Moving Rods Also Prove P2 Violates P1.
Henry Wilson DSc
inertially at v.
_______R1________ O- >v/2 ________R2_______->v
According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal lengths in
all other frames.
This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
frames...yet P2 says they are NOT.
After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be the
same in all frames.
So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.rtf
waldofj
> P1 that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in all frames.
correct
> That includes such things as similarity and equality
No. Similarity and equality and lengths of rods are not physical laws
> and so any
> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
> frames
There is no argument presented here that leads to this conclusion.
> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
Only your bizarre thinking
eric gisse
> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
> inertially at v.
>
> _______R1________ O- >v/2
> ________R2_______->v
>
>
> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal
> lengths in all other frames.
>
> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the
> SAME in all frames. That includes such things as similarity and
> equality...and so any two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD
> BE identical in ALL frames...yet P2 says they are NOT.
Really, it is a law of physics that length is the same in all reference
frames? Since when?
> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be
> the same in all frames.
> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>
> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
What's laughable is that you are reduced to such absurdities.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:lefnj51gh4k7gfe1p...@4ax.com...
Not again Henry .. haven't you humiliated yourself enough already by showing
that yiou don't know enough about SR to make any sort of argument about it?
> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
> inertially at v.
>
> _______R1________ O- >v/2
> ________R2_______->v
Fine .. so, as you show, wrt the midpoint between them (O), they both move
at speed v/2 (but in opposite directions)
> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal
> lengths in
> all other frames.
Yes. Also, in O's frames, and clocks attached to the rods will be in sync
with each other, but not in all other frames.
> This is a direct violation of P1,
> that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
> all frames.
Of course they are .. you do the same things, under the same conditions, in
any inertial frame and you'll get the same results.
> That includes such things as similarity and equality...
They aren't laws, but yeas, they would apply too
> and so any
> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
> frames...
No .. that's not what P1 says.
This is trivally easy to show .. as P1 should work also in
Newtonian/Gelilean physics, yet an object has different velocities in
different frames. That's because a difference in readings of the same
events from different frames are most definitely allowed to be different.
P1 does not say they can't be.
> yet P2 says they are NOT.
AS above. .you don't need P2 or SR to get different values for measurements
of something in difference frames.
> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be
> the
> same in all frames.
> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
P1 didn't create P2.
> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
Yes .. it was .. you don't even understand the principle of relativity
simple in classical physics .. let alone in SR.
Yet again, Henry demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of physics
beyond the coffee table comic book level.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>> inertially at v.
>>
>> _______R1________ O- >v/2
>> ________R2_______->v
>>
>>
>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal
>> lengths in all other frames.
>>
>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the
>> SAME in all frames. That includes such things as similarity and
>> equality...and so any two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD
>> BE identical in ALL frames...yet P2 says they are NOT.
>
>Really, it is a law of physics that length is the same in all reference
>frames? Since when?
>
>> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be
>> the same in all frames.
>> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>>
>> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
>
>What's laughable is that you are reduced to such absurdities.
Tell me straight out, little eric, does Einstein's P1 apply to ANYTHING other
than light speed? As far as I can see P1 = P2.
So why did he bother to include this purely Newtonian concept in his theory?
Was it just a publicity stunt..... or another example of his intellectual
kleptomania?
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:lefnj51gh4k7gfe1p...@4ax.com...
>
>Not again Henry .. haven't you humiliated yourself enough already by showing
>that yiou don't know enough about SR to make any sort of argument about it?
>
>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>> inertially at v.
>>
>> _______R1________ O- >v/2
>> ________R2_______->v
>
>
>Fine .. so, as you show, wrt the midpoint between them (O), they both move
>at speed v/2 (but in opposite directions)
It doesn't have to be the mid point , dopey...
>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal
>> lengths in
>> all other frames.
>
>Yes. Also, in O's frames, and clocks attached to the rods will be in sync
>with each other, but not in all other frames.
Why introduce clocks?
>> This is a direct violation of P1,
>> that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
>> all frames.
>
>Of course they are .. you do the same things, under the same conditions, in
>any inertial frame and you'll get the same results.
>
>> That includes such things as similarity and equality...
>
>They aren't laws, but yeas, they would apply too
>
>> and so any
>> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
>> frames...
>
>No .. that's not what P1 says.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it says nothing other than what P2
says.
\
>This is trivally easy to show .. as P1 should work also in
>Newtonian/Gelilean physics, yet an object has different velocities in
>different frames. That's because a difference in readings of the same
>events from different frames are most definitely allowed to be different.
>P1 does not say they can't be.
SHOULD WORK.....? It was Newton who thought of it. Einstein plagiarized the
idea but disguised it so he could impress small minds. He then modified it so
it only applied to light speed.
>> yet P2 says they are NOT.
>
>AS above. .you don't need P2 or SR to get different values for measurements
>of something in difference frames.
Only quantities that have L/T in their dimensions are frame dependent. That
should be obvious from the definition of 'frame'
>> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be
>> the
>> same in all frames.
>> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>
>P1 didn't create P2.
of course it did.
>> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Then you are rapidly becoming more stupid
>>This is trivally easy to show .. as P1 should work also in
>>Newtonian/Gelilean physics, yet an object has different velocities in
>>different frames. That's because a difference in readings of the same
>>events from different frames are most definitely allowed to be different.
>>P1 does not say they can't be.
>
> SHOULD WORK.....?
Well .. we observe that it does
> It was Newton who thought of it.
Yes .. and now you are trying to say Newton was wrong
> Einstein plagiarized the
> idea
No .. he didn't.
> but disguised it so he could impress small minds.
Your must be too small to impress
> He then modified it so
> it only applied to light speed.
No .. he didn't
OMG you're an idiot
>>> yet P2 says they are NOT.
>>
>>AS above. .you don't need P2 or SR to get different values for
>>measurements
>>of something in difference frames.
>
> Only quantities that have L/T in their dimensions are frame dependent.
And so time intervals are frame dependent. Thanks for agreeing.
> That
> should be obvious from the definition of 'frame'
>
>>> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be
>>> the
>>> same in all frames.
>>> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>>
>>P1 didn't create P2.
>
> of course it did.
There is nothing in P1 alone that says the speed of light is independent of
the source speed, unless there is a law of physics that says that must be
the case. If there is, then you can just use P1. Maxwell's equations give
you a value independent of source speed .. but that speed was (as those laws
were presented and understood at the time) only constant relative to some
aether. P2 changes that, and under SR Maxwell's equations become
frame-independent.
>>> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
I'm sure we're all highly amused.
eric gisse
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:36:10 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>>> inertially at v.
>>>
>>> _______R1________ O- >v/2
>>> ________R2_______->v
>>>
>>>
>>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal
>>> lengths in all other frames.
>>>
>>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the
>>> SAME in all frames. That includes such things as similarity and
>>> equality...and so any two entities that are identical in one frame
>>> SHOULD BE identical in ALL frames...yet P2 says they are NOT.
>>
>>Really, it is a law of physics that length is the same in all reference
>>frames? Since when?
>>
>>> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be
>>> the same in all frames.
>>> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>>>
>>> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
>>
>>What's laughable is that you are reduced to such absurdities.
>
> Tell me straight out, little eric, does Einstein's P1 apply to ANYTHING
> other than light speed? As far as I can see P1 = P2.
Newtonian mechanics is based upon the principle of relativity.
Given this trivial bit of information that you managed to not pick up during
when you claimed to have earned a degree in physics, or the last decade of
arguing on USENET, what the hell do you think?
>
> So why did he bother to include this purely Newtonian concept in his
> theory?
I would normally suggest reading what he wrote about the matter, but that
hasn't worked.
>
> Was it just a publicity stunt..... or another example of his intellectual
> kleptomania?
Why not both? There's no point in me explaining why you are insane and
stupid, so sure, disregard how science works then as well as now. Let's see
how far down that rabbit hole you can go.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Newtonian knew all about relativity. Einstein had to deviously change it so
that his P2 would appear to be valid.
>> So why did he bother to include this purely Newtonian concept in his
>> theory?
>
>I would normally suggest reading what he wrote about the matter, but that
>hasn't worked.
it isn't hard to read what P2 says....and it clearly means that two identical
time intervals must remain identical in ALL FRAMES.
>> Was it just a publicity stunt..... or another example of his intellectual
>> kleptomania?
>
>Why not both? There's no point in me explaining why you are insane and
>stupid, so sure, disregard how science works then as well as now. Let's see
>how far down that rabbit hole you can go.
You hate it when I'm right, don't you..
Henry Wilson DSc
Of course it does....but Newton's definition is correct, whereas Einstein
doesn't want it to apply to anything but light speed.
>> It was Newton who thought of it.
>
>Yes .. and now you are trying to say Newton was wrong
Einstein's P1 is a corruption of Newton's PoR.
>> Einstein plagiarized the
>> idea
>
>No .. he didn't.
>
>> but disguised it so he could impress small minds.
>
>Your must be too small to impress
>
>> He then modified it so
>> it only applied to light speed.
>
>No .. he didn't
>
>OMG you're an idiot
...and it is because of his nonsensical P2 that P1 doesn't apply to anything
BUT light speed.
>>>> yet P2 says they are NOT.
>>>
>>>AS above. .you don't need P2 or SR to get different values for
>>>measurements
>>>of something in difference frames.
>>
>> Only quantities that have L/T in their dimensions are frame dependent.
>
>And so time intervals are frame dependent. Thanks for agreeing.
You clearly know nothing about even basic physics. Time intervals don't contain
L you silly bastard.
>> That
>> should be obvious from the definition of 'frame'
>>
>>>> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be
>>>> the
>>>> same in all frames.
>>>> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>>>
>>>P1 didn't create P2.
>>
>> of course it did.
>
>There is nothing in P1 alone that says the speed of light is independent of
>the source speed, unless there is a law of physics that says that must be
>the case. If there is, then you can just use P1. Maxwell's equations give
>you a value independent of source speed .. but that speed was (as those laws
>were presented and understood at the time) only constant relative to some
>aether. P2 changes that, and under SR Maxwell's equations become
>frame-independent.
You don't seem to get it.
When Einstein made light speed constant in all frames, all the other laws of
physics broke down. P1 collapsed...
>>>> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
>
>I'm sure we're all highly amused.
I am.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Wrong .. its the identically same principle
>>> It was Newton who thought of it.
>>
>>Yes .. and now you are trying to say Newton was wrong
>
> Einstein's P1 is a corruption of Newton's PoR.
No .. its the same thing
>>> Einstein plagiarized the
>>> idea
>>
>>No .. he didn't.
>>
>>> but disguised it so he could impress small minds.
>>
>>Your must be too small to impress
>>
>>> He then modified it so
>>> it only applied to light speed.
>>
>>No .. he didn't
>>
>>OMG you're an idiot
>
> ...and it is because of his nonsensical P2 that P1 doesn't apply to
> anything
> BUT light speed.
No .. it is identical to Newtons.
>>>>> yet P2 says they are NOT.
>>>>
>>>>AS above. .you don't need P2 or SR to get different values for
>>>>measurements
>>>>of something in difference frames.
>>>
>>> Only quantities that have L/T in their dimensions are frame dependent.
>>
>>And so time intervals are frame dependent. Thanks for agreeing.
>
> You clearly know nothing about even basic physics.
BAAHAHHAHA. Clearly I know much more than you
> Time intervals don't contain
> L you silly bastard.
No .. they contain T, lengths contain L. Things with L or T in their
dimensions are generally frame dependant. I took L/T meaning "Length or
time" .. as that is what would have made sense.
>>> That
>>> should be obvious from the definition of 'frame'
>>>
>>>>> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to
>>>>> be
>>>>> the
>>>>> same in all frames.
>>>>> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>P1 didn't create P2.
>>>
>>> of course it did.
>>
>>There is nothing in P1 alone that says the speed of light is independent
>>of
>>the source speed, unless there is a law of physics that says that must be
>>the case. If there is, then you can just use P1. Maxwell's equations
>>give
>>you a value independent of source speed .. but that speed was (as those
>>laws
>>were presented and understood at the time) only constant relative to some
>>aether. P2 changes that, and under SR Maxwell's equations become
>>frame-independent.
>
> You don't seem to get it.
I get it far better than you, clearly
> When Einstein made light speed constant in all frames,
No .. he didn't make it .. he postulated that that is what it is.
> all the other laws of
> physics broke down.
No laws of physics broke down.
> P1 collapsed...
No .. it continued to work .. and worked better. You just don't understand
physics enough to know
>>>>> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
>>
>>I'm sure we're all highly amused.
>
> I am.
Laughing at yourself, no doubt.
YBM
> it isn't hard to read what P2 says....and it clearly means that two identical
> time intervals must remain identical in ALL FRAMES.
Really? Does it say too that two speeds that are equal in one frame must
remain identical in all frames?
It so, congratulations: you've just debunked Newtonian physics.
Henry Wilson DSc
Obvously, that should have read 'P1"
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:99uoj51h3s8aj9o1t...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:55:02 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>>
>>>> SHOULD WORK.....?
>>>
>>>Well .. we observe that it does
>>
>> Of course it does....but Newton's definition is correct, whereas Einstein
>> doesn't want it to apply to anything but light speed.
>
>Wrong .. its the identically same principle
>
>>>> It was Newton who thought of it.
>>>
>>>Yes .. and now you are trying to say Newton was wrong
>>
>> Einstein's P1 is a corruption of Newton's PoR.
>
>No .. its the same thing
Einstein's P1 says that existence itself is frame dependent.
dk demonstrated that.
>>>>>> yet P2 says they are NOT.
>>>>>
>>>>>AS above. .you don't need P2 or SR to get different values for
>>>>>measurements
>>>>>of something in difference frames.
>>>>
>>>> Only quantities that have L/T in their dimensions are frame dependent.
>>>
>>>And so time intervals are frame dependent. Thanks for agreeing.
>>
>> You clearly know nothing about even basic physics.
>
>BAAHAHHAHA. Clearly I know much more than you
>
>> Time intervals don't contain
>> L you silly bastard.
>
>No .. they contain T, lengths contain L. Things with L or T in their
>dimensions are generally frame dependant. I took L/T meaning "Length or
>time" .. as that is what would have made sense.
'Frames' are references for the expression (L/T), nothing else.
Anything with L/T in it will be frame dependent.
That should be obvious to anyone with even basic physics knowledge.
>>>> That
>>>> should be obvious from the definition of 'frame'
>>>>
>>>>>> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same in all frames.
>>>>>> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>P1 didn't create P2.
>>>>
>>>> of course it did.
>>>
>>>There is nothing in P1 alone that says the speed of light is independent
>>>of
>>>the source speed, unless there is a law of physics that says that must be
>>>the case. If there is, then you can just use P1. Maxwell's equations
>>>give
>>>you a value independent of source speed .. but that speed was (as those
>>>laws
>>>were presented and understood at the time) only constant relative to some
>>>aether. P2 changes that, and under SR Maxwell's equations become
>>>frame-independent.
>>
>> You don't seem to get it.
>
>I get it far better than you, clearly
>
>> When Einstein made light speed constant in all frames,
>
>No .. he didn't make it .. he postulated that that is what it is.
and he got it wrong...it isn't the same... It is frame dependent like all
velocities.
YBM
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:17:34 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Henry Wilson DSc a �crit :
>>> it isn't hard to read what P2 says....and it clearly means that two identical
>>> time intervals must remain identical in ALL FRAMES.
>> Really? Does it say too that two speeds that are equal in one frame must
>> remain identical in all frames?
>>
>> It so, congratulations: you've just debunked Newtonian physics.
>
> Obvously, that should have read 'P1"
It doesn't change your "point": you've debunked Galilean Relativity too,
congratulations.
eric gisse
[...]
>>> Tell me straight out, little eric, does Einstein's P1 apply to ANYTHING
>>> other than light speed? As far as I can see P1 = P2.
>>
>>Newtonian mechanics is based upon the principle of relativity.
>>
>>Given this trivial bit of information that you managed to not pick up
>>during when you claimed to have earned a degree in physics, or the last
>>decade of arguing on USENET, what the hell do you think?
>
> Newtonian knew all about relativity. Einstein had to deviously change it
> so that his P2 would appear to be valid.
Yes, "deviously". So devious that the principle of relativity as it applies
to SR is exactly the same as the principle of relativity as it applies to
Newton.
>
>>> So why did he bother to include this purely Newtonian concept in his
>>> theory?
>>
>>I would normally suggest reading what he wrote about the matter, but that
>>hasn't worked.
>
> it isn't hard to read what P2 says....and it clearly means that two
> identical time intervals must remain identical in ALL FRAMES.
Really? What law of physics does 'identical time intervals' correspond to?
>
>>> Was it just a publicity stunt..... or another example of his
>>> intellectual kleptomania?
>>
>>Why not both? There's no point in me explaining why you are insane and
>>stupid, so sure, disregard how science works then as well as now. Let's
>>see how far down that rabbit hole you can go.
>
> You hate it when I'm right, don't you..
Actually I tend to be amazed when you are right.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Experimental evidence shows that he got it right
> it isn't the same... It is frame dependent like all
> velocities.
And experimental evidence shows you are wrong
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>[...]
>
>>>> Tell me straight out, little eric, does Einstein's P1 apply to ANYTHING
>>>> other than light speed? As far as I can see P1 = P2.
>>>
>>>Newtonian mechanics is based upon the principle of relativity.
>>>
>>>Given this trivial bit of information that you managed to not pick up
>>>during when you claimed to have earned a degree in physics, or the last
>>>decade of arguing on USENET, what the hell do you think?
>>
>> Newtonian knew all about relativity. Einstein had to deviously change it
>> so that his P2 would appear to be valid.
>
>Yes, "deviously". So devious that the principle of relativity as it applies
>to SR is exactly the same as the principle of relativity as it applies to
>Newton.
Except that Einstein had to make exceptions so that P1 could accommodate P2.
>>>> So why did he bother to include this purely Newtonian concept in his
>>>> theory?
>>>
>>>I would normally suggest reading what he wrote about the matter, but that
>>>hasn't worked.
>>
>> it isn't hard to read what P2 says....and it clearly means that two
>> identical time intervals must remain identical in ALL FRAMES.
>
>Really? What law of physics does 'identical time intervals' correspond to?
'P1' that should be.
...you didn't even notice...
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:8f4qj55eooi5b7mll...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:01:40 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to get it.
>>>
>>>I get it far better than you, clearly
>>>
>>>> When Einstein made light speed constant in all frames,
>>>
>>>No .. he didn't make it .. he postulated that that is what it is.
>>
>> and he got it wrong...
>
>Experimental evidence shows that he got it right
>
>> it isn't the same... It is frame dependent like all
>> velocities.
>
>And experimental evidence shows you are wrong
There is no experimental evidence that shows OWLS from a moving source is c.
There is mass of evidence that shows it is c+v
eric gisse
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:30:44 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>>> Tell me straight out, little eric, does Einstein's P1 apply to
>>>>> ANYTHING other than light speed? As far as I can see P1 = P2.
>>>>
>>>>Newtonian mechanics is based upon the principle of relativity.
>>>>
>>>>Given this trivial bit of information that you managed to not pick up
>>>>during when you claimed to have earned a degree in physics, or the last
>>>>decade of arguing on USENET, what the hell do you think?
>>>
>>> Newtonian knew all about relativity. Einstein had to deviously change it
>>> so that his P2 would appear to be valid.
>>
>>Yes, "deviously". So devious that the principle of relativity as it
>>applies to SR is exactly the same as the principle of relativity as it
>>applies to Newton.
>
> Except that Einstein had to make exceptions so that P1 could accommodate
> P2.
Ah, and what exceptions might those be?
Perhaps you could point them out?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Could you show me how the principle of relativity, as Einstein wrote above,
is different from the principle of relativity that dates back to Galileo's
time?
>
>>>>> So why did he bother to include this purely Newtonian concept in his
>>>>> theory?
>>>>
>>>>I would normally suggest reading what he wrote about the matter, but
>>>>that hasn't worked.
>>>
>>> it isn't hard to read what P2 says....and it clearly means that two
>>> identical time intervals must remain identical in ALL FRAMES.
>>
>>Really? What law of physics does 'identical time intervals' correspond to?
>
> 'P1' that should be.
> ...you didn't even notice...
I hate to break it to you, but 'identical time intervals' is not a law of
physics. Perhaps you could explain why you think it is the case?
It also goes directly to what I was saying earlier how you have the curious
notion that length and time are invariant in special relativity.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:00:37 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:8f4qj55eooi5b7mll...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:01:40 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to get it.
>>>>
>>>>I get it far better than you, clearly
>>>>
>>>>> When Einstein made light speed constant in all frames,
>>>>
>>>>No .. he didn't make it .. he postulated that that is what it is.
>>>
>>> and he got it wrong...
>>
>>Experimental evidence shows that he got it right
>>
>>> it isn't the same... It is frame dependent like all
>>> velocities.
>>
>>And experimental evidence shows you are wrong
>
> There is no experimental evidence that shows OWLS from a moving source is
> c.
> There is mass of evidence that shows it is c+v
Wrong .. as always. Why do you bother with your lies.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:30:44 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>> Tell me straight out, little eric, does Einstein's P1 apply to
>>>>>> ANYTHING other than light speed? As far as I can see P1 = P2.
>>>>>
>>>>>Newtonian mechanics is based upon the principle of relativity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Given this trivial bit of information that you managed to not pick up
>>>>>during when you claimed to have earned a degree in physics, or the last
>>>>>decade of arguing on USENET, what the hell do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Newtonian knew all about relativity. Einstein had to deviously change it
>>>> so that his P2 would appear to be valid.
>>>
>>>Yes, "deviously". So devious that the principle of relativity as it
>>>applies to SR is exactly the same as the principle of relativity as it
>>>applies to Newton.
>>
>> Except that Einstein had to make exceptions so that P1 could accommodate
>> P2.
>
>Ah, and what exceptions might those be?
>
>Perhaps you could point them out?
I have.
>
>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
>Could you show me how the principle of relativity, as Einstein wrote above,
>is different from the principle of relativity that dates back to Galileo's
>time?
i have already
>>>>>> So why did he bother to include this purely Newtonian concept in his
>>>>>> theory?
>>>>>
>>>>>I would normally suggest reading what he wrote about the matter, but
>>>>>that hasn't worked.
>>>>
>>>> it isn't hard to read what P2 says....and it clearly means that two
>>>> identical time intervals must remain identical in ALL FRAMES.
>>>
>>>Really? What law of physics does 'identical time intervals' correspond to?
>>
>> 'P1' that should be.
>> ...you didn't even notice...
>
>I hate to break it to you, but 'identical time intervals' is not a law of
>physics. Perhaps you could explain why you think it is the case?
If a light pulse goes from A to B, the time taken doesn't depend on which
observer looks at it. It is an absolute interval.
>It also goes directly to what I was saying earlier how you have the curious
>notion that length and time are invariant in special relativity.
Where would you get that idea?
eric gisse
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:30:58 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:30:44 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell me straight out, little eric, does Einstein's P1 apply to
>>>>>>> ANYTHING other than light speed? As far as I can see P1 = P2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Newtonian mechanics is based upon the principle of relativity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given this trivial bit of information that you managed to not pick up
>>>>>>during when you claimed to have earned a degree in physics, or the
>>>>>>last decade of arguing on USENET, what the hell do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Newtonian knew all about relativity. Einstein had to deviously change
>>>>> it so that his P2 would appear to be valid.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, "deviously". So devious that the principle of relativity as it
>>>>applies to SR is exactly the same as the principle of relativity as it
>>>>applies to Newton.
>>>
>>> Except that Einstein had to make exceptions so that P1 could accommodate
>>> P2.
>>
>>Ah, and what exceptions might those be?
>>
>>Perhaps you could point them out?
>
> I have.
No, you have not. I frequently ask you to do trivial things as a check of
your understanding, and lying about it tells me something just as important.
>>
>>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>>
>>Could you show me how the principle of relativity, as Einstein wrote
>>above, is different from the principle of relativity that dates back to
>>Galileo's time?
>
> i have already
No, you have not explained how they are different. You point out that the
constancy of light speed changes the consequences of the principle of
relativity which is true and obvious, but what you have not done is shown
how the principle of relativity as stated by Einstein is at all different
from the one used for the past four centuries.
>
>>>>>>> So why did he bother to include this purely Newtonian concept in his
>>>>>>> theory?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would normally suggest reading what he wrote about the matter, but
>>>>>>that hasn't worked.
>>>>>
>>>>> it isn't hard to read what P2 says....and it clearly means that two
>>>>> identical time intervals must remain identical in ALL FRAMES.
>>>>
>>>>Really? What law of physics does 'identical time intervals' correspond
>>>>to?
>>>
>>> 'P1' that should be.
>>> ...you didn't even notice...
>>
>>I hate to break it to you, but 'identical time intervals' is not a law of
>>physics. Perhaps you could explain why you think it is the case?
>
> If a light pulse goes from A to B, the time taken doesn't depend on which
> observer looks at it. It is an absolute interval.
That is your opinion - not a law of physics. Do you see the difference?
>
>>It also goes directly to what I was saying earlier how you have the
>>curious notion that length and time are invariant in special relativity.
>
> Where would you get that idea?
"If a light pulse goes from A to B, the time taken doesn't depend on which
observer looks at it. It is an absolute interval."
You are doing it RIGHT THERE, and have been doing it for years.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
The difference between Newton's and Einstein's versions of relativity should be
obvious.
Einstein's version assumes M, L and T are frame dependent whereas Newton only
had quantities that include L/T.
Both PoR's state that no absolute spatial reference frame exists. Einstein's
says no absolute TIME scale exists but indirectly requires an absolute frame
for P2 to work..
>>>It also goes directly to what I was saying earlier how you have the
>>>curious notion that length and time are invariant in special relativity.
>>
>> Where would you get that idea?
>
>"If a light pulse goes from A to B, the time taken doesn't depend on which
>observer looks at it. It is an absolute interval."
>
>You are doing it RIGHT THERE, and have been doing it for years.
Any event that takes time can be used to define an absolute time interval.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
It depends on what you're measuring, of course. If you're talking rest
mass, the M is invariant. If you're talking proper interval, then L is
invariant
> whereas Newton only
> had quantities that include L/T.
Though not ALL quantities that include L/T. And some values with units of L
and T *are* frame dependent.
In SR, more measurements are frame dependent and more laws are frame
independent.
It is still the same principle of relativity Galileo discovered. The
difference is the scope of its application. ie whether it only applies only
to Newton's laws. With SR, the second postulate allows the principle to be
applied to all laws.
> Both PoR's state that no absolute spatial reference frame exists.
> Einstein's
> says no absolute TIME scale exists
Yeup. Well, close enough. Amazing .. you managed to learn something.
> but indirectly requires an absolute frame
> for P2 to work..
Nope. And you were on a roll there.
>>>>It also goes directly to what I was saying earlier how you have the
>>>>curious notion that length and time are invariant in special relativity.
>>>
>>> Where would you get that idea?
>>
>>"If a light pulse goes from A to B, the time taken doesn't depend on which
>>observer looks at it. It is an absolute interval."
>>
>>You are doing it RIGHT THERE, and have been doing it for years.
>
> Any event that takes time
Events don't take time. A process can.
> can be used to define an absolute time interval.
Only if there is such a thing as an absolute time interval. We don't have
one, and SR says that we don't need one. Even LET, which has one, doesn't
need one to do physics, and we wouldn't be able to determine what it was
anyway.
eric gisse
[...]
> Any event that takes time can be used to define an absolute time interval.
You aren't even wrong in the sense that you understood an idea but
misapplied it which is understandable and correctable. You are wrong in the
sense that you do not even understand the _idea_, much less how to apply it.
I tell you that time and space are not as immutable as you believe, and you
can't even BEGIN to consider the implications much less consider how to test
if it were true.
Special relativity will be forever beyond your grasp because you can't
abandon your pedestrian notions of space and time. Enjoy the next year of
bashing your head against that roadblock.
I suggest you stick with your initial assessment of SR being incoherent to
you, and find another retirement hobby.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Any event that takes time can be used to define an absolute time interval.
>
>You aren't even wrong in the sense that you understood an idea but
>misapplied it which is understandable and correctable. You are wrong in the
>sense that you do not even understand the _idea_, much less how to apply it.
>
>I tell you that time and space are not as immutable as you believe, and you
>can't even BEGIN to consider the implications much less consider how to test
>if it were true.
What you refer to as TIME is 'ct'...a length.
>Special relativity will be forever beyond your grasp because you can't
>abandon your pedestrian notions of space and time. Enjoy the next year of
>bashing your head against that roadblock.
Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic dimension. It probably
has three component subdimensions.
Henry Wilson DSc
Hahahahhahahaha!..... 'proper'. .... hahahahhahhahaha!
>> whereas Newton only
>> had quantities that include L/T.
>
>Though not ALL quantities that include L/T. And some values with units of L
>and T *are* frame dependent.
they are not. name one.
>In SR, more measurements are frame dependent and more laws are frame
>independent
...and more frames are crap dependent...
>It is still the same principle of relativity Galileo discovered.
Not quite.
The main similarity is the removal of any absolute spatial
reference....(although Einstein still relies on one for his P2 to work)
In Newtonian and Galilean, direction of movement is more important.
>The
>difference is the scope of its application. ie whether it only applies only
>to Newton's laws. With SR, the second postulate allows the principle to be
>applied to all laws.
>
>> Both PoR's state that no absolute spatial reference frame exists.
>> Einstein's
>> says no absolute TIME scale exists
>
>Yeup. Well, close enough. Amazing .. you managed to learn something.
>
>> but indirectly requires an absolute frame
>> for P2 to work..
>
>Nope. And you were on a roll there.
I knew that would be too subtle for you.
>>>>>It also goes directly to what I was saying earlier how you have the
>>>>>curious notion that length and time are invariant in special relativity.
>>>>
>>>> Where would you get that idea?
>>>
>>>"If a light pulse goes from A to B, the time taken doesn't depend on which
>>>observer looks at it. It is an absolute interval."
>>>
>>>You are doing it RIGHT THERE, and have been doing it for years.
>>
>> Any event that takes time
>
>Events don't take time. A process can.
I can call them 'events' if I want to..... but if you insist, I will call them
'operations'
>> can be used to define an absolute time interval.
>
>Only if there is such a thing as an absolute time interval. We don't have
>one, and SR says that we don't need one. Even LET, which has one, doesn't
>need one to do physics, and we wouldn't be able to determine what it was
>anyway.
Time instant and time flow are universal.
That can be easily demonstrated using my 'instant universe' concept, in which
all time measurements are made with arrays of presynched clocks.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Yes .. of course, as you've never studied physics you wouldn't be aware of
such terms.
>>> whereas Newton only
>>> had quantities that include L/T.
>>
>>Though not ALL quantities that include L/T. And some values with units of
>>L
>>and T *are* frame dependent.
>
> they are not. name one.
Position and time .. that's two
And change in speed is one that includes L/T in its dimensions but is not a
frame dependent in value (only direction .. everything non-scalar is frame
dependent for direction.
>>In SR, more measurements are frame dependent and more laws are frame
>>independent
>
> ...and more frames are crap dependent...
That makes no sense
>>It is still the same principle of relativity Galileo discovered.
>
> Not quite.
Yes .. same principle, extended to morelaws
> The main similarity is the removal of any absolute spatial
> reference....
It is all exactly the same principle, but extended to more laws. Anyone who
understood galileo's principle of relativity, and Galilean relativty and SR
would know that. But that rules you out.
> (although Einstein still relies on one for his P2 to work)
Nope .. no mention of one, no reliance of one
> In Newtonian and Galilean, direction of movement is more important.
Nope .. where do you pull this crap out of?
>>The
>>difference is the scope of its application. ie whether it only applies
>>only
>>to Newton's laws. With SR, the second postulate allows the principle to
>>be
>>applied to all laws.
>>
>>> Both PoR's state that no absolute spatial reference frame exists.
>>> Einstein's
>>> says no absolute TIME scale exists
>>
>>Yeup. Well, close enough. Amazing .. you managed to learn something.
>>
>>> but indirectly requires an absolute frame
>>> for P2 to work..
>>
>>Nope. And you were on a roll there.
>
> I knew that would be too subtle for you.
Its not subtle .. its wrong
>>>>>>It also goes directly to what I was saying earlier how you have the
>>>>>>curious notion that length and time are invariant in special
>>>>>>relativity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where would you get that idea?
>>>>
>>>>"If a light pulse goes from A to B, the time taken doesn't depend on
>>>>which
>>>>observer looks at it. It is an absolute interval."
>>>>
>>>>You are doing it RIGHT THERE, and have been doing it for years.
>>>
>>> Any event that takes time
>>
>>Events don't take time. A process can.
>
> I can call them 'events' if I want to.....
Then you are using terms of physics incorrectly. Perhaps you should study
it some day so you can communicate effectively with those who understand
them.
> but if you insist, I will call them
> 'operations'
Not much better.
>>> can be used to define an absolute time interval.
>>
>>Only if there is such a thing as an absolute time interval. We don't have
>>one, and SR says that we don't need one. Even LET, which has one, doesn't
>>need one to do physics, and we wouldn't be able to determine what it was
>>anyway.
>
> Time instant and time flow are universal.
Nope
> That can be easily demonstrated using my 'instant universe' concept, in
> which
> all time measurements are made with arrays of presynched clocks.
Nope
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:kbmsj5d9s1jr63eaq...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:37:38 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The difference between Newton's and Einstein's versions of relativity
>>>> should be
>>>> obvious.
>>>> Einstein's version assumes M, L and T are frame dependent
>>>
>>>It depends on what you're measuring, of course. If you're talking rest
>>>mass, the M is invariant. If you're talking proper interval, then L is
>>>invariant
>>
>> Hahahahhahahaha!..... 'proper'. .... hahahahhahhahaha!
>
>Yes .. of course, as you've never studied physics you wouldn't be aware of
>such terms.
It means 'the one and only'...
>>>> whereas Newton only
>>>> had quantities that include L/T.
>>>
>>>Though not ALL quantities that include L/T. And some values with units of
>>>L
>>>and T *are* frame dependent.
>>
>> they are not. name one.
>
>Position and time .. that's two
position?
Do frames come with calibrated axes at right angles?
Time is universal.
>And change in speed is one that includes L/T in its dimensions but is not a
>frame dependent in value (only direction .. everything non-scalar is frame
>dependent for direction.
Would you repeat that in plain terms please...
>>>In SR, more measurements are frame dependent and more laws are frame
>>>independent
>>
>> ...and more frames are crap dependent...
>
>That makes no sense
>
>>>It is still the same principle of relativity Galileo discovered.
>>
>> Not quite.
>
>Yes .. same principle, extended to morelaws
>
>> The main similarity is the removal of any absolute spatial
>> reference....
>
>It is all exactly the same principle, but extended to more laws. Anyone who
>understood galileo's principle of relativity, and Galilean relativty and SR
>would know that. But that rules you out.
>
>> (although Einstein still relies on one for his P2 to work)
>
>Nope .. no mention of one, no reliance of one
well , fairies then...
I'm not wasting any more time answering your religious claims until you admit
that the two moving mirror experiment makes a mockery of SR..
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Derr .. you don't know what that means
> Do frames come with calibrated axes at right angles?
Yes :) .. that's pretty much the sole purpose of them, as a reference for
coordinates of events.
> Time is universal.
No
>>And change in speed is one that includes L/T in its dimensions but is not
>>a
>>frame dependent in value (only direction .. everything non-scalar is frame
>>dependent for direction.
>
> Would you repeat that in plain terms please...
No point .. its physics .. you wouldn't understand.
>>>>In SR, more measurements are frame dependent and more laws are frame
>>>>independent
>>>
>>> ...and more frames are crap dependent...
>>
>>That makes no sense
>>
>>>>It is still the same principle of relativity Galileo discovered.
>>>
>>> Not quite.
>>
>>Yes .. same principle, extended to morelaws
>>
>>> The main similarity is the removal of any absolute spatial
>>> reference....
>>
>>It is all exactly the same principle, but extended to more laws. Anyone
>>who
>>understood galileo's principle of relativity, and Galilean relativty and
>>SR
>>would know that. But that rules you out.
>>
>>> (although Einstein still relies on one for his P2 to work)
>>
>>Nope .. no mention of one, no reliance of one
>
> well , fairies then...
That seems like something you'd suggest, as you have no grasp of science,
revert to fairy tales
I never made any. Though you seem to have a belief in faires.
> until you admit
> that the two moving mirror experiment makes a mockery of SR..
I don't lie. The example only makes yet another mockery of you.
glird
>
Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
measure. For physical time, which is unmeasured, we invented metrical
time as a measuring device. For physical space, which is an
unmeasured volume, we invented metrical space, which extends in an
infinity of directions. The minimum number of those directions
required to locate an object wrt a given referent is three. Each of
these three is also calle a dimension.
If "Time is not related to space in any way" then it does NOT have
"three component subdimensions". If, however, someone wants to JOIN
space and time, as Minkowski did, then the minimum number of spatial
components of the time dimension would be t_x, t_y and t_z, which
could be written as t_1, t_2 and t_3.
Even so, just as there are an infinity of different possible
directions in space, there are an infinity of possible sub-dimensions
in metrical time, none of which physically exist other than in our
minds.
glird
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:h60uj513ffd59elv4...@4ax.com...
Is the angle between two vectors frame dependent?
Is the distance between two points frame dependent?
I think you should learn to use the PoR properly?
Einstein stuffed it up too.
and
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 1, 3:35�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
>dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
>
> A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
>measure. For physical time, which is unmeasured, we invented metrical
>time as a measuring device. For physical space, which is an
>unmeasured volume, we invented metrical space, which extends in an
>infinity of directions. The minimum number of those directions
>required to locate an object wrt a given referent is three. Each of
>these three is also calle a dimension.
>
> If "Time is not related to space in any way" then it does NOT have
>"three component subdimensions". If, however, someone wants to JOIN
>space and time, as Minkowski did, then the minimum number of spatial
>components of the time dimension would be t_x, t_y and t_z, which
>could be written as t_1, t_2 and t_3.
Minkowski was another idiot.
> Even so, just as there are an infinity of different possible
>directions in space, there are an infinity of possible sub-dimensions
>in metrical time, none of which physically exist other than in our
>minds.
You have it all wrong.
TIME and SPACE are not related. Time could easily have three subdimensions,
just as space does. So could mass, for that matter.
Dimensions are basic ...we cannot define them nor explain their
existence....yet..
>glird
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Under GT or LT? Do the math and find out.
> Is the distance between two points frame dependent?
Under GT or LT? Do the math and find out.
> I think you should learn to use the PoR properly?
I know it far better than you. You think it has something to do with value
that has an L dimension divided by T dimension in it .. but not if there is
another T dimension invovled unless there's another L as well .. maybe, but
you aren't sure.
> Einstein stuffed it up too.
You wouldn't know .. you don't care or know what his postulates say and you
couldn't and don't understand it
eric gisse
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:57:10 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 1, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>
>>Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
>>dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
>>
>> A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
>>measure. For physical time, which is unmeasured, we invented metrical
>>time as a measuring device. For physical space, which is an
>>unmeasured volume, we invented metrical space, which extends in an
>>infinity of directions. The minimum number of those directions
>>required to locate an object wrt a given referent is three. Each of
>>these three is also calle a dimension.
>>
>> If "Time is not related to space in any way" then it does NOT have
>>"three component subdimensions". If, however, someone wants to JOIN
>>space and time, as Minkowski did, then the minimum number of spatial
>>components of the time dimension would be t_x, t_y and t_z, which
>>could be written as t_1, t_2 and t_3.
>
> Minkowski was another idiot.
Ah, so mathematicians are stupid too?
Gosh, Henry. Don't you think it is more likely the problem is at your end
when you are reduced to believing that all physicists _and_ mathematicians
are stupid?
[...]
Paul B. Andersen
> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
> inertially at v.
>
> _______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
>
>
> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal lengths in
> all other frames.
>
> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
> all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
> frames
This is false even according to Galilean relativity.
> ... yet P2 says they are NOT.
> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be the
> same in all frames.
> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
Thanks for yet another demonstration of your ignorance and stupidity.
> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
Not very.
Your repeated demonstrations are getting boring.
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 30.12.2009 22:09, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>> inertially at v.
>>
>> _______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
>>
>>
>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal lengths in
>> all other frames.
>>
>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
>> all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
>> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
>> frames
>
>This is false even according to Galilean relativity.
I see you have resorted to making unsubstantiated statements, now.
Is that the best you can do? You have lowered yourself to the level of inertial
and little eric.
>> ... yet P2 says they are NOT.
>> After all, P1 is the very basis upon which light speed is supposed to be the
>> same in all frames.
>> So, P2 violates P1 which created P2 in the first place.
>
>Thanks for yet another demonstration of your ignorance and stupidity.
>
>> Hahahahhahahahaha! Laughable, don't you think?
>
>Not very.
>Your repeated demonstrations are getting boring.
More unsubstantiated statements...extremely boring.
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.html
eric gisse
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:56:29 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>>On 30.12.2009 22:09, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>>> inertially at v.
>>>
>>> _______R1________ O->v/2
>>> ________R2_______->v
>>>
>>>
>>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal
>>> lengths in all other frames.
>>>
>>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the
>>> SAME in all frames. That includes such things as similarity and
>>> equality...and so any two entities that are identical in one frame
>>> SHOULD BE identical in ALL frames
>>
>>This is false even according to Galilean relativity.
>
> I see you have resorted to making unsubstantiated statements, now.
> Is that the best you can do? You have lowered yourself to the level of
> inertial and little eric.
Your claim that "similarity and equality" are laws of physics is wrong, and
your claim that "any two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE
identical in ALL frames" is FANTASTICALLY WRONG.
You would fail any classical mechanics course.
Androcles
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi35l1$but$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:56:29 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>>On 30.12.2009 22:09, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the
>>>> other
>>>> inertially at v.
>>>>
>>>> _______R1________ O->v/2
>>>> ________R2_______->v
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal
>>>> lengths in all other frames.
>>>>
>>>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the
>>>> SAME in all frames. That includes such things as similarity and
>>>> equality...and so any two entities that are identical in one frame
>>>> SHOULD BE identical in ALL frames
>>>
>>>This is false even according to Galilean relativity.
>>
>> I see you have resorted to making unsubstantiated statements, now.
>> Is that the best you can do? You have lowered yourself to the level of
>> inertial and little eric.
>
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:56:29 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>>On 30.12.2009 22:09, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>>>> inertially at v.
>>>>
>>>> _______R1________ O->v/2
>>>> ________R2_______->v
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal
>>>> lengths in all other frames.
>>>>
>>>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the
>>>> SAME in all frames. That includes such things as similarity and
>>>> equality...and so any two entities that are identical in one frame
>>>> SHOULD BE identical in ALL frames
>>>
>>>This is false even according to Galilean relativity.
>>
>> I see you have resorted to making unsubstantiated statements, now.
>> Is that the best you can do? You have lowered yourself to the level of
>> inertial and little eric.
>
>Your claim that "similarity and equality" are laws of physics is wrong, and
>your claim that "any two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE
>identical in ALL frames" is FANTASTICALLY WRONG.
You people keep telling me this...but you can never provide and example or
proof.
>You would fail any classical mechanics course.
You couldn't even start one..
YBM
velocity or speed, even in Galilean Relativity. It has been said to you
before.
eric gisse
Angular momentum? Energy? Momentum? Potential energy? Projected length?
Electric/Magnetic fields?
Given you think temperature is unitless, you wouldn't know the first fucking
thing about the subject.
>
>>You would fail any classical mechanics course.
>
> You couldn't even start one..
Taken - and passed - two semesters of upper division undergraduate
mechanics. Taken - and passed - one semester of graduate level mechanics. I
studied Symon for my undergrad courses, and Goldstein for my graduate
course. I gave you a picture awhile back with both of them on my bookshelf.
Which books did YOU study, Ralph? Can you even name them or do I have to
pester you for a few weeks just to get a retarded "uhh i studied many" non-
answer?
What books, shitbird? What books, shitbird? What books, shitbird? What
books, shitbird?
Name one fucking book on the subject you've studied.
Henry Wilson DSc
HahahahabawabhhahwhahwaBAHBAH! Go to the top of the 'dopey scale' ladder!
If two velocities are equal in one frame, please provide an example where they
are NOT equal in another frame.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
You are not answering the question. You have made up another on that you think
you CAN answer then calling me names...all because you are stupid..
>Given you think temperature is unitless, you wouldn't know the first fucking
>thing about the subject.
>
YBM
Aren't you bothered that if two *speeds* are equal in a frame they can
be inequal in another one?
You felt in the trap.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Equal speeds in one frame can definitely not be equal in another.
eric gisse
You asked for an example. I gave you SEVEN.
You want proof? Justify me teaching you classical mechanics, which you
should already know if you have the PhD you claim you have.
Androcles
Henry Wilson DSc
Hmm!...two spelling mistakes....sorry,...I don't communicate with drunks
Henry Wilson DSc
....give an example, then we'll believe you...and you can pass the chimp
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
OK, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I'm getting a blood good laugh out
of their incredible stupidity..
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
I prefer professional comedians. At least they are intelligent and only
act deliberately stupid.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Gees .. are you that stupid that you can't see the trivial evamples.
Ok .. for the benefit of the mentally retarded Henry:
In classical physics (no relativity involved) .. lets say we have two
objects (A and B) and an observer O, A and B are both moving with SPEED v,
in opposite directions away from O .. as shown here
v<- A......O......B ->v
So their SPEEDS are equal, just the directions different
In A's frame of reference, however we have A has SPEED of 0, and B has a
speed of 2v (and O has a SPEED of v)
A......O.->v..B ->2v
So in one frame A and B have equal SPEEDS
In another frame A and B has different SPEEDS
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:56:29 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 30.12.2009 22:09, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>>> inertially at v.
>>>
>>> _______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
>>>
>>>
>>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal lengths in
>>> all other frames.
>>>
>>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
>>> all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
>>> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
>>> frames
>>
>> This is false even according to Galilean relativity.
>
> I see you have resorted to making unsubstantiated statements, now.
Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
inertially at v.
_______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
According to Galilean relativity, the rods have equal speeds in O's frame
but unequal speeds in all other frames.
This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
frames.
Right?
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:s34bk59um74d094o6...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:18:46 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>velocity or speed, even in Galilean Relativity. It has been said to you
>>>>>before.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HahahahabawabhhahwhahwaBAHBAH! Go to the top of the 'dopey scale'
>>>> ladder!
>>>>
>>>> If two velocities are equal in one frame, please provide an example
>>>> where
>>>> they
>>>> are NOT equal in another frame.
>>>
>>>Equal speeds in one frame can definitely not be equal in another.
>>
>> ....give an example, then we'll believe you...and you can pass the chimp
>
>Gees .. are you that stupid that you can't see the trivial evamples.
>
>Ok .. for the benefit of the mentally retarded Henry:
>
>In classical physics (no relativity involved) .. lets say we have two
>objects (A and B) and an observer O, A and B are both moving with SPEED v,
>in opposite directions away from O .. as shown here
>
>v<- A......O......B ->v
>
>So their SPEEDS are equal, just the directions different
I said 'VELOCITIES' not 'speeds' you lying snipping bullshitter.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:q84bk5h3ig69m2hfn...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:08:26 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your claim that "similarity and equality" are laws of physics is wrong,
>>>>>>and your claim that "any two entities that are identical in one frame
>>>>>>SHOULD BE identical in ALL frames" is FANTASTICALLY WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> You people keep telling me this...but you can never provide and example
>>>>> or
>>>>> proof.
>>>>
>>>[...]
>>
>> OK, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I'm getting a blood good laugh
>> out
>> of their incredible stupidity..
>>
>
>I prefer professional comedians. At least they are intelligent and only
>act deliberately stupid.
Well I AM about to give up. I cannot waste any more of my time laughing at
lesser mortals even if it does give me an ego boost.
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 06.01.2010 20:53, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:56:29 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30.12.2009 22:09, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>>>> inertially at v.
>>>>
>>>> _______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal lengths in
>>>> all other frames.
>>>>
>>>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
>>>> all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
>>>> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
>>>> frames
>>>
>>> This is false even according to Galilean relativity.
>>
>> I see you have resorted to making unsubstantiated statements, now.
>
>Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>inertially at v.
>
> _______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
>
>
>According to Galilean relativity, the rods have equal speeds in O's frame
>but unequal speeds in all other frames.
...try 'velocity' rather than speed.
>This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
>all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
>two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
>frames.
>
>Right?
What are you trying to prove here? Do you think I'm going to fall into your
trap?
You have moved one rod relative to the other, therefore the two are not in the
same frame....I assume you know what a frame is....
You have not answered the question even though you sarcastically quoted the
right answer.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
The liar is you. I said equal speed and you siad if I gave an example
you'd believe me. Evidence is above
I don't lie or bullshit
You claim that things equal in one frame must be equal in all is refuted.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Why should he .. 'speed' proves you wrong.
>>This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the
>>SAME in
>>all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so
>>any
>>two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
>>frames.
>>
>>Right?
>
> What are you trying to prove here? Do you think I'm going to fall into
> your
> trap?
It was your trap. Your made a stupid claim, and it is refuted. What is
worse is you're trying to wriggle out of admitting you were wrong yet again.
> You have moved one rod relative to the other, therefore the two are not in
> the
> same frame....
Wrong
> I assume you know what a frame is....
You clearly do not after the ridiculous sentence above
> You have not answered the question even though you sarcastically quoted
> the
> right answer.
Yes .. he did. He and I have both shown your claim was wrong. Admit it and
move on.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:00:03 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_r>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:q84bk5h3ig69m2hfn...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:08:26 -0000, "Androcles"
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your claim that "similarity and equality" are laws of physics is
>>>>>>>wrong,
>>>>>>>and your claim that "any two entities that are identical in one frame
>>>>>>>SHOULD BE identical in ALL frames" is FANTASTICALLY WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You people keep telling me this...but you can never provide and
>>>>>> example
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>> OK, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I'm getting a blood good
>>> laugh
>>> out
>>> of their incredible stupidity..
>>>
>>
>>I prefer professional comedians. At least they are intelligent and only
>>act deliberately stupid.
>
> Well I AM about to give up. I cannot waste any more of my time laughing at
> lesser mortals even if it does give me an ego boost.
If you boost your ego any more than it already is you'll attain escape
velocity.
Henry Wilson DSc
Your 'speeds' are not equal. Their directions are different.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
OMG .. are you really that stupid? Speed HAS NO DIRECTION .. its a scalar
!!! Your original statement is refuted. Try to at least act like a man
admit when you are wrong.
Henry Wilson DSc
Speed is the magnitude of a velocity....a pure number.... It is not a physical
qualtity.
I am talking about the latter only.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Yes it is. yet you claim elsewhere that a momentum vector with a zero
value can have a non-zero magnitude
> ....a pure number....
No .. it has dimensions. Learn some basic physics you moron before spouting
such utter rot.
> It is not a physical
> qualtity.
No .. it is a physical quantity.
> I am talking about the latter only.
You're squirming and lying again. Or are you REALLY that much of a moron?
Its hard to tell.
YBM
Ralph Rabbidge, aka Henri Wilson, is not a man, he his a chicken.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:29:18 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 06.01.2010 20:53, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:56:29 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30.12.2009 22:09, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>>>>> inertially at v.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal lengths in
>>>>> all other frames.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
>>>>> all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
>>>>> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
>>>>> frames
>>>>
>>>> This is false even according to Galilean relativity.
>>>
>>> I see you have resorted to making unsubstantiated statements, now.
>>
>> Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
>> inertially at v.
>>
>> _______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
>>
>>
>> According to Galilean relativity, the rods have equal speeds in O's frame
>> but unequal speeds in all other frames.
>>
>> all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
>> two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
>> frames.
>>
>> Right?
>
> What are you trying to prove here? Do you think I'm going to fall into your
> trap?
> You have moved one rod relative to the other, therefore the two are not in the
> same frame....I assume you know what a frame is....
>
On 30.12.2009 22:09, Henry Wilson with the fake DSc wrote:
| Take two identical rods, and separate them. Move one away from the other
| inertially at v.
|
| _______R1________ O->v/2 ________R2_______->v
|
|
| According to SR, the rods have equal length in O's frame but unequal lengths in
| all other frames.
|
| This is a direct violation of P1, that says the LAWS of PHYSICS are the SAME in
| all frames. That includes such things as similarity and equality...and so any
| two entities that are identical in one frame SHOULD BE identical in ALL
| frames
What are you trying to prove here?
Do you think I'm going to fall into your trap?
You have moved one rod relative to the other, therefore the two are not in the
same frame....I assume you know what a frame is....
Oooops.
I am talking nonsense.
Is the confusion of Ralph Rabbidge contagious?
> You have not answered the question even though you sarcastically quoted the
> right answer.
So the right answer I quoted is that Galilean relativity
violates P1, the Galilean Principle of Relativity?
--
Paul
PD
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:50:26 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> >news:81adk5d1f5ruj6tad...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> >>>news:plick51el4na8bgps...@4ax.com...
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:s34bk59um74d094o6...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>Equal speeds in one frame can definitely not be equal in another.
>
> >>>>>> ....give an example, then we'll believe you...and you can pass the
> >>>>>> chimp
>
> >>>>>Gees .. are you that stupid that you can't see the trivial evamples.
>
> >>>>>Ok .. for the benefit of the mentally retarded Henry:
>
> >>>>>In classical physics (no relativity involved) .. lets say we have two
> >>>>>objects (A and B) and an observer O, A and B are both moving with SPEED
> >>>>>v,
> >>>>>in opposite directions away from O .. as shown here
>
> >>>>>v<- A......O......B ->v
>
> >>>>>So their SPEEDS are equal, just the directions different
>
> >>>> I said 'VELOCITIES' not 'speeds' you lying snipping bullshitter.
>
> >>>The liar is you. I said equal speed and you siad if I gave an example
> >>>you'd believe me. Evidence is above
>
> >>>I don't lie or bullshit
>
> >>>You claim that things equal in one frame must be equal in all is refuted.
>
> >> Your 'speeds' are not equal. Their directions are different.
>
> >OMG .. are you really that stupid? Speed HAS NO DIRECTION .. its a scalar
> >!!! Your original statement is refuted. Try to at least act like a man
> >admit when you are wrong.
>
> Speed is the magnitude of a velocity....a pure number.... It is not a physical
> qualtity.
Oh good heavens. Speed is not a physical quality?
Anti Vigilante
Velocity! Not SPEED.
>>
>> >OMG .. are you really that stupid? Speed HAS NO DIRECTION .. its a
>> >scalar !!! Your original statement is refuted. Try to at least act
>> >like a man admit when you are wrong.
>>
>> Speed is the magnitude of a velocity....a pure number.... It is not a
>> physical qualtity.
>
> Oh good heavens. Speed is not a physical quality?
>
Velocity is a physical quantity because all change in space requires
direction. Speed is not a physical quantity because you can say how fast
something is cooking, reading, growing, shrinking, deflating, hardening,
thawing.
Speed is not physical. It's a generic quantity.
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
Androcles
"Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
news:hi8b5m$7b4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> >> Your 'speeds' are not equal. Their directions are different.
>
> Velocity! Not SPEED.
Who ya talking too, some snipping fuckwit?
Proof that Einstein knew what velocity is:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img110.gif
Proof that Einstein didn't know what velocity is:
"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2tv^2/c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the
equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely
similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical
conditions."
Note that it takes a lot of words to spread bullshit and it is very easy to
state v = -c.
>>> >OMG .. are you really that stupid? Speed HAS NO DIRECTION .. its a
>>> >scalar !!! Your original statement is refuted. Try to at least act
>>> >like a man admit when you are wrong.
>>>
>>> Speed is the magnitude of a velocity....a pure number.... It is not a
>>> physical qualtity.
>>
>> Oh good heavens. Speed is not a physical quality?
>>
>
> Velocity is a physical quantity because all change in space requires
> direction. Speed is not a physical quantity because you can say how fast
> something is cooking, reading, growing, shrinking, deflating, hardening,
> thawing.
>
> Speed is not physical. It's a generic quantity.
Velocity is a vector, it has both direction and magnitude.
Speed is a scalar and is the magnitude of velocity.
Only vectors can be added.
One apple + one orange = two fruits, not two apples or two oranges.
This is because apples and orange both belong to the set of fruits.
Those that try to add apples to oranges or ct to x are not mathematicians.
Inertial
"Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
news:hi8b5m$7b4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
There is a Nonsense argument .. Speed in physics (which is what was very
clearly being discussed) is a well defined physics measurement .. no
different to how velocity, or momentum are also well defined. Speed is the
change in distance over change in time (whereas velocity is a change in
displacement or position over change in time).
Henry Wilson DSc
Hey idiot, give speed a direction and it is a velocity.
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
Your rods are moving relatively and are therefore not identical.
whoever
True and irrelevant. You are proven wrong in your claim
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Paul B. Andersen
Interesting to see you explain why your were wrong when you
claimed that your scenario violate P1, Ralph. :-)
But Ralph Rabbidge with the false degrees seems rather confused.
It is correct that his scenario doesn't violate P1, but for
the wrong reasons.
"You have moved one rod relative to the other,
therefore the two are not in the same frame"
can only mean that you can't have two moving
objects in a frame of reference.
Interesting claim. :-)
"Your rods are moving relatively and are therefore not identical"
can only mean that objects are not equal if they are moving
relative to each other.
Interesting claim. :-)
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>But Henry Wilson with the false degrees seems rather confused.
>It is correct that his scenario doesn't violate P1, but for
>the wrong reasons.
>
>"You have moved one rod relative to the other,
> therefore the two are not in the same frame"
> can only mean that you can't have two moving
> objects in a frame of reference.
>Interesting claim. :-)
>
>"Your rods are moving relatively and are therefore not identical"
> can only mean that objects are not equal if they are moving
> relative to each other.
>Interesting claim. :-)
Well, you are backing a loser whichever way you want to look at it.
If I'm right then SR is proved wrong by the two mirror experiment.
If you are right then dk's flashing light experiment proves SR wrong.
so which is it?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:bhfkk59p342r2vcrn...@4ax.com...
The loser is you . .the more you squirm and divert the worse it gets for you
> If I'm right then SR is proved wrong by the two mirror experiment.
You are NOT right
> If you are right then dk's flashing light experiment proves SR wrong.
No .. it does not .. because SR does NOT predict what you say it does.
Again, you are NOT right
So the loser is clearly you
Paul B. Andersen
If you are right, your proof is invalid. :-)
You are right about that, but not for the reasons you state.
Even your falsification of your falsification of SR is wrong.
> If you are right then dk's flashing light experiment proves SR wrong.
You are way too naive and ignorant to analyse that thought experiment,
Ralph.
--
Paul
glird
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:57:10 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 1, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
glird: A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
measure. For physical time, which is unmeasured, we invented metrical
time as a measuring device. For physical space, which is an
unmeasured volume, we invented metrical space, which extends in an
infinity of directions. The minimum number of those directions
required to locate an object wrt a given referent is three. Each of
these three is also calle a dimension.
If "Time is not related to space in any way" then it does NOT have
"three component subdimensions". If, however, someone wants to JOIN
space and time, as Minkowski did, then the minimum number of spatial
components of the time dimension would be t_x, t_y and t_z, which
could be written as t_1, t_2 and t_3. >
Henry: Minkowski was another idiot.
Minkowski was a MATHEMATICIAN. He may not have understood what his
equations were treating, but he did know how to do them.
glird: Even so, just as there are an infinity of different possible
directions in space, there are an infinity of possible sub-dimensions
in metrical time, none of which physically exist other than in our
minds. >
>
Henry: You have it all wrong.
TIME and SPACE are not related. Time could easily have three
subdimensions, just as space does. So could mass, for that matter. >
Space has an infinite number of sub-dimensions, not just three. If
metrical time is not related to space, what would its sub-dimensions
be? (In space-time, time and space ARE related, and there are 3
mutually orthogonal sub-dimensions of space, such as x, y and z, and
the three minky-math sub-dimensions of "time" are t_x, t_y and t_z.
Why? Because in RT (tho not in Classical Physics or Euclidean math)
the "time" per clock is a function of where the clock is in a co-
ordinate system attached to a visible referent moving at v.
> Dimensions are basic ...we cannot define them nor >explain their existence....yet..
If WE don't define them they don't exist!!
Think about it, Henry. Even "mass" is a dimension; a measure of a
quantity of matter.
Take away the human race and nobody would be left to measure
quantities of things, nor would our elected dimensions or our invented
units continue to exist.
glird
PD
> >> >> Your 'speeds' are not equal. Their directions are different.
>
> Velocity! Not SPEED.
>
>
>
> >> >OMG .. are you really that stupid? Speed HAS NO DIRECTION .. its a
> >> >scalar !!! Your original statement is refuted. Try to at least act
> >> >like a man admit when you are wrong.
>
> >> Speed is the magnitude of a velocity....a pure number.... It is not a
> >> physical qualtity.
>
> > Oh good heavens. Speed is not a physical quality?
>
> Velocity is a physical quantity because all change in space requires
> direction. Speed is not a physical quantity because you can say how fast
> something is cooking, reading, growing, shrinking, deflating, hardening,
> thawing.
Oh, good heavens. In physics, speed is *defined* as the magnitude of
velocity and it has the same units as velocity, e.g. meters/second.
>
> Speed is not physical. It's a generic quantity.
BS.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 2, 2:22 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:57:10 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 1, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
>dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
>
>glird: A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
>measure.
It's also an aspect by which we describe the universe in physical terms and
equations. We need to define a standard unit for all dimesnions in order to
measure them.
>For physical time, which is unmeasured, we invented metrical
>time as a measuring device.
Physical time IS measured.
>For physical space, which is an
>unmeasured volume, we invented metrical space, which extends in an
>infinity of directions. The minimum number of those directions
>required to locate an object wrt a given referent is three. Each of
>these three is also calle a dimension.
the concept of three axes at right angles is a psychiological construct.
All we know is that we receive information about three related dimensions which
we call space.
We also detect that other dimension, time, with our biological clocks.
> If "Time is not related to space in any way" then it does NOT have
>"three component subdimensions". If, however, someone wants to JOIN
>space and time, as Minkowski did, then the minimum number of spatial
>components of the time dimension would be t_x, t_y and t_z, which
>could be written as t_1, t_2 and t_3. >
'ct' is not time, It has dimensions of length......space.
>Henry: Minkowski was another idiot.
>
> Minkowski was a MATHEMATICIAN. He may not have understood what his
>equations were treating, but he did know how to do them.
He was an Einstein worshipper.
>glird: Even so, just as there are an infinity of different possible
>directions in space, there are an infinity of possible sub-dimensions
>in metrical time, none of which physically exist other than in our
>minds. >
When you say 'time' do you mean time 'instant', time 'interval' or time 'flow'?
Apart from MYSELF no human seems to recognize the fact that we use the same
word for the three different aspects.
Time flows at 1 second per second, by our definition. ..just as the ground
slopes at x metres horizontal per y metres vertical.
>Henry: You have it all wrong.
> TIME and SPACE are not related. Time could easily have three
>subdimensions, just as space does. So could mass, for that matter. >
>
> Space has an infinite number of sub-dimensions, not just three.
You are confusing 'dimensions' with directions.
>If
>metrical time is not related to space, what would its sub-dimensions
>be? (In space-time, time and space ARE related, and there are 3
>mutually orthogonal sub-dimensions of space, such as x, y and z, and
>the three minky-math sub-dimensions of "time" are t_x, t_y and t_z.
>Why? Because in RT (tho not in Classical Physics or Euclidean math)
>the "time" per clock is a function of where the clock is in a co-
>ordinate system attached to a visible referent moving at v.
Ridiculous!
The period of any stable oscillator can be used to define an absolute time
interval. It does not change with speed.
>> Dimensions are basic ...we cannot define them nor >explain their existence....yet..
>
> If WE don't define them they don't exist!!
We aren't even aware of them because our psychological development is limited.
Most animals live entirely in the present and have no concept of time at all.
> Think about it, Henry. Even "mass" is a dimension; a measure of a
>quantity of matter.
> Take away the human race and nobody would be left to measure
>quantities of things, nor would our elected dimensions or our invented
>units continue to exist.
Standard units are defined for all dimensions so we can understand them better
and maybe apply mathematics.
>glird
PD
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:36 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 2, 2:22 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:57:10 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 1, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
> >dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
>
> >glird: A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
> >measure.
>
> It's also an aspect by which we describe the universe in physical terms and
> equations. We need to define a standard unit for all dimesnions in order to
> measure them.
Yes. But the standard is applied *locally*, with the measuring
standard at rest.
This is written in the little instruction book that comes with it.
The disclaimer is there because it's been discovered that the laws of
physics prevent trying to use it any other way, lest the warranty be
voided.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aaea0287-7b7e-48f5...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 12:30 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:36 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 2, 2:22 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:57:10 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 1, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
> >dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
>
> >glird: A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
> >measure.
>
> It's also an aspect by which we describe the universe in physical terms
> and
> equations. We need to define a standard unit for all dimesnions in order
> to
> measure them.
Yes. But the standard is applied *locally*, with the measuring
standard at rest.
This is written in the little instruction book that comes with it.
The disclaimer is there because it's been discovered that the laws of
physics prevent trying to use it any other way, lest the warranty be
voided.
=============================================
There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
Phuckwit Duck's thinking (which varies from duck to silly goose),
set it straight, and then make progress from there.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
=============================================
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 16, 12:30�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:36 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 2, 2:22 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:57:10 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 1, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>> >Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
>> >dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
>>
>> >glird: A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
>> >measure.
>>
>> It's also an aspect by which we describe the universe in physical terms and
>> equations. We need to define a standard unit for all dimesnions in order to
>> measure them.
>
>Yes. But the standard is applied *locally*, with the measuring
>standard at rest.
>This is written in the little instruction book that comes with it.
>The disclaimer is there because it's been discovered that the laws of
>physics prevent trying to use it any other way, lest the warranty be
>voided.
A standard rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and will be exactly the same as it
originally was. Rods and clocks don't change when moved, diaper. That claim is
just part of Einstein's fictional science.
eric gisse
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:31:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 16, 12:30 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:36 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >On Jan 2, 2:22 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:57:10 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >> >On Jan 1, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
>>> >dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
>>>
>>> >glird: A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
>>> >measure.
>>>
>>> It's also an aspect by which we describe the universe in physical terms
>>> and equations. We need to define a standard unit for all dimesnions in
>>> order to measure them.
>>
>>Yes. But the standard is applied *locally*, with the measuring
>>standard at rest.
>>This is written in the little instruction book that comes with it.
>>The disclaimer is there because it's been discovered that the laws of
>>physics prevent trying to use it any other way, lest the warranty be
>>voided.
>
> A standard rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and will be exactly the same
> as it originally was. Rods and clocks don't change when moved, diaper.
> That claim is just part of Einstein's fictional science.
Do you ever wonder how 'fictional science' managed to get off the ground if
your perception were accurate?
PD
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:31:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 12:30 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:36 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 2, 2:22 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:57:10 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Jan 1, 3:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> >Henry: Time is not related to space in any way. It is a basic
> >> >dimension. It probably has three component subdimensions. >
>
> >> >glird: A dimension is an aspect of the physical world that we wish to
> >> >measure.
>
> >> It's also an aspect by which we describe the universe in physical terms and
> >> equations. We need to define a standard unit for all dimesnions in order to
> >> measure them.
>
> >Yes. But the standard is applied *locally*, with the measuring
> >standard at rest.
> >This is written in the little instruction book that comes with it.
> >The disclaimer is there because it's been discovered that the laws of
> >physics prevent trying to use it any other way, lest the warranty be
> >voided.
>
> A standard rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and will be exactly the same as it
> originally was.
You saying it doesn't make it so. Experimental evidence says
otherwise. You choose to disbelieve the experimental evidence and
believe what you yourself say. That, of course, is what makes you a
loon.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 16, 2:43�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:31:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 16, 12:30�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:36 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> A standard rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and will be exactly the same as it
>> originally was.
>
>You saying it doesn't make it so. Experimental evidence says
>otherwise. You choose to disbelieve the experimental evidence and
>believe what you yourself say. That, of course, is what makes you a
>loon.
So does a rod become longer, shorter, both or neither as a result of a speed
change?
PD
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:03:32 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 2:43 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:31:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 16, 12:30 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:13:36 -0800 (PST), glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> A standard rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and will be exactly the same as it
> >> originally was.
>
> >You saying it doesn't make it so. Experimental evidence says
> >otherwise. You choose to disbelieve the experimental evidence and
> >believe what you yourself say. That, of course, is what makes you a
> >loon.
>
> So does a rod become longer, shorter, both or neither as a result of a speed
> change?
That depends on which two frames you are switching between.
So does the kinetic energy of an object decrease, increase, or stay
the same as a result of an observer's change in speed?
I see this is still difficult for you.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 16, 10:10�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:03:32 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 16, 2:43�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >You saying it doesn't make it so. Experimental evidence says
>> >otherwise. You choose to disbelieve the experimental evidence and
>> >believe what you yourself say. That, of course, is what makes you a
>> >loon.
>>
>> So does a rod become longer, shorter, both or neither as a result of a speed
>> change?
>
>That depends on which two frames you are switching between.
>
>So does the kinetic energy of an object decrease, increase, or stay
>the same as a result of an observer's change in speed?
>
>I see this is still difficult for you.
It isn't difficult at all.
An object's KE is only meaningful in another observer's frame...not that of the
object.
>> >> Rods and clocks don't change when moved, diaper. That claim is
>> >> just part of Einstein's fictional science.
I'm getting sick of teaching the fundamentals of physics to you are little
eric. Why don't you two go to university and learn all about it?
eric gisse
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:18:16 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 16, 10:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:03:32 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Jan 16, 2:43 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>>> >You saying it doesn't make it so. Experimental evidence says
>>> >otherwise. You choose to disbelieve the experimental evidence and
>>> >believe what you yourself say. That, of course, is what makes you a
>>> >loon.
>>>
>>> So does a rod become longer, shorter, both or neither as a result of a
>>> speed change?
>>
>>That depends on which two frames you are switching between.
>>
>>So does the kinetic energy of an object decrease, increase, or stay
>>the same as a result of an observer's change in speed?
>>
>>I see this is still difficult for you.
>
> It isn't difficult at all.
> An object's KE is only meaningful in another observer's frame...not that
> of the object.
>
>>> >> Rods and clocks don't change when moved, diaper. That claim is
>>> >> just part of Einstein's fictional science.
>
> I'm getting sick of teaching the fundamentals of physics to you are little
> eric. Why don't you two go to university and learn all about it?
We did.
When will you?
PD
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:18:16 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 10:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:03:32 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 16, 2:43 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >You saying it doesn't make it so. Experimental evidence says
> >> >otherwise. You choose to disbelieve the experimental evidence and
> >> >believe what you yourself say. That, of course, is what makes you a
> >> >loon.
>
> >> So does a rod become longer, shorter, both or neither as a result of a speed
> >> change?
>
> >That depends on which two frames you are switching between.
>
> >So does the kinetic energy of an object decrease, increase, or stay
> >the same as a result of an observer's change in speed?
>
> >I see this is still difficult for you.
>
> It isn't difficult at all.
Then what's the answer? Suppose the kinetic energy of an object is
nonzero in another observer's frame. Then the observer changes his
motion and remeasures the kinetic energy of the same object? Does the
kinetic energy of the object decrease, increase, or stay the same as a
result of the observer's change in speed?
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 17, 2:41�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:18:16 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 16, 10:10�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:03:32 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >So does the kinetic energy of an object decrease, increase, or stay
>> >the same as a result of an observer's change in speed?
>>
>> >I see this is still difficult for you.
>>
>> It isn't difficult at all.
>
>Then what's the answer? Suppose the kinetic energy of an object is
>nonzero in another observer's frame. Then the observer changes his
>motion and remeasures the kinetic energy of the same object? Does the
>kinetic energy of the object decrease, increase, or stay the same as a
>result of the observer's change in speed?
You are incapable of understanding physics.
KE is not a PROPERTY of the object although it is associated with that object's
mass and movement in a particular frame.
KE EXISTS in a frame because of the movement of a mass. If the mass stops, the
KE is dissipated, usually in PE or heat.
>> An object's KE is only meaningful in another observer's frame...not that of the
>> object.
>>
>> >> >> Rods and clocks don't change when moved, diaper. That claim is
>> >> >> just part of Einstein's fictional science.
>>
>> I'm getting sick of teaching the fundamentals of physics to you are little
>> eric. Why don't you two go to university and learn all about it?
_________________
end of phyisics lesson 213
Henry Wilson...
Christians and muslims like to slaughter each other with bombs and bullets.
Their respective gods prefer to use earthquakes and hurricanes.
Haiti is payback for Ache.
PD
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:04:12 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 2:41 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:18:16 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 16, 10:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:03:32 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >So does the kinetic energy of an object decrease, increase, or stay
> >> >the same as a result of an observer's change in speed?
>
> >> >I see this is still difficult for you.
>
> >> It isn't difficult at all.
>
> >Then what's the answer? Suppose the kinetic energy of an object is
> >nonzero in another observer's frame. Then the observer changes his
> >motion and remeasures the kinetic energy of the same object? Does the
> >kinetic energy of the object decrease, increase, or stay the same as a
> >result of the observer's change in speed?
>
> You are incapable of understanding physics.
> KE is not a PROPERTY of the object although it is associated with that object's
> mass and movement in a particular frame.
You cannot seem to answer a multiple choice question.
Start with an object A and an observer O. In this initial state and in
O's frame, A is moving and so has a nonzero kinetic energy. Now, O
changes his motion. In the final state, A is still moving so has a
nonzero kinetic energy. In that change of motion, did the kinetic
energy of A increase, decrease, or stay the same?
Your answer here:____________________________
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Jan 22, 5:14�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:04:12 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 17, 2:41�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >Then what's the answer? Suppose the kinetic energy of an object is
>> >nonzero in another observer's frame. Then the observer changes his
>> >motion and remeasures the kinetic energy of the same object? Does the
>> >kinetic energy of the object decrease, increase, or stay the same as a
>> >result of the observer's change in speed?
>>
>> You are incapable of understanding physics.
>> KE is not a PROPERTY of the object although it is associated with that object's
>> mass and movement in a particular frame.
>
>You cannot seem to answer a multiple choice question.
>
>Start with an object A and an observer O. In this initial state and in
>O's frame, A is moving and so has a nonzero kinetic energy. Now, O
>changes his motion. In the final state, A is still moving so has a
>nonzero kinetic energy. In that change of motion, did the kinetic
>energy of A increase, decrease, or stay the same?
>
>Your answer here:____________________________
KE is the 'potential energy of relative motion'.
KE EXISTS in a frame because of the movement of a mass. If the mass stops, the
KE is dissipated, usually in PE or heat.
KE is not a PROPERTY of a moving object.
>> >> An object's KE is only meaningful in another observer's frame...not that of the
>> >> object.
>>
>> >> >> >> Rods and clocks don't change when moved, diaper. That claim is
>> >> >> >> just part of Einstein's fictional science.
>>
>> >> I'm getting sick of teaching the fundamentals of physics to you are little
>> >> eric. Why don't you two go to university and learn all about it?
>>
>> _________________
>> end of phyisics lesson 213
Henry Wilson...
.......provider of free physics lessons
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
You said:
> KE is the 'potential energy of relative motion'.
This statement alone convicts you of lying about your education in
physics. No one trained in physics, even at an elementary level,
could say such a thing.
Uncle Ben
PD
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:24:54 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 22, 5:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:04:12 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 17, 2:41 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >Then what's the answer? Suppose the kinetic energy of an object is
> >> >nonzero in another observer's frame. Then the observer changes his
> >> >motion and remeasures the kinetic energy of the same object? Does the
> >> >kinetic energy of the object decrease, increase, or stay the same as a
> >> >result of the observer's change in speed?
>
> >> You are incapable of understanding physics.
> >> KE is not a PROPERTY of the object although it is associated with that object's
> >> mass and movement in a particular frame.
>
> >You cannot seem to answer a multiple choice question.
>
> >Start with an object A and an observer O. In this initial state and in
> >O's frame, A is moving and so has a nonzero kinetic energy. Now, O
> >changes his motion. In the final state, A is still moving so has a
> >nonzero kinetic energy. In that change of motion, did the kinetic
> >energy of A increase, decrease, or stay the same?
>
> >Your answer here:____________________________
You seem to have difficulty answering a multiple choice question.
>
> KE is the 'potential energy of relative motion'.
And this demonstrates that you've never even read a freshman physics
text.
eric gisse
...and you expect us do believe you have a degree in physics?
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:751c910e-d1d7-4535...@t1g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
You said:
Uncle Ben
===================================================
"c+v is not the speed of anything w.r.t. anything" -- Bonehead Green
This statement alone convicts you of lying about your education in
physics. No-one trained in physics, even at an elementary level,
could say such a thing.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closing.gif
The blue pointer relative to the green ruler travels at half the speed of
the blue pointer relative to the red ruler and is "not the speed of
anything w.r.t. anything", "it's a closing speed."
No-one with integrity could fail to admit their blunder.