relatively to it cannot
be moving. If there is something it is moving relatively to then that
something isn't part of the Universe, which is against the definition
of the Universe being all. Hence the absolutely stationary frame exists.
This is not the only reference frame allowed.
============================================
For simplicity's sake the only frames of reference to be considered
here are translation and rotation. Translation is trivial, but rotation has
its
own set of laws.
The Newton's Laws of motion are Galilean invariant. Therefore, any
reference frame moving at a constant velocity with respect to the
reference frame are equivalent to the absolute space. Newton's Laws of
motion, as described in Principia, are satisfied in any reference
frame moving at a constant velocity with respect to the absolute
space. Again, these are not the only reference frames allowed.
In the rotating reference frame where the disc is stationary, the
ball without friction starts moving out radially, but in a slightly
curved path.
============================================
Careful. The path is curved, yes, but "slightly" does not apply.
There are some really horrendous frames of reference if you fix
the Earth and compute the motion of the planets around us.
Given enough time, the observer glued to the disc may see
the ball move in a loop. Was that the loop you were showing?
===========================================
Of course. FrameB.gif is "stationary".
Newton's third law of motion is not satisfied in the rotating
reference frame where the disc is stationary. In order to move in a
curved path according to Principia, the ball has to have a tangential
force acting on it. However, the disc is not applying a force to the
ball. We just said the disc is friction free. Therefore, there is no
reaction force on the ball. Therefore, Newton's Third Law is violated
in this reference frame.
However, Newton would approve because THE ROTATING REFERENCE FRAME
IS NOT ABSOLUTE SPACE. It doesn't even move at a constant velocity
with respect to absolute space. Therefore, only parts of Principia
have to apply in this not so absolute space.
============================================
You are catching on. It's not every day I find someone that actually thinks.
Most of ratpack can only repeat Einstein's drivel, never knowing they've
been conned by an idiot.
blackhead
wrote:
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
>
> Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
> 1920.
>
> "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
> Einstein
>
> <http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg>
> Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
> Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
> An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
> which acts in a tangential direction.
>
> NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
> Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
> line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
> thereon.
>
> The lying idiot Einstein doesn't know the meaning of radial.
> Proven by experiment!
> Proven by peer review!
You don't understand his 1905 paper, so why have you moved on the the
much more difficult General relativity?
Don Stockbauer
> Most of ratpack can only repeat Einstein's drivel, never knowing they've
> been conned by an idiot.
>
But you're making an unfair comparison. No one person can stand up
against the global brain, represented here by all of Usenet.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Have you ever seen a centrifugal clutch like the ones used in motor bikes or
chainsaws?
Above a certain rotation speed, a couple of rotating masses exert a radial
force on the drum in order to create enough friction to drive the thing. IT IS
A REAL RADIAL FORCE.
Henry Wilson...
Henry Wilson DSc
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
gOOD POINT.
Have you seen his latest ramblings where he shorts the end of a transmission
line, then sends a pulse down one side and back?
He could just as easily use a loop of wire.
>You can't
>start a wave with nothing. And then he doubles the frequency!
I suppose so much electricity is free in Norway they don't have to worry about
theory.
Henry Wilson...
Androcles
"blackhead" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:81d00328-64c0-4fd8...@z19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
===========================
You don't understand mathematics and logic, so why have you opened
your your your your mouth? And quit stuttering when you you you write.
Test of GR.
Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif>
Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
<http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm>
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
If you think about it, you can add a constant amplitude standing wave to ANY
travelling wave, a transmission line is just one example. An organ pipe or
flute has a standing wave in it, a violin string or piano string has a
standing wave, all this crap about tying a rope to a tree is just
Jeery-Diaper nonsense.
A standing wave becomes a travelling wave if YOU move. There is a third
class of waves, the static wave. These are like bumps in the road, you go up
and down as you pass over them. The faster you go, the higher your
frequency.
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif>
Waves travel at one wavelength per cycle no matter what their speed is.
The Ghost in The Machine
wrote:
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
>
> Albert Einstein(1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
> 1920.
>
> "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
> Einstein
>
> <http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg>
> Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
> Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
> An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
> which acts in a tangential direction.
>
> NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
> Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
> line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
> thereon.
>
> The lying idiot Einstein doesn't know the meaning of radial.
> Proven by experiment!
> Proven by peer review!
THIS WOULD BE NOBLE IF THE MAN [EISNTEIN] WHERE HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF
AND POST A RESPONSE IN KIND....YOU ARE NO ONE TO ARGUE THIS
POINT...FURTHERMORE YOUR PROOF EXPERIMENT IS ACTUALLY AGAINST YOUR
POSTURE, SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS TO ANY DISCRIMINATE OBSERVER THAT A BODY
SPINNING ON A DISC UNATTECHED WOULD EVENTUALLY BE EJECTED AND THAT
SAID BODY WOULD NOT ONLY TRAVEL OUTWARD FROM THE DISC BUT IN A
TANGENTAL CURVE, SINCE IT WOULD DEVELOP BOTH SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM
ROTATION....WHAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING WOULD NEED ITS OWN PROPULSION TO
EQUATE..AND AT A RATE GREATER THAN THE R SPEED OF THE DISC..HENCE YOU
ARE MISTAKEN...AND NO MATCH FOR EINSTEIN....GIVE IT UP...DON'T
EMBARRASS YOURSELF OR THE DECEASED GENIUS ANY FURTHER, IT IS A BAD
POSITION.
PAT ECUM
PAT ECUM
Henry Wilson DSc
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:f0a2j6t82c5c54b95...@4ax.com...
>| On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:09:54 -0000, "Androcles"
>| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
>| >(a pure number) it will work, AT THE SAME TIME as the trough is a
>| >crest. Where Tusseladd goes wrong is introducing a velocity to the wave,
>| >AND getting his initial conditions wrong. His Ex and Hy (or By) have
>| >no energy to start the wave in the first place.
>| >Writing down equations is meaningless unless they model reality, and
>| >Tusseladd's sinusoidal energy is just plain ridiculous. How can the
>| >E-field and the B-field both be zero at the same instant?
>|
>| gOOD POINT.
>|
>| Have you seen his latest ramblings where he shorts the end of a
>transmission
>| line, then sends a pulse down one side and back?
>|
>| He could just as easily use a loop of wire.
>
>If you think about it, you can add a constant amplitude standing wave to ANY
>travelling wave, a transmission line is just one example. An organ pipe or
>flute has a standing wave in it, a violin string or piano string has a
>standing wave, all this crap about tying a rope to a tree is just
>Jeery-Diaper nonsense.
Yeah! Typical...
>A standing wave becomes a travelling wave if YOU move. There is a third
>class of waves, the static wave. These are like bumps in the road, you go up
>and down as you pass over them. The faster you go, the higher your
>frequency.
><http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif>
>Waves travel at one wavelength per cycle no matter what their speed is.
Very true.
....just as light moves at 1 lightwilson/wilson
Henry Wilson...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
<http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/phase-diagram/phase-diagram.html>
Tusseladd should take Dan Russell's course in Michigan.
| ....just as light moves at 1 lightwilson/wilson
Ashes move at 10,000 miles per test match.
oriel36
wrote:
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
>
> Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
> 1920.
>
> "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
> K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
> Einstein
>
> <http://mcaaron.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/schleich_catapult.jpg>
> Notice the cup is pointing tangentially.
> Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
> An observer who is sitting eccentrically on a disc is sensible of a force
> which acts in a tangential direction.
>
> NEWTON'S FIRST LAW.
> Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
> line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
> thereon.
>
I know I can turn you into a relativist in two minutes flat,that is
not any sort of boast,but I often wonder what goes through your heads
when you encounter the ideas of men who were already discussing these
'laws' long before Isaac ever considered them,this one from 1666 -
http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA206&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
I don't distinguish proponents and opponents of relativity as there
really is no such thing,just guys trapped inside Newton's imagination
and however comforting it may appear,it is a really unhealthy place to
be.
What happened from the time of Wallis and Boyle to that toxic strain
of empiricism inherited from Isaac is quite a story and I am sometimes
amazed that none of you really want to know what happened from a
technical standpoint as if leaving the coattails of Isaac is such a
traumatic thing to do.I look at you call Newton your 'lion' but he
would have considered you his donkey and you would have deserved it
and although I hear physicists sometime wax lyrical about barking up
the wrong tree in their approach,they have no idea how rickety the
foundations of their concepts actually are.
Newton's first law indeed !,his attempt to reduce Kepler's
correspondence between orbital periods and distance from the Sun into
an experimental 'law',the fact that Kepler's insight needs revisiting
hardly matters to mathematicians but the fact that there are no
genuine astronomers around,at least ones who operate at this level,is
frustrating by times.
Chris.B
>
> Ashes move at 10 millimetres per test series.
I hear you've been allowed out on the town:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-12201768
I hope the charge nurse was informed?
Henry Wilson DSc
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
Why don't you join Dad's balmy army?
Henry Wilson...
oriel36
especially taking into account characteristics as they apply to
orbital acceleration and retardation.I noticed at the recent lunar
eclipse at the solstice that there was no marked difference in the
tide line on the beach where I walk,at least over and above what is
usual and taking into account the 3 components of the tides being
diurnal,menstrual and annual just as Wallis and his contemporaries
observed -
http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA205&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
The sensitivity of the tides to all the components involved makes it
just as thrilling today as back then and for the first time it is
possible to introduce a new orbital component which allows that the
polar daylight/darkness cycle arises from the orbital behavior of the
Earth as it turns unevenly to the central Sun and when allied with
daily rotation,an independent motion,is the major cause of variations
in the natural noon cycle,something beyond the 17th century
empiricists -
http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA219&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is possible to adjust the components of tidal fluctuations to take
into account that the Earth is both turning to the Sun in its daily
cycle but is also turning orbitally to the Sun which requires an
additional axis stretching from Arctic to Antarctic circles through
the center of the Earth where the polar coordinates pivot around 360
degrees through an annual circuit hence the 6 months of darkness
followed by 6 months of daylight.The orbital influence on the tides
would exist in the same type of format as daily rotation with the moon
influencing the tides in such a way as it acts as a kind of block for
whatever is going on between the Earth and the Sun but this is just a
preliminary investigation of the matter or rather a revisiting of it
in context of this thread and this topic.
The orbital behavior of the Earth is fascinating but alas,that
requires people with an eye for detail like the late 17th century guys
and I haven't seen that yet.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
but I know you do, so I tease you. If you asked me the name of an
English player I wouldn't be able to tell you without looking one up
on the internet.
I haven't looked at cricket since my schooldays and even then I
couldn't see the point of it. It is only this winter that I learnt the
ashes were the burnt bails of some long forgotten game that was
once played between England and Oz. Ball games never hold my
interest, not even snooker. I gave up golf when I birdied a par three
on the same course that I saw someone behind me get a hole-in-one
and he asked me to sign his card, the poor bugger was playing alone
and needed a witness. Not much else you can do with it except find
a bar and have a celebratory drink. Most times I have a
commiserative drink instead. What's the point in your team
winning if you are not part of the team? The spectators scream
"We won!" and all they did was drink beer, clap and shout.
The losing spectators hold an inquest and decide the referee was
blind or the team captain should be replaced, you have to find
blame if the team loses and accolades if the team wins.
Being a winner by association is no different to being a criminal by
association.
Mike Collins
> This is an extremely interesting thread in a lot of ways and
> especially taking into account characteristics as they apply to
> orbital acceleration and retardation.I noticed at the recent lunar
> eclipse at the solstice that there was no marked difference in the
> tide line on the beach where I walk,at least over and above what is
> usual and taking into account the 3 components of the tides being
> diurnal,menstrual and annual just as Wallis and his contemporaries
> observed -
>
>
> The sensitivity of the tides to all the components involved makes it
> just as thrilling today as back then and for the first time it is
> possible to introduce a new orbital component which allows that the
> polar daylight/darkness cycle arises from the orbital behavior of the
> Earth as it turns unevenly to the central Sun and when allied with
> daily rotation,an independent motion,is the major cause of variations
> in the natural noon cycle,something beyond the 17th century
> empiricists -
>
>
> It is possible to adjust the components of tidal fluctuations to take
> into account that the Earth is both turning to the Sun in its daily
> cycle but is also turning orbitally to the Sun which requires an
> additional axis stretching from Arctic to Antarctic circles through
> the center of the Earth where the polar coordinates pivot around 360
> degrees through an annual circuit hence the 6 months of darkness
> followed by 6 months of daylight.The orbital influence on the tides
> would exist in the same type of format as daily rotation with the moon
> influencing the tides in such a way as it acts as a kind of block for
> whatever is going on between the Earth and the Sun but this is just a
> preliminary investigation of the matter or rather a revisiting of it
> in context of this thread and this topic.
>
> The orbital behavior of the Earth is fascinating but alas,that
> requires people with an eye for detail like the late 17th century guys
> and I haven't seen that yet.
It's not necessary and definitely not thrilling to add a new component
into the calculation of tides to which can be calculated now to a high
degree of accuracy.
Henry Wilson DSc
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
The trend is to be a supporter of either a football team or a religion.
The only difference is that football supporters use knives and broken bottles
rather than bombs and bullets.
Henry Wilson...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
to play games, that's no different to teaching kittens the skills needed to
hunt when they become adult. Games are for sharpening your skills and
for kids. Danged if I'd pay to watch a game more than once, though.
I did go to see the Pittsburgh Pirates play baseball out of curiousity.
I never bothered again, I was thoroughly bored. I watched a game of
cricket on the village green, but that was local lads and a pleasant
way to spend a Sunday afternoon with a pint, not part of a crowd of
supporters, and it didn't matter which side won.
Henry Wilson DSc
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote:
It's the most boring game ever invented...next to soccer..
>I watched a game of
>cricket on the village green, but that was local lads and a pleasant
>way to spend a Sunday afternoon with a pint, not part of a crowd of
>supporters, and it didn't matter which side won.
Cricket is OK. I was fanatical when I was a kid but couldn't afford coaching so
took up girls instead...but they cost me a lot more in the long run..
Sport is now designed solely to promote TV ads. One's value to society is based
on one's ability to make the TV barons even richer.
Henry Wilson...
oriel36
The empiricists working with the Earth's dynamics had great difficulty
with the causes of the variability in the natural noon cycles but at
least they could correlate that variability with the annual components
in tides in terms of orbital acceleration and retardation and credit
where it is due,they were zooming in on issues which are all the more
important today.When Newton's strain of empiricism dumped the Earth's
dynamics into right ascension,these interpretative deductions went and
remain in a deep freeze.
It is now known from historical records that the lunar nodal cycle
introduces temperature fluctuations (insofar as fish are extremely
sensitive to these fluctuations which in turn affect their migratory
patterns) and with the solar cycle introducing an additional
component,it is time to get serious about El Nino and La Nina is
dynamical terms.The necessary introduction of orbital longitude
meridians reflecting the orbital characteristic of the Earth which
turns 360 degrees to the central Sun and coincident with the orbital
period of the Earth is the first order of business.
These orbital meridians are determined by the distance from the polar
rotational coordinates (North/South poles) to the orbital axis located
on the Arctic/Antarctic circles as it stretches through the center of
the planet.At the precise moment of the December solstice where the
circle of illumination is always orthogonal to the Sun-Earth line,the
South pole is at orbital noon while the North pole is at orbital
midnight.By the March Equinox,the polar coordinates will turn through
the circle of illumination reflecting the orbital daylight/darkness
cycle as one polar coordinates enters the circle of illumination and
the opposite coordinate exits the circle of illumination and into 6
months of daylight.
All these people who make a big fuss over models and here is one huge
challenge to use daily and orbital dynamics in conjunction with the
lunar cycle to get a better handle on things.