I Just Want A Simple Answer.
Henry Wilson DSc
can a frame change make those intervals equal?
For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
directions....(according to SR of course.)
....and no silly answers please.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:tg71j5td812419dn0...@4ax.com...
> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame,
That's rather ambiguously stated. Does that mean that one action starts at
time T1 and finishes at time T2, and then some time later the other action
starts at T3 and finishes at T4 .. then T1..T2 is one interval and T3..T4 is
another differnt interval .. even if the length of those two intervals is
the same, they are clearly not the same interval? Or does it mean that they
can both actions start at the same time, but one takes less time to finish
than the other? Or ....? You really should phrase things more clearly.
Fortunately you provide an example that seems to clarify what you said.
> how
> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
You mean how can they be measured as equal from a different frame of
reference?
> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five,
> what
> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> directions....(according to SR of course.)
Ahh . so you are meaning that the times taken for the two motions (in
opposite directions) is measured to be different in one frame of reference,
and you want to know how the times taken can be measured as being equal in
some other frame of reference.
So like the way light can go from A to B and back again .. and each leg of
the trip takes the same time in the frame in which A and B are at rest, but
takes different times in a frame in which A and B are moving? Einstein uses
such examples in his 1905 paper.
That's all due to RoS. Where clocks the are synchronized in one frame are
not synchronized according to observers in another frame.
In your simple example, if clocks at the start and end of your forward
journey (call them A and B respectively) are synchronized in your frame, you
get the 10 seconds for the first part and 5 seconds for the second. But if
they are *not* in sync in your frame, and the B clock is, say, early by
2.5sec, then if you use those clocks to 'time' your journey, you would get
7.5 seconds each way.
That is similar to what an observer moving at an appropriate speed relative
to you would measure .. because clocks synced in his frame and not synced in
yours (and vice versa).
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:tg71j5td812419dn0...@4ax.com...
> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame,
> how
> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five,
> what
> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>
> ....and no silly answers please.
How can anyone give you an answer according to SR
without it being silly? You can walk backwards at twice
the speed you walked forward and cover the same
distance interval and then pretend you did it at the same
speed each way, but that's silly.
Paul B. Andersen
> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
The simple answer is that temporal intervals which are different in one frame
may (under certain conditions) be equal in another, because that's how nature works.
Any model of nature which says that temporal intervals generally are invariant
is experimentally falsified.
Asking how nature can work as it factually does is futile.
It does. You should learn to live with it.
But Ralph Rabbidge is an inhabitant of Wonderland and knows nothing
about the real world.
> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> directions....(according to SR of course.)
None.
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote in message
news:hgqddt$8mc$1...@news01.tp.hist.no...
> The simple answer is that temporal intervals which are different in one
> frame
> may (under certain conditions) be equal in another
BWAHAHAHAH!
different is equal! Priceless!
Make a note of that one: news:hgqddt$8mc$1...@news01.tp.hist.no
Dirk Van de moortel
> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one
> frame, how
> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for
> five, what
> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in
> both directions....(according to SR of course.)
>
> ....and no silly answers please.
To an idiot every answer sounds silly.
Specially this one.
Dirk Vdm
PD
> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>
> ....and no silly answers please.
It's not complicated, Henri.
Take a case where the distances walked and the times walked are some
constants. This will determine the spacetime coordinates of three
events: The start of walking, the turnaround and the return point, as
measured in some lab frame. These will be events (x1,t1),(x2,t2),
(x3,t3).
Now you want to find the frame with velocity v with respect to the lab
frame, such that in this frame, t2'-t1' = t3'-t2'. The velocity v will
be an unknown you will solve for.
You have three Lorentz transformation equations that will transform L:
(x1,t1)->(x1',t1'), L:(x2,t2)->(x2',t2'), and L:(x3,t3)->(x3',t3').
Surely you now have enough information to solve for v.
PD
Henry Wilson DSc
If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
>
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 22.12.2009 11:35, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
>> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
>The simple answer is that temporal intervals which are different in one frame
>may (under certain conditions) be equal in another, because that's how nature works.
>
>Any model of nature which says that temporal intervals generally are invariant
>is experimentally falsified.
If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
Henry Wilson DSc
If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
>Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 22, 4:35�am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
>> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>>
>> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
>> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
>> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>>
>> ....and no silly answers please.
>
>It's not complicated, Henri.
>Take a case where the distances walked and the times walked are some
>constants. This will determine the spacetime coordinates of three
>events: The start of walking, the turnaround and the return point, as
>measured in some lab frame. These will be events (x1,t1),(x2,t2),
>(x3,t3).
>
>Now you want to find the frame with velocity v with respect to the lab
>frame, such that in this frame, t2'-t1' = t3'-t2'. The velocity v will
>be an unknown you will solve for.
Congratuations. You are the first respondent who has managed to understand the
question. I am quite surprised.
>You have three Lorentz transformation equations that will transform L:
>(x1,t1)->(x1',t1'), L:(x2,t2)->(x2',t2'), and L:(x3,t3)->(x3',t3').
>
>Surely you now have enough information to solve for v.
Do I?
You show me how...
>PD
eric gisse
> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame,
> how can a frame change make those intervals equal?
If two physical objects have different intervals of length in one frame, how
can a frame change make those intervals equal?
If two physical actions have different amounts of angular momentum in one
frame, how can a frame change make those amounts equal?
If two physical actions have different amounts of energy in one frame, how
can a frame change make those amounts equal?
CATCH THE PATTERN YET?
>
> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five,
> what moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in
> both directions....(according to SR of course.)
That's a nice homework exercise. Why don't you open a book on SR, learn
about Lorentz transformations, and figure it out?
>
> ....and no silly answers please.
Or you'll post for another decade about how you think SR is silly while
demanding it taught to you?
eric gisse
[...]
>
> If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
If you want to taught for free while being abusive, you'll have to put up
with the abuse or pay for the education that the rest of US have paid for.
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 22, 4:35 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
>>> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>>>
>>> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
>>> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
>>> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>>>
>>> ....and no silly answers please.
>>
>> It's not complicated, Henri.
>> Take a case where the distances walked and the times walked are some
>> constants. This will determine the spacetime coordinates of three
>> events: The start of walking, the turnaround and the return point, as
>> measured in some lab frame. These will be events (x1,t1),(x2,t2),
>> (x3,t3).
>>
>> Now you want to find the frame with velocity v with respect to the lab
>> frame, such that in this frame, t2'-t1' = t3'-t2'. The velocity v will
>> be an unknown you will solve for.
>
> Congratuations. You are the first respondent who has managed to understand the
> question. I am quite surprised.
>
>> You have three Lorentz transformation equations that will transform L:
>> (x1,t1)->(x1',t1'), L:(x2,t2)->(x2',t2'), and L:(x3,t3)->(x3',t3').
>>
>> Surely you now have enough information to solve for v.
>
> Do I?
No you don't.
> You show me how...
See?
Dirk Vdm
Inertial
news:t292j51m1kcdqihk1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 22, 4:35 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame,
>>> how
>>> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>>>
>>> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five,
>>> what
>>> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
>>> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>>>
>>> ....and no silly answers please.
>>
>>It's not complicated, Henri.
>>Take a case where the distances walked and the times walked are some
>>constants. This will determine the spacetime coordinates of three
>>events: The start of walking, the turnaround and the return point, as
>>measured in some lab frame. These will be events (x1,t1),(x2,t2),
>>(x3,t3).
>>
>>Now you want to find the frame with velocity v with respect to the lab
>>frame, such that in this frame, t2'-t1' = t3'-t2'. The velocity v will
>>be an unknown you will solve for.
>
> Congratuations. You are the first respondent who has managed to understand
> the
> question. I am quite surprised.
Nope .. that was me .. despite your vague description of it. If you hadn't
put an example, then there were a number of possible interpretations of your
question. You need to be more clear.
>>You have three Lorentz transformation equations that will transform L:
>>(x1,t1)->(x1',t1'), L:(x2,t2)->(x2',t2'), and L:(x3,t3)->(x3',t3').
>>
>>Surely you now have enough information to solve for v.
>
> Do I?
> You show me how...
So you don't
Inertial
I just did. If you can't understand the answers, don't ask the questions
Henry Wilson DSc
Diaper hasn't answered the question. He cannot do it.
Applying the LTs will make both time intervals smaller but not the same.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame,
>> how can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
>If two physical objects have different intervals of length in one frame, how
>can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
>If two physical actions have different amounts of angular momentum in one
>frame, how can a frame change make those amounts equal?
>
>If two physical actions have different amounts of energy in one frame, how
>can a frame change make those amounts equal?
>
>CATCH THE PATTERN YET?
Yes. I mentioned it days ago.
Can you now provide the answers?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
BAHAHA .. you really have NO idea , do you. I'm sure you must think that
applying the LT simply means "make all lengths shorter by gamma and clocks
slower by gamma".
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
I did answer it .. you just don't understand .. as it clear from your
comments that you cannot understand SR because you find it incoherent.
Sounds like you simply have a learning disability.
eric gisse
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:32:32 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame,
>>> how can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>>
>>If two physical objects have different intervals of length in one frame,
>>how can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>>
>>If two physical actions have different amounts of angular momentum in one
>>frame, how can a frame change make those amounts equal?
>>
>>If two physical actions have different amounts of energy in one frame, how
>>can a frame change make those amounts equal?
>>
>>CATCH THE PATTERN YET?
>
> Yes. I mentioned it days ago.
>
> Can you now provide the answers?
Time is not a frame independent quantity.
Seven words, one concept. What part of it confuses you?
eric gisse
[...]
> Diaper hasn't answered the question. He cannot do it.
> Applying the LTs will make both time intervals smaller but not the same.
You don't even know enough relativity to apply the Lorentz transforms, so
why are you arguing?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:32:32 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>
>>>> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame,
>>>> how can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>>>
>>>If two physical objects have different intervals of length in one frame,
>>>how can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>>>
>>>If two physical actions have different amounts of angular momentum in one
>>>frame, how can a frame change make those amounts equal?
>>>
>>>If two physical actions have different amounts of energy in one frame, how
>>>can a frame change make those amounts equal?
>>>
>>>CATCH THE PATTERN YET?
>>
>> Yes. I mentioned it days ago.
>>
>> Can you now provide the answers?
>
>Time is not a frame independent quantity.
>
>Seven words, one concept. What part of it confuses you?
If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
>
>>
>>>> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five,
>>>> what moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in
>>>> both directions....(according to SR of course.)
eric gisse
[...]
>>>
>>> Can you now provide the answers?
>>
>>Time is not a frame independent quantity.
>>
>>Seven words, one concept. What part of it confuses you?
>
> If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
What if you don't understand the answer to the question?
This question is not academic, though it has been studied rigorously.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
[...]
Inertial
news:hgrtm4$egn$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
Page Not Found
This page is not available
eric gisse
Well of course.
http://www.quantpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/unskilled-unaware.pdf
I checked that one.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
"this page is not available...."
>[...]
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>Inertial wrote:
You should study it.
eric gisse
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:00:13 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you now provide the answers?
>>>>
>>>>Time is not a frame independent quantity.
>>>>
>>>>Seven words, one concept. What part of it confuses you?
>>>
>>> If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
>>
>>What if you don't understand the answer to the question?
>>
>>This question is not academic, though it has been studied rigorously.
>>
>>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
> "this page is not available...."
I'm amazed you actually looked.
http://www.quantpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/unskilled-unaware.pdf
eric gisse
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:41:58 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Inertial wrote:
>>
>>> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hgrtm4$egn$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you now provide the answers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Time is not a frame independent quantity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seven words, one concept. What part of it confuses you?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you cannot answer the question don't answer at all
>>>>
>>>> What if you don't understand the answer to the question?
>>>>
>>>> This question is not academic, though it has been studied rigorously.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>>>
>>> Page Not Found
>>> This page is not available
>>
>>Well of course.
>>
>>http://www.quantpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/unskilled-
unaware.pdf
>>
>>I checked that one.
>
> You should study it.
I've already read it, and occasionally keep it in mind when I step into a
field I have not studied.
But let's consider an example.
Person "R" has been claiming he can explain the perihelion precession of
Mercury for approximately a decade now. He is extremely sure of this -
arrogantly sure - but is yet to demonstrate the ability to perform the task
he has been claiming he can do.
Is this an example of "R" overestimating his abilities in line with the
predictions of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Inertial
So basically: those who don't know enough don't know enough to know they
don't know enough.
That seems to sum up Henry quite nicely .. but then, you'd think that after
so mane years of having it pointed out to him, he'd have at least worked out
that he doesn't have a clue. Esp as he admits that when he tried to read SR
he found is incoherent (and its probably one of the simplest theories, not
terribly taxing to follow at all). Now, if it were GR or QM that he found
hard to follow, that would be more understandable. Yet despite him
admitting he doesn't understand what SR actually says, it doesn't stop him
posting nonsense 'proofs' that it is wrong. Its hilarious (if not
pathetic).
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
........finite speed of gravity plus internal tides.
PD
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 4:35 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
> >> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
> >> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
> >> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> >> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>
> >> ....and no silly answers please.
>
> >It's not complicated, Henri.
> >Take a case where the distances walked and the times walked are some
> >constants. This will determine the spacetime coordinates of three
> >events: The start of walking, the turnaround and the return point, as
> >measured in some lab frame. These will be events (x1,t1),(x2,t2),
> >(x3,t3).
>
> >Now you want to find the frame with velocity v with respect to the lab
> >frame, such that in this frame, t2'-t1' = t3'-t2'. The velocity v will
> >be an unknown you will solve for.
>
> Congratuations. You are the first respondent who has managed to understand the
> question. I am quite surprised.
>
> >You have three Lorentz transformation equations that will transform L:
> >(x1,t1)->(x1',t1'), L:(x2,t2)->(x2',t2'), and L:(x3,t3)->(x3',t3').
>
> >Surely you now have enough information to solve for v.
>
> Do I?
You should.
> You show me how...
How about if I guide you, so that you can at least claim that you
learned how to do something yourself with relativity?
Step 1: Choose a walking velocity and use that to specify (with
numbers) (x1,t1), (x2,t2), (x3,t3).
Your answer here:______________________________________
Step 2: Write down, in terms of the unknown v, the Lorentz
transformation (x1,t1)->(x1',t1') explicitly.
When you get this far, we'll go on from there.
eric gisse
[...]
>>
>>But let's consider an example.
>>
>>Person "R" has been claiming he can explain the perihelion precession of
>>Mercury for approximately a decade now. He is extremely sure of this -
>>arrogantly sure - but is yet to demonstrate the ability to perform the
>>task he has been claiming he can do.
>
> ........finite speed of gravity plus internal tides.
OK, let's see your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession using your
latest guess.
glird
> Time is not a frame independent quantity.
> Seven words, one concept. What part of it confuses you?
The word "time" coupled with the word "quantity".
glird
glird
>
> So basically: those who don't know enough don't know
> enough to know they don't know enough.
Well and truly said!
It mirrors something i'd posted a few days ago on Dec 19:
"In the end, as at the beginning, Einstein never
used or understood the SR theory. So much the better for him!
He understood nothing about what turns out to BE nothing ─ once you
do understand it. So, to coin a question, what's the difference
between someone who understands nothing about nothing and someone who
understands everything about nothing? To coin an answer: Only he who
fully understands nothing knows there was nothing there to understand.
{The others keep trying.}"
glird
Paul Cardinale
> Time is not a frame independent quantity.
>
> Seven words, one concept. What part of it confuses you?
>
The ralf is confused by the seven words and by the one concept.
Mike Jr
Uncle Al,
Sic 'em.
--Mike Jr.
Androcles
"Mike Jr" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c6278f36-585a-45cb...@r14g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 3:46 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So basically: those who don't know enough don't know
> > enough to know they don't know enough.
>
> Well and truly said!
> It mirrors something i'd posted a few days ago on Dec 19:
> "In the end, as at the beginning, Einstein never
> used or understood the SR theory. So much the better for him!
> do understand it. So, to coin a question, what's the difference
> between someone who understands nothing about nothing and someone who
> understands everything about nothing? To coin an answer: Only he who
> fully understands nothing knows there was nothing there to understand.
> {The others keep trying.}"
>
> glird
Uncle Al,
Sic 'em.
--Mike Jr.
Schwartz has no teeth, he's just another barking impotent puppy
that couldn't sic a mouse and only mice are frightened by him.
Henry Wilson DSc
>Your answer here: (0,0), (vt,10), (vt/2,15)
>
>Step 2: Write down, in terms of the unknown v, the Lorentz
>transformation (x1,t1)->(x1',t1') explicitly.
>
>When you get this far, we'll go on from there.
hahahahahha! So you have realised you are talking bullshit, eh, diaper?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>[...]
>
>>>
>>>But let's consider an example.
>>>
>>>Person "R" has been claiming he can explain the perihelion precession of
>>>Mercury for approximately a decade now. He is extremely sure of this -
>>>arrogantly sure - but is yet to demonstrate the ability to perform the
>>>task he has been claiming he can do.
>>
>> ........finite speed of gravity plus internal tides.
>
>OK, let's see your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession using your
>latest guess.
I've told you why. You can do the sums..
Henry Wilson DSc
That's too subtle for little eric....
>glird
eric gisse
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:23:38 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>>
>>>>But let's consider an example.
>>>>
>>>>Person "R" has been claiming he can explain the perihelion precession of
>>>>Mercury for approximately a decade now. He is extremely sure of this -
>>>>arrogantly sure - but is yet to demonstrate the ability to perform the
>>>>task he has been claiming he can do.
>>>
>>> ........finite speed of gravity plus internal tides.
>>
>>OK, let's see your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession using
>>your latest guess.
>
> I've told you why. You can do the sums..
You have told me what you _think_ the explanation might be. But you haven't
done any of the legwork to show that your explanation is correct.
[...]
hhc...@yahoo.com
Another IDIOT posting. Special Relativity theory is used daily by the
designers of cyclic particle accelerator, without which they could not
achive phase stability and operate.
Read a fucking book, asshole!
Harry C.
p.s., You might want to start with "Particle Accelerators" by
Livingston and Blewett, (It's a rather old text, 1962, but it still
works and so does Special Relativity.)
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
You claim to know eerything. Let's see you do the sums.
eric gisse
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:07:52 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:23:38 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But let's consider an example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Person "R" has been claiming he can explain the perihelion precession
>>>>>>of Mercury for approximately a decade now. He is extremely sure of
>>>>>>this - arrogantly sure - but is yet to demonstrate the ability to
>>>>>>perform the task he has been claiming he can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> ........finite speed of gravity plus internal tides.
>>>>
>>>>OK, let's see your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession using
>>>>your latest guess.
>>>
>>> I've told you why. You can do the sums..
>>
>>You have told me what you _think_ the explanation might be. But you
>>haven't done any of the legwork to show that your explanation is correct.
>
> You claim to know eerything. Let's see you do the sums.
Why should I do your work for you?
It sounds rather much like you don't have an explanation. Guess general
relativity will have to do, eh?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Dec 23, 3:46�pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 12:19�am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > So basically: those who don't know enough don't know
>> > enough to know they don't know enough.
>>
>> � Well and truly said!
>> �It mirrors something i'd posted a few days ago on Dec 19:
>> �"In the end, as at the beginning, Einstein never
>> used or understood the SR theory. So much the better for him!
>> �He understood nothing about what turns out to BE nothing ? once you
>> do understand it. So, to coin a question, what's the difference
>> between someone who understands nothing about nothing and someone who
>> understands everything about nothing? �To coin an answer: Only he who
>> fully understands nothing knows there was nothing there to understand.
>> � {The others keep trying.}"
>>
>> glird
>
>Another IDIOT posting. Special Relativity theory is used daily by the
>designers of cyclic particle accelerator, without which they could not
>achive phase stability and operate.
>
>Read a fucking book, asshole!
It has nothing to do with relativity although similar equations hold. What
appears as a mass increase is just the energy associated with the reverse field
bubble. Also, fields take time to act.
>Harry C.
>
>p.s., You might want to start with "Particle Accelerators" by
>Livingston and Blewett, (It's a rather old text, 1962, but it still
>works and so does Special Relativity.)
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:07:52 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:23:38 -0800, eric gisse
>>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But let's consider an example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Person "R" has been claiming he can explain the perihelion precession
>>>>>>>of Mercury for approximately a decade now. He is extremely sure of
>>>>>>>this - arrogantly sure - but is yet to demonstrate the ability to
>>>>>>>perform the task he has been claiming he can do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ........finite speed of gravity plus internal tides.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, let's see your derivation of Mercury's perihelion precession using
>>>>>your latest guess.
>>>>
>>>> I've told you why. You can do the sums..
>>>
>>>You have told me what you _think_ the explanation might be. But you
>>>haven't done any of the legwork to show that your explanation is correct.
>>
>> You claim to know eerything. Let's see you do the sums.
>
>Why should I do your work for you?
>
>It sounds rather much like you don't have an explanation. Guess general
>relativity will have to do, eh?
what was the question again?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:2106j51j3nkr9qgo0...@4ax.com...
The idiot arsehole Conover fancies he's a physicist, just as you do.
The lying shit pretends he can design particle accelerators.
Ask him about the "equitorial" (equatorial) orbit of the shuttle over
Buffalo NY and how it makes a right turn to reach Florida instead of
following a great circle, that'll tell you what he knows about 3D
geometry needed for particle accelerators.
Vindicator2009
The simplest and shortest answer is: you're a fucking moron who
doesn't have idea one what he's talking about! Or in other words:
you're a dumbass!
Solution? Read a damn book and learn some maths and physics or,
equivalently, kill yourself ASAP
eric gisse
You should get treated for your reading disability. The entire context was
quoted by you.
eric gisse
Gosh, another mysterious process that conspires to make the universe behave
as if relativity were true.
Dirk Van de moortel
60e5fc08-cbfd-4030...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
He won't.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Since you didn't understand the queston it is unlikely that you would remember
what it was.
Ste
> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> directions....(according to SR of course.)
Easy. An observer moving toward you as you move forward for 10
seconds, and then away from you as you move backward for 5 seconds,
will (when you move at a certain rate) observe you to move exactly the
same distance in both directions and at the same rate in both
directions.
Henry Wilson DSc
...but not for the same time intervals.
Hahahahhahaha!
anyway your observer frame changes half way...not allowed
Try again, boy.
Ste
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:50:39 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 22 Dec, 10:35, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
> >> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
> >> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
> >> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> >> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>
> >Easy. An observer moving toward you as you move forward for 10
> >seconds, and then away from you as you move backward for 5 seconds,
> >will (when you move at a certain rate) observe you to move exactly the
> >same distance in both directions and at the same rate in both
> >directions.
>
> ...but not for the same time intervals.
>
> Hahahahhahaha!
>
> anyway your observer frame changes half way...not allowed
Not so. The observer moves at a constant velocity, and passes the
walker (with negligible spatial distance between them) at the point at
which the walker turns around.
The only discernible difference is that the frequency of light is
shifted relatively, blue-shifted on the observer's approach, and red-
shifted on the observer's departure.
Henry Wilson DSc
This has nothing whatsoever to do wih the time taken.
Your post ranks right at the bottom of the ladder....down with those of
inertial and little eric.
Inertial
news:2106j51j3nkr9qgo0...@4ax.com...
BAHAHAHA .. "reverse field bubble" .. you're full of shit Henry.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:gcj7j55emstbpcv90...@4ax.com...
So .. please show your work, if you can indeed do it. So far you've just
avoided the question rather pathetically .. first by asking Eric to do your
math for you, and them claiming you didn't know what he was asking. You're
a cowardly liar.
Inertial
news:j1v7j5hcu99dr9jv9...@4ax.com...
Gees .. seeing your rankings are inversely proportional to reality, that
means he's pretty smart :)
Henry Wilson DSc
You don't get something for nothing in the physical world.
eric gisse
Are you aware that you do not get a prize for "the most idiotic response",
right?
If you want to keep being treated like a raving loon, keep spewing nonsense
about 'reverse field bubbles'. I mean, sure, who wouldn't want to be
marginalized and mocked when not being ignored for the rest of their adult
life?
kenseto
> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> directions....(according to SR of course.)
Using the LT you predict what the other observer will see as follows:
Delta(t)=10 seconds.
Delta(t'_10)= gamma[10-vx_10/c^2]
Delta(t) = 5 seconds
Delta(t'_5)= gamma[5-vx_5/c^2)
Since v is the same for the other observer in both cases then x is the
only variable. You solve for x such that
Delta(t'_10)=Delta(t'_5)
Ken Seto
>
> ....and no silly answers please.
>
PD
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:59:12 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 2:00 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
> >> >> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>
> >> >> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
> >> >> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
> >> >> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>
>
> >> >Take a case where the distances walked and the times walked are some
> >> >constants. This will determine the spacetime coordinates of three
> >> >events: The start of walking, the turnaround and the return point, as
> >> >measured in some lab frame. These will be events (x1,t1),(x2,t2),
> >> >(x3,t3).
>
> >> >Now you want to find the frame with velocity v with respect to the lab
> >> >frame, such that in this frame, t2'-t1' = t3'-t2'. The velocity v will
> >> >be an unknown you will solve for.
>
> >> Congratuations. You are the first respondent who has managed to understand the
> >> question. I am quite surprised.
>
> >> >You have three Lorentz transformation equations that will transform L:
> >> >(x1,t1)->(x1',t1'), L:(x2,t2)->(x2',t2'), and L:(x3,t3)->(x3',t3').
>
> >> >Surely you now have enough information to solve for v.
>
> >> Do I?
>
> >You should.
>
> >> You show me how...
>
> >How about if I guide you, so that you can at least claim that you
> >learned how to do something yourself with relativity?
>
> >Step 1: Choose a walking velocity and use that to specify (with
> >numbers) (x1,t1), (x2,t2), (x3,t3).
>
> >Your answer here: (0,0), (vt,10), (vt/2,15)
Oh dear. Perhaps we should sit a moment on this first step.
First: The velocity v is the frame velocity we'll be solving for that
turns these two time intervals equal, so let's not use it to denote
the walking velocity. You can call it something else (say, V) or even
better, pick a number, like 2 (as in 2 m/s).
Second: Since you picked t2 = 10, shouldn't x2 be equal to 10V? (Or if
you choose V=2 m/s, then this becomes x2 = 20).
Third: Since you're walking back on the second leg, shouldn't x3 be 0?
Fourth: Since you're walking the second leg in half the time,
shouldn't the velocity be twice as fact, not half as fast?
If you have such difficulties with simple coordinates, I can see why
relativity might be difficult for you.
>
> >Step 2: Write down, in terms of the unknown v, the Lorentz
> >transformation (x1,t1)->(x1',t1') explicitly.
>
> >When you get this far, we'll go on from there.
>
> hahahahahha! So you have realised you are talking bullshit, eh, diaper?
Perhaps you just need a pointer as to what the Lorentz transform looks
like.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/relativ/ltrans.html
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 23, 4:41�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:59:12 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 22, 2:00 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:00:30 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
>>moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
>>directions....(according to SR of course.)
>> >> >Surely you now have enough information to solve for v.
>>
>> >> Do I?
>>
>> >You should.
>>
>> >> You show me how...
>>
>> >How about if I guide you, so that you can at least claim that you
>> >learned how to do something yourself with relativity?
>>
>> >Step 1: Choose a walking velocity and use that to specify (with
>> >numbers) (x1,t1), (x2,t2), (x3,t3).
>>
>> >Your answer here: (0,0), (vt,10), (vt/2,15)
>
>Oh dear. Perhaps we should sit a moment on this first step.
>
>First: The velocity v is the frame velocity we'll be solving for that
>turns these two time intervals equal, so let's not use it to denote
>the walking velocity. You can call it something else (say, V) or even
>better, pick a number, like 2 (as in 2 m/s).
You are raving. v is my speed relative to the ground. That is the usual
convention.
'V relative to the ground' can be that of the frame speed you hope to find
>Second: Since you picked t2 = 10, shouldn't x2 be equal to 10V? (Or if
>you choose V=2 m/s, then this becomes x2 = 20).
>
>Third: Since you're walking back on the second leg, shouldn't x3 be 0?
......oh christ, am I conversing with a monkey?
NO. I only get half way back. My walking speed is constant.
>Fourth: Since you're walking the second leg in half the time,
>shouldn't the velocity be twice as fact, not half as fast?
forget it.
I'll hire a monkey..
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Listen shithead, a moving charge constitutes a current. A current flowing in a
closed circuit creates a potential difference. That can be capacitive or
resistive.
In the case of a fast moving charge in vacuum, a very high potential is set up
in OPPOSITION to the applied field.
Since it is likely that electric forces and fields act in finite time, it is
reasonable to hypothesize that the field around the charge cannot reach the
electrodes instantly but ends up like a 'field bubble' moving with the charge.
....but as I have pointed out to you many times, you don't understand the
basics of physics and don't have any scientific ability whatsoever..so this
idea will go way over your head....
eric gisse
[...]
> Listen shithead, a moving charge constitutes a current. A current flowing
> in a closed circuit creates a potential difference. That can be capacitive
> or resistive.
> In the case of a fast moving charge in vacuum, a very high potential is
> set up in OPPOSITION to the applied field.
Really? What's the source of that potential?
Could you show me, using Maxwell's equations, how anything of what you say
is true?
>
> Since it is likely that electric forces and fields act in finite time, it
> is reasonable to hypothesize that the field around the charge cannot reach
> the electrodes instantly but ends up like a 'field bubble' moving with the
> charge.
Also known as "retarded potential", as described in exquisite detail in a
halfway decent electrodynamics textbook.
>
> ....but as I have pointed out to you many times, you don't understand the
> basics of physics and don't have any scientific ability whatsoever..so
> this idea will go way over your head....
I understand quite nicely. I just don't see the requisite legwork. No math?
Imagine that.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Listen shithead, a moving charge constitutes a current. A current flowing
>> in a closed circuit creates a potential difference. That can be capacitive
>> or resistive.
>> In the case of a fast moving charge in vacuum, a very high potential is
>> set up in OPPOSITION to the applied field.
>
>Really? What's the source of that potential?
Look eric, you know nothing about electricity so there is little point in
trying to explain this to you. ....but one day you might hear the expression
'IR drop'. Of course it doesn't have to be a resistance. It could be an
impedance. You might also hear the term 'back emf', which is something like the
potential across the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble..
>Could you show me, using Maxwell's equations, how anything of what you say
>is true?
Maxwell's equations apply to an EM wave in an aether.
Can you show me some aether?
>> Since it is likely that electric forces and fields act in finite time, it
>> is reasonable to hypothesize that the field around the charge cannot reach
>> the electrodes instantly but ends up like a 'field bubble' moving with the
>> charge.
>
>Also known as "retarded potential", as described in exquisite detail in a
>halfway decent electrodynamics textbook.
There you go...I was right...but my theory goes a lot further....
>> ....but as I have pointed out to you many times, you don't understand the
>> basics of physics and don't have any scientific ability whatsoever..so
>> this idea will go way over your head....
>
>I understand quite nicely. I just don't see the requisite legwork. No math?
>Imagine that.
yeah! You've been to the library again to look it up...now that I've told you
about it...
Still, nothing much else to do in Alaska at this time of the year I suppose.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 22, 5:35�am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> If two physical actions occupy different intervals of time in one frame, how
>> can a frame change make those intervals equal?
>>
>> For example, if I walk forward for ten seconds then backwards for five, what
>> moving observer might see me walking for the same time interval in both
>> directions....(according to SR of course.)
>
> Using the LT you predict what the other observer will see as follows:
>Delta(t)=10 seconds.
>Delta(t'_10)= gamma[10-vx_10/c^2]
>
>Delta(t) = 5 seconds
>Delta(t'_5)= gamma[5-vx_5/c^2)
>
>Since v is the same for the other observer in both cases then x is the
>only variable. You solve for x such that
>Delta(t'_10)=Delta(t'_5)
Ok, My question wasn't a good analogy. I have to use light. Read carefully.
Points A and B are connected by a long rod. The complex moves towards me at v
as I stand at rest on the ground.
When A is adjacent, I send a light pulse from A towards B at speed c wrt the
ground. The ground clocks measure the time taken for the pulse to get to B as x
seconds. When the pulse reaches B, it reflects from a mirror and returns from B
to A at the same speed c, relative to the ground. That takes x+dx seconds,
according to the ground clocks.
The problem is to find a frame in which dx = zero.
For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving points,
since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
eric gisse
That would be "all inertial frames".
>
> For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving
> points, since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
No, any inertial frame.
Wouldn't it just be easier to pick up a textbook on SR and work through it
instead of demanding it be taught to you scenario by scenario?
eric gisse
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:52:36 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>> Listen shithead, a moving charge constitutes a current. A current
>>> flowing in a closed circuit creates a potential difference. That can be
>>> capacitive or resistive.
>>> In the case of a fast moving charge in vacuum, a very high potential is
>>> set up in OPPOSITION to the applied field.
>>
>>Really? What's the source of that potential?
>
> Look eric, you know nothing about electricity so there is little point in
> trying to explain this to you.
I've studied E&M from Griffiths and Jackson. You?
I expect an answer. From what book did you study E&M?
> ....but one day you might hear the
> expression 'IR drop'. Of course it doesn't have to be a resistance. It
> could be an impedance. You might also hear the term 'back emf', which is
> something like the potential across the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble..
More like the "wilson reverse field bubble" is something like "back emf".
EMF, which you have apparently forgotten, is caused by changes in magnetic
fields. Specifically, magnetic flux. Do you remember, or even know, how
magnetic flux is defined?
It is rather clear you don't know what you are talking about when you say
stuff like this.
>
>>Could you show me, using Maxwell's equations, how anything of what you say
>>is true?
>
> Maxwell's equations apply to an EM wave in an aether.
No, they don't. This was settled over a century ago.
Perhaps you could use a refresher course on basic electromagnetic theory...
> Can you show me some aether?
Can you show me how Maxwell's equations require aether?
I mean, they are rather simple:
div.B = 0
del x E = -dB/dt
div.E = rho / eps_0
del x B = mu_0 J + 1/c^2 dE/dt
Where in there is 'aether', Ralph?
>
>>> Since it is likely that electric forces and fields act in finite time,
>>> it is reasonable to hypothesize that the field around the charge cannot
>>> reach the electrodes instantly but ends up like a 'field bubble' moving
>>> with the charge.
>>
>>Also known as "retarded potential", as described in exquisite detail in a
>>halfway decent electrodynamics textbook.
>
> There you go...I was right...but my theory goes a lot further....
The hubris of taking credit for classical electrodynamics is staggering!
All you have are names and vague concepts that you clearly only read about
in passing many years ago. You have no developed theory, and when challenged
you demand others do your work for you if you bother to respond without an
insult at all!
>
>>> ....but as I have pointed out to you many times, you don't understand
>>> the basics of physics and don't have any scientific ability
>>> whatsoever..so this idea will go way over your head....
>>
>>I understand quite nicely. I just don't see the requisite legwork. No
>>math? Imagine that.
>
>
> yeah! You've been to the library again to look it up...now that I've told
> you about it...
I could have walked the 10 blocks to the UW library, or I could have reached
over and looked through my copy of Griffiths, or I could have read through
my electronic copy of Jackson.
Or I could have remembered the shit I was taught when I was in a classroom.
> Still, nothing much else to do in Alaska at this time of the year I
> suppose.
I'm not in Alaska anymore.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Where is the maths, little boy?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:52:36 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>> Listen shithead, a moving charge constitutes a current. A current
>>>> flowing in a closed circuit creates a potential difference. That can be
>>>> capacitive or resistive.
>>>> In the case of a fast moving charge in vacuum, a very high potential is
>>>> set up in OPPOSITION to the applied field.
>>>
>>>Really? What's the source of that potential?
>>
>> Look eric, you know nothing about electricity so there is little point in
>> trying to explain this to you.
>
>I've studied E&M from Griffiths and Jackson. You?
>
>I expect an answer. From what book did you study E&M?
>
>> ....but one day you might hear the
>> expression 'IR drop'. Of course it doesn't have to be a resistance. It
>> could be an impedance. You might also hear the term 'back emf', which is
>> something like the potential across the Wilson Reverse Field Bubble..
>
>More like the "wilson reverse field bubble" is something like "back emf".
>
>EMF, which you have apparently forgotten, is caused by changes in magnetic
>fields. Specifically, magnetic flux. Do you remember, or even know, how
>magnetic flux is defined?
You know nothing about electricity so don't try to tell me about it.
>It is rather clear you don't know what you are talking about when you say
>stuff like this.
>
>>
>>>Could you show me, using Maxwell's equations, how anything of what you say
>>>is true?
>>
>> Maxwell's equations apply to an EM wave in an aether.
>
>No, they don't. This was settled over a century ago.
>
>Perhaps you could use a refresher course on basic electromagnetic theory...
>
>> Can you show me some aether?
>
>Can you show me how Maxwell's equations require aether?
>
>I mean, they are rather simple:
>
>div.B = 0
>del x E = -dB/dt
>div.E = rho / eps_0
>del x B = mu_0 J + 1/c^2 dE/dt
Only a medium has a mu and an epsilon.
....pity
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
eric gisse
eric gisse
[...]
>>> Look eric, you know nothing about electricity so there is little point
>>> in trying to explain this to you.
>>
>>I've studied E&M from Griffiths and Jackson. You?
>>
>>I expect an answer. From what book did you study E&M?
Well, Ralph?
What book did you learn E&M from?
[...]
> You know nothing about electricity so don't try to tell me about it.
Given how quickly you tried to pounce on some imaginary error about frames
of reference having angular momentum, I believe I can safely conclude you
could not find any error in my description of EMF.
[...]
> Only a medium has a mu and an epsilon.
Write Maxwell's equations for a vacuum. No eps, no mu, just c.
Or do you somehow think you can't have a speed in vacuum?
[...]
YBM
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:43:56 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>>>> How about if I guide you, so that you can at least claim that you
>>>> learned how to do something yourself with relativity?
>>>> Step 1: Choose a walking velocity and use that to specify (with
>>>> numbers) (x1,t1), (x2,t2), (x3,t3).
>>>> Your answer here: (0,0), (vt,10), (vt/2,15)
>> Oh dear. Perhaps we should sit a moment on this first step.
>>
>> First: The velocity v is the frame velocity we'll be solving for that
>> turns these two time intervals equal, so let's not use it to denote
>> the walking velocity. You can call it something else (say, V) or even
>> better, pick a number, like 2 (as in 2 m/s).
>
> You are raving. v is my speed relative to the ground. That is the usual
> convention.
> 'V relative to the ground' can be that of the frame speed you hope to find
Damned, this is pathetic. You're still unable to realize how absurd it
is to answer (vt,10) or (vt/2,15) as coordinates for single, well
defined events...
How could you say anything meaningfull about physics without
understanding the elementary concept of coordinates?
Henry Wilson DSc
Hahahahhahahahha!
What are your figures, moron?
>How could you say anything meaningfull about physics without
>understanding the elementary concept of coordinates?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Look eric, you know nothing about electricity so there is little point
>>>> in trying to explain this to you.
>>>
>>>I've studied E&M from Griffiths and Jackson. You?
>>>
>>>I expect an answer. From what book did you study E&M?
>
>Well, Ralph?
>
>What book did you learn E&M from?
>
>[...]
>
>> You know nothing about electricity so don't try to tell me about it.
>
>Given how quickly you tried to pounce on some imaginary error about frames
>of reference having angular momentum, I believe I can safely conclude you
>could not find any error in my description of EMF.
Listen you clueless heap of shit, an EMF can be produced in MANY ways. A dry
cell produces one. The magnitic method is another.
>> Only a medium has a mu and an epsilon.
>
>Write Maxwell's equations for a vacuum. No eps, no mu, just c.
>
>Or do you somehow think you can't have a speed in vacuum?
True vacuum only exists below the WDT.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
poor little eric...too many books and not enough brains....
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ok, My question wasn't a good analogy. I have to use light. Read
>> carefully.
>>
>> Points A and B are connected by a long rod. The complex moves towards me
>> at v as I stand at rest on the ground.
>>
>> When A is adjacent, I send a light pulse from A towards B at speed c wrt
>> the ground. The ground clocks measure the time taken for the pulse to get
>> to B as x seconds. When the pulse reaches B, it reflects from a mirror and
>> returns from B to A at the same speed c, relative to the ground. That
>> takes x+dx seconds, according to the ground clocks.
>>
>> The problem is to find a frame in which dx = zero.
>
>That would be "all inertial frames".
>
>>
>> For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving
>> points, since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
>
>No, any inertial frame.
Just to emphasize your stupidity, the fucking times are different in the
inertial ground frame. It's part o the question. Even YOU should be able to
work that out.
>
>Wouldn't it just be easier to pick up a textbook on SR and work through it
>instead of demanding it be taught to you scenario by scenario?
Wouldn't it be easier for you to post to alt.religion instead of annoying us
real scientists.
YBM
See ? You still don't get the point.
This is the basis of all physics, Ralph, not only SR. You're a miserable
failure.
eric gisse
[...]
>>> For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving
>>> points, since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
>>
>>No, any inertial frame.
>
> Just to emphasize your stupidity, the fucking times are different in the
> inertial ground frame. It's part o the question. Even YOU should be able
> to work that out.
Just to emphasize your stupidity, I'll point out that you've been ranting
and shrieking about how incoherent SR is for the past decade. You have never
admitted to reading one book on the subject, and refuse to consider the
formulation of special relativity that is actually used by physicists.
Ten fucking years of whining about light and in 2009 you are still stuck on
figuring out the consequences of constant light speed on clock times and
distances.
>
>>
>>Wouldn't it just be easier to pick up a textbook on SR and work through it
>>instead of demanding it be taught to you scenario by scenario?
>
> Wouldn't it be easier for you to post to alt.religion instead of annoying
> us real scientists.
Real scientists have publications in peer reviewed journals. You have a
visual basic program on your home page and a decade of screaming at people
on USENET demanding knowledge others - who are actually intelligent - spend
years obtaining.
Real scientists have degrees. You used microsoft paint to put your name on
someone else's degree.
Real scientists do experiments and observations. You have never done one
single experiment in your fucking life.
eric gisse
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:39:12 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:43:56 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> When A is adjacent, I send a light pulse from A towards B at speed c
>>>>> wrt the ground. The ground clocks measure the time taken for the pulse
>>>>> to get to B as x seconds. When the pulse reaches B, it reflects from a
>>>>> mirror and returns from B to A at the same speed c, relative to the
>>>>> ground. That takes x+dx seconds, according to the ground clocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is to find a frame in which dx = zero.
>>>>
>>>>That would be "all inertial frames".
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving
>>>>> points, since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
>>>>
>>>>No, any inertial frame.
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it just be easier to pick up a textbook on SR and work through
>>>>it instead of demanding it be taught to you scenario by scenario?
>>>
>>> Where is the maths, little boy?
>>
>>http://www.amazon.com/Spacetime-Physics-Edwin-F-Taylor/dp/0716723271
>
> poor little eric...too many books and not enough brains....
I learned in one semester what you couldn't learn in ten years. From books.
Might be something to them.
eric gisse
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:45:26 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>> Look eric, you know nothing about electricity so there is little point
>>>>> in trying to explain this to you.
>>>>
>>>>I've studied E&M from Griffiths and Jackson. You?
>>>>
>>>>I expect an answer. From what book did you study E&M?
>>
>>Well, Ralph?
>>
>>What book did you learn E&M from?
Well Ralph?
What book did you learn E&M from?
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> You know nothing about electricity so don't try to tell me about it.
>>
>>Given how quickly you tried to pounce on some imaginary error about frames
>>of reference having angular momentum, I believe I can safely conclude you
>>could not find any error in my description of EMF.
>
> Listen you clueless heap of shit, an EMF can be produced in MANY ways. A
> dry cell produces one. The magnitic method is another.
Define EMF for me, Ralph. The mathematical definition - it has been a few
years since I saw you write any math so I think it is about time you tried
it again.
>
>>> Only a medium has a mu and an epsilon.
>>
>>Write Maxwell's equations for a vacuum. No eps, no mu, just c.
>>
>>Or do you somehow think you can't have a speed in vacuum?
>
> True vacuum only exists below the WDT.
Goddamn you can't even handle a straightforward fact about electromagnetic
theory without spewing bullshit about wilson's crainial-rectal inversion or
what the fuck ever WDT means this week. Learn some fucking electromagnetic
theory and you can stop babbling finally.
Inertial
news:hh6an3$5d3$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
Sorry Eric.. you are wrong. Henry is correct when he says...
>>
>> For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving
>> points, since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
>
> No, any inertial frame.
Nope. In the inertial frame of the 'complex'
> Wouldn't it just be easier to pick up a textbook on SR and work through it
> instead of demanding it be taught to you scenario by scenario?
He managed to get something right here .. that must have surprised you.
Though I'm not sure what point he is trying to make .. as it is the basis
for the answers to his other questions that supposedly show SR is wrong ..
ie RoS (which he has claimed is not relevant :))
eric gisse
D'oh. You are right.
>
>>>
>>> For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving
>>> points, since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
>>
>> No, any inertial frame.
>
> Nope. In the inertial frame of the 'complex'
>
>> Wouldn't it just be easier to pick up a textbook on SR and work through
>> it instead of demanding it be taught to you scenario by scenario?
>
> He managed to get something right here .. that must have surprised you.
...it was the best of times, it was the blurst of times...
>
> Though I'm not sure what point he is trying to make .. as it is the basis
> for the answers to his other questions that supposedly show SR is wrong ..
> ie RoS (which he has claimed is not relevant :))
I really don't get his argument either.
He isn't even arguing about special relativity as it is currently practiced.
I've been saying for years that these people (Ralph, et. al.) need to STFU
and take a look at relativity from the group theory perspective. SR is not a
theory of light and it never has been, and I wish these idiots would figure
that out.
But shit in one hand, wish in the other, see which one fills up first...
Inertial
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:03481637$0$1345$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
That is assuming in Henry's badly formed (as usual) question , that he means
"The problem is to find a frame in which clocks synchronized in that frame
would give dx = zero." .. though why he used 'x' and 'dx' as names for time
intervals instead of the more conventional 't' and 'dt' seem to have no
sensible explanation
Androcles
Perhaps if you STFU and actually READ this you wouldn't tell
fuckin' LIES, Mr. shit in both hands:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Inertial
I wouldn't say 'never'. It was certainly initially presented as a theory
based upon postulates, one of which was a postulate about the speed at which
light travels. So it was a theory in which a certain measurement of light
(its speed) played a very major part .. but it was not really a theory
'about' light itself. Any more than it is a theory about trains :):) SR is
(or was) light-propagation-method agnostic.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Like I said, this guy is really a clueless dickhead.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>[...]
>
>>>> For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving
>>>> points, since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
>>>
>>>No, any inertial frame.
>>
>> Just to emphasize your stupidity, the fucking times are different in the
>> inertial ground frame. It's part o the question. Even YOU should be able
>> to work that out.
>
>Just to emphasize your stupidity, I'll point out that you've been ranting
>and shrieking about how incoherent SR is for the past decade. You have never
>admitted to reading one book on the subject, and refuse to consider the
>formulation of special relativity that is actually used by physicists.
Hahahahahahahaha! little eric has realised he made an absolute fool of himself
and has resorted to insults.
Henry Wilson DSc
hahahahah! inertial again proves that she is brighter than little eric...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>Inertial wrote:
hahahahahahhahaha! Learn some physics...then you might...
>He isn't even arguing about special relativity as it is currently practiced.
>I've been saying for years that these people (Ralph, et. al.) need to STFU
>and take a look at relativity from the group theory perspective. SR is not a
>theory of light and it never has been, and I wish these idiots would figure
>that out.
>
>But shit in one hand, wish in the other, see which one fills up first...
Henry Wilson DSc
't' is usually reserved for instants in time.
x is a number.
eric gisse
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:43:33 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>>> For SR to be correct, that frame must be the one defined by the moving
>>>>> points, since in that frame, the pulse travels the same distance.
>>>>
>>>>No, any inertial frame.
>>>
>>> Just to emphasize your stupidity, the fucking times are different in the
>>> inertial ground frame. It's part o the question. Even YOU should be able
>>> to work that out.
>>
>>Just to emphasize your stupidity, I'll point out that you've been ranting
>>and shrieking about how incoherent SR is for the past decade. You have
>>never admitted to reading one book on the subject, and refuse to consider
>>the formulation of special relativity that is actually used by physicists.
>
> Hahahahahahahaha! little eric has realised he made an absolute fool of
> himself and has resorted to insults.
I don't need to be wrong as an excuse to insult you. I've been insulting you
for 5 years and counting.
[...]
eric gisse
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:51:56 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:45:26 -0800, eric gisse
>>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Look eric, you know nothing about electricity so there is little
>>>>>>> point in trying to explain this to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've studied E&M from Griffiths and Jackson. You?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I expect an answer. From what book did you study E&M?
>>>>
>>>>Well, Ralph?
>>>>
>>>>What book did you learn E&M from?
>>
>>Well Ralph?
>>
>>What book did you learn E&M from?
>>
>>
Well Ralph?
What book did you learn E&M from?
[...]
>