| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 03:57:56 PM |
| Object: |
More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
Wooaoua!!!!!!!!!! "...locally in sufficiently restricted inertial
frames, which are too small..."
What in the world is a "sufficiently restricted inertial frame" Dork?
Can you point us to one?
Another immortal fumble by the great SRian, jumper_all_over_the_place,
almost action_at_a_distance in replying, Dork Bon Far MooMer
Mike
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
18 Sep 2006 04:06:30 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158613075.856849.217840@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
Wooaoua!!!!!!!!!! "...locally in sufficiently restricted inertial
frames, which are too small..."
What in the world is a "sufficiently restricted inertial frame" Dork?
Can you point us to one?
Yes, I could, but you are too stupid to do something with
an answer, so I will not bother. How's that?
Another immortal fumble by the great SRian, jumper_all_over_the_place,
almost action_at_a_distance in replying, Dork Bon Far MooMer
What happened to your previous tactic?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b8c001fe8793abe9
| "Besides the provoked responses you have recorded, there is always the
| usenet files to prove who is conducting unprovoked attacks and
| harrassing the other continuously. You have been asked to stop this
| irresponsible bahavior but you are not willing to do so. You have been
| warned several times."
|
| Mike
Shitting your pants already?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
18 Sep 2006 05:28:25 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158613075.856849.217840@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
Wooaoua!!!!!!!!!! "...locally in sufficiently restricted inertial
frames, which are too small..."
What in the world is a "sufficiently restricted inertial frame" Dork?
Can you point us to one?
Yes, I could, but you are too stupid to do something with
an answer, so I will not bother. How's that?
Another immortal fumble by the great SRian, jumper_all_over_the_place,
almost action_at_a_distance in replying, Dork Bon Far MooMer
What happened to your previous tactic?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b8c001fe8793abe9
| "Besides the provoked responses you have recorded, there is always the
| usenet files to prove who is conducting unprovoked attacks and
| harrassing the other continuously. You have been asked to stop this
| irresponsible bahavior but you are not willing to do so. You have been
| warned several times."
|
| Mike
Shitting your pants already?
All you need is to ask termination, which in your case you did not
comply with the request.
Mike
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 09:33:45 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
Wooaoua!!!!!!!!!! "...locally in sufficiently restricted inertial
frames, which are too small..."
What in the world is a "sufficiently restricted inertial frame" Dork?
Can you point us to one?
It's quite simple, really. "Sufficiently restricted" means enough so
that the deviations from that idealization are too small to be measured
within the precision of the experiment being conducted.
It's a lot like "sufficiently restricted" inertial reference frames on
the surface of the earth for applying Newton's laws, which don't really
exist because of the earth's rotation but for cases where the effects
of the rotation are negligible compared to the resolution of the
measurements being done.
Another immortal fumble by the great SRian, jumper_all_over_the_place,
almost action_at_a_distance in replying, Dork Bon Far MooMer
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 09:46:38 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
Wooaoua!!!!!!!!!! "...locally in sufficiently restricted inertial
frames, which are too small..."
What in the world is a "sufficiently restricted inertial frame" Dork?
Can you point us to one?
It's quite simple, really. "Sufficiently restricted" means enough so
that the deviations from that idealization are too small to be measured
within the precision of the experiment being conducted.
They cannot be measured at all by definition.
It's a lot like "sufficiently restricted" inertial reference frames on
the surface of the earth for applying Newton's laws, which don't really
exist because of the earth's rotation but for cases where the effects
of the rotation are negligible compared to the resolution of the
measurements being done.
Wake up and understand what you are doing. There is a big difference
between applying a theory in such a frame and building a theory by
considering such frames exist along the path of accelerated motion.
They may exist elsewhere but not where he tries to fix them.
Essentially what I am saying which is above Dork's head, to do that you
must assume some type of equivalence which led to the PE by Einstein.
You cannot neglect physical reality and especially gravitational
acceleration when assuming the existence of such frames. Dork is by no
means smarter than Einstein and the way he is trying to incorporate
acceleration in SR is at least insulting to a medium intelligence.
Einstein would have done this before Dork but he admitted it was not
that simple.
Mike
Another immortal fumble by the great SRian, jumper_all_over_the_place,
almost action_at_a_distance in replying, Dork Bon Far MooMer
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 10:27:10 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158677198.385646.88800@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
PD wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
Wooaoua!!!!!!!!!! "...locally in sufficiently restricted inertial
frames, which are too small..."
What in the world is a "sufficiently restricted inertial frame" Dork?
Can you point us to one?
It's quite simple, really. "Sufficiently restricted" means enough so
that the deviations from that idealization are too small to be measured
within the precision of the experiment being conducted.
They cannot be measured at all by definition.
It's a lot like "sufficiently restricted" inertial reference frames on
the surface of the earth for applying Newton's laws, which don't really
exist because of the earth's rotation but for cases where the effects
of the rotation are negligible compared to the resolution of the
measurements being done.
Wake up and understand what you are doing. There is a big difference
between applying a theory in such a frame and building a theory by
considering such frames exist along the path of accelerated motion.
They may exist elsewhere but not where he tries to fix them.
Essentially what I am saying which is above Dork's head, to do that you
must assume some type of equivalence which led to the PE by Einstein.
You cannot neglect physical reality and especially gravitational
acceleration when assuming the existence of such frames. Dork is by no
means smarter than Einstein and the way he is trying to incorporate
acceleration in SR is at least insulting to a medium intelligence.
You think you have medium intelligence?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
Honestly?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
Medium?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DinkDonk.html
Einstein would have done this before Dork but he admitted it was not
that simple.
Mike
So you had good replies from Randy, Eric and from Paul.
And what did you do with the replies? You let them bounce
on your thick skull. I really don't understand why the others
bother to answer. I'd rather see you just choke on it.
Do you understand why I refuse to have a technical discussion
with you now? I'd rather have a tech discussion with a pile of
horse manure. It stinks, yes, but it doesn't stick to one's shoes
like you do.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
18 Sep 2006 04:21:54 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
And Newton's Laws are relevant to certain ideal forceless
situations which similarly don't ever actually appear in nature.
And Kepler's Laws on elliptical orbits apply to pure two-body
problems with perfectly uniform spherical bodies, which similarly
don't ever actually appear in nature.
What's your point? These are idealizations of the things that
do appear in nature, and as such they are very good approximations.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
18 Sep 2006 07:12:32 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158614514.255648.149450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| And Newton's Laws are relevant to certain ideal forceless
| situations which similarly don't ever actually appear in nature.
|
| And Kepler's Laws on elliptical orbits apply to pure two-body
| problems with perfectly uniform spherical bodies, which similarly
| don't ever actually appear in nature.
|
| What's your point? These are idealizations of the things that
| do appear in nature, and as such they are very good approximations.
|
| - Randy
aka "I'm trolling you" Blind Brandy Poe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
18 Sep 2006 05:22:21 PM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
And Newton's Laws are relevant to certain ideal forceless
situations which similarly don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
And Kepler's Laws on elliptical orbits apply to pure two-body
problems with perfectly uniform spherical bodies, which similarly
don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
What's your point? These are idealizations of the things that
do appear in nature, and as such they are very good approximations.
My point is that idealizations is completely different issue from
inventing things to suit your agenda as in:a "sufficiently restricted
inertial frame".
You get the point?
Anyway, I hope you were taught how to apply Newton's 2nd law in
non-inertial reference frames. If not, you were deprived of a fair
education and if you paid tuition you should ask your money back.
Mike
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 05:51:14 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
And Newton's Laws are relevant to certain ideal forceless
situations which similarly don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
And Kepler's Laws on elliptical orbits apply to pure two-body
problems with perfectly uniform spherical bodies, which similarly
don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
What's your point? These are idealizations of the things that
do appear in nature, and as such they are very good approximations.
My point is that idealizations is completely different issue from
inventing things to suit your agenda as in:a "sufficiently restricted
inertial frame".
You get the point?
No. A sufficiently restricted inertial frame is an idealization,
in exactly the same way as a frictionless surface.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 06:10:51 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158663074.701620.42550@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Mike wrote:
| > Randy Poe wrote:
| > > Mike wrote:
| > > > DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
| > > >
| > > >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
| > > >
| > > > "The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
| > > > intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
| > > > sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
| > > > when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
| > > > What a transparent strawman.
| > > > "
| > > >
| > > > Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
| > > > composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial
frames -which
| > > > don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature
at
| > > > all.
| > >
| > > And Newton's Laws are relevant to certain ideal forceless
| > > situations which similarly don't ever actually appear in nature.
| >
| > What is the point?
| >
| >
| > >
| > > And Kepler's Laws on elliptical orbits apply to pure two-body
| > > problems with perfectly uniform spherical bodies, which similarly
| > > don't ever actually appear in nature.
| >
| > What is the point?
| >
| >
| > >
| > > What's your point? These are idealizations of the things that
| > > do appear in nature, and as such they are very good approximations.
| >
| > My point is that idealizations is completely different issue from
| > inventing things to suit your agenda as in:a "sufficiently restricted
| > inertial frame".
| >
| > You get the point?
|
| No.
Of course you don't... too much Brandy, you fuckin' troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 09:11:48 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
Mike wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
And Newton's Laws are relevant to certain ideal forceless
situations which similarly don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
And Kepler's Laws on elliptical orbits apply to pure two-body
problems with perfectly uniform spherical bodies, which similarly
don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
What's your point? These are idealizations of the things that
do appear in nature, and as such they are very good approximations.
My point is that idealizations is completely different issue from
inventing things to suit your agenda as in:a "sufficiently restricted
inertial frame".
You get the point?
No. A sufficiently restricted inertial frame is an idealization,
in exactly the same way as a frictionless surface.
If someone has told you that in some school, you have been cheated and
deprived of high standards.
Go back to read the definition of an inertial frame of reference and
you must conclude that there can be no "sufficiently restricted
inertial frame" the same way there are no slim fatmen.
Mike
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 10:28:39 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158675108.918764.243600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Randy Poe wrote:
Mike wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
And Newton's Laws are relevant to certain ideal forceless
situations which similarly don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
And Kepler's Laws on elliptical orbits apply to pure two-body
problems with perfectly uniform spherical bodies, which similarly
don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
What's your point? These are idealizations of the things that
do appear in nature, and as such they are very good approximations.
My point is that idealizations is completely different issue from
inventing things to suit your agenda as in:a "sufficiently restricted
inertial frame".
You get the point?
No. A sufficiently restricted inertial frame is an idealization,
in exactly the same way as a frictionless surface.
If someone has told you that in some school, you have been cheated and
deprived of high standards.
High standards according to "Mike":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
20 Sep 2006 12:20:31 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Mike wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/1578f5a779dce5a0/f19d7c3109b8c9d2?rnum=21&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1578f5a779dce5a0%2Feaa5b5746d508f64%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_f4d9f964837810d8
"The relativistic composition of velocities is valid in globally
intertial frames -which don't exist in nature-, and locally in
sufficiently restricted inertial frames, which are too small
when you have cosmic expansion in mind.
What a transparent strawman.
"
Of course I agree with the first part that: "The relativistic
composition of velocities is valid in globally intertial frames -which
don't exist in nature" and that is why SR does not belong to nature at
all.
And Newton's Laws are relevant to certain ideal forceless
situations which similarly don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
And Kepler's Laws on elliptical orbits apply to pure two-body
problems with perfectly uniform spherical bodies, which similarly
don't ever actually appear in nature.
What is the point?
What's your point? These are idealizations of the things that
do appear in nature, and as such they are very good approximations.
My point is that idealizations is completely different issue from
inventing things to suit your agenda as in:a "sufficiently restricted
inertial frame".
You get the point?
No. A sufficiently restricted inertial frame is an idealization,
in exactly the same way as a frictionless surface.
If someone has told you that in some school, you have been cheated and
deprived of high standards.
They did indeed tell me that "frictionless surfaces" were
an idealization. We did "frictionless" lab experiments but
were smart enough to know they were really just very
low friction.
Why do you think being told "there's no such thing as
a frictionless surface" would have cheated a high
school student?
Go back to read the definition of an inertial frame of reference and
you must conclude that there can be no "sufficiently restricted
inertial frame" the same way there are no slim fatmen.
There is no contradiction with that, any more than with
the idea that a quadratic curve is (approximately) linear
on a sufficiently small scale. That is not a contradiction.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
18 Sep 2006 08:48:11 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
[snip childish arguments]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 02:48:46 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are "locally
sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated motion is a
series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud you have
presented such proof.
Go study.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 03:03:56 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are "locally
sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated motion is a
series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud you have
presented such proof.
The part in quotes makes sense, the rest of it is crap. The part you
quoted was from dirk, the rest you made up. Interesting correspondance.
What part of "local" confuses you? It simply means that the effects due
to gravity are negligible.
Go study.
....and when the results of my studying make a mockery of your beliefs,
then what?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 09:07:59 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are "locally
sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated motion is a
series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud you have
presented such proof.
The part in quotes makes sense, the rest of it is crap. The part you
quoted was from dirk, the rest you made up. Interesting correspondance.
What part of "local" confuses you? It simply means that the effects due
to gravity are negligible.
You sound very naive. If a method is to be general it must apply in
every case of accelerated motion you must agree with that. Then, at
which point in the path of a free falling object near the surface of
the earth or elsewhere you think there is a "sufficiently restricted
inertial reference frame" in the words of Dork?
And if you think there is such frames to be found, can you show us how
to determine experimentally they are such, i.e. "sufficiently
restricted inertial reference frames"?
I expect a scientific answer and not your usual hand waving or red
herrings..
Mike
Go study.
...and when the results of my studying make a mockery of your beliefs,
then what?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
19 Sep 2006 02:51:46 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are "locally
sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated motion is a
series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud you have
presented such proof.
The part in quotes makes sense, the rest of it is crap. The part you
quoted was from dirk, the rest you made up. Interesting correspondance.
What part of "local" confuses you? It simply means that the effects due
to gravity are negligible.
You sound very naive. If a method is to be general it must apply in
every case of accelerated motion you must agree with that. Then, at
which point in the path of a free falling object near the surface of
the earth or elsewhere you think there is a "sufficiently restricted
inertial reference frame" in the words of Dork?
I'm not going to get into this with you if you are just going to be
childish.
The concept of intertial frames and sufficiently local is dealt with in
any decent general relativity text.
And if you think there is such frames to be found, can you show us how
to determine experimentally they are such, i.e. "sufficiently
restricted inertial reference frames"?
I expect a scientific answer and not your usual hand waving or red
herrings..
Mike
Go study.
...and when the results of my studying make a mockery of your beliefs,
then what?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
20 Sep 2006 03:00:57 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are "locally
sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated motion is a
series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud you have
presented such proof.
The part in quotes makes sense, the rest of it is crap. The part you
quoted was from dirk, the rest you made up. Interesting correspondance.
What part of "local" confuses you? It simply means that the effects due
to gravity are negligible.
You sound very naive. If a method is to be general it must apply in
every case of accelerated motion you must agree with that. Then, at
which point in the path of a free falling object near the surface of
the earth or elsewhere you think there is a "sufficiently restricted
inertial reference frame" in the words of Dork?
I'm not going to get into this with you if you are just going to be
childish.
The concept of intertial frames and sufficiently local is dealt with in
any decent general relativity text.
I never disputed that. But GR makes additional assumptions and
postulations for these types of frames to exist. My argument was that
without such assumptions (EP, arbitrarily curved spacetime) no such
frames can be introduced in SR for the shake of incorporating
accelerated motion.
Can you ever answer an argument right to the point without going around
it?
For instance, do you agree that accelerated motion can be introduced in
SR the way Dork did it or not?
Mike
And if you think there is such frames to be found, can you show us how
to determine experimentally they are such, i.e. "sufficiently
restricted inertial reference frames"?
I expect a scientific answer and not your usual hand waving or red
herrings..
Mike
Go study.
...and when the results of my studying make a mockery of your beliefs,
then what?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
20 Sep 2006 03:25:57 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158739257.262865.81390@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are "locally
sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated motion is a
series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud you have
presented such proof.
The part in quotes makes sense, the rest of it is crap. The part you
quoted was from dirk, the rest you made up. Interesting correspondance.
What part of "local" confuses you? It simply means that the effects due
to gravity are negligible.
You sound very naive. If a method is to be general it must apply in
every case of accelerated motion you must agree with that. Then, at
which point in the path of a free falling object near the surface of
the earth or elsewhere you think there is a "sufficiently restricted
inertial reference frame" in the words of Dork?
I'm not going to get into this with you if you are just going to be
childish.
The concept of intertial frames and sufficiently local is dealt with in
any decent general relativity text.
I never disputed that. But GR makes additional assumptions and
postulations for these types of frames to exist. My argument was that
without such assumptions (EP, arbitrarily curved spacetime) no such
frames can be introduced in SR for the shake of incorporating
accelerated motion.
Can you ever answer an argument right to the point without going around
it?
For instance, do you agree that accelerated motion can be introduced in
SR the way Dork did it or not?
The thing is, Eleatis, you are too dumb to understand the way
I did it. Just look at how you compute the number of days it
takes to dig a hole:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
Just Look At It.
Seriously and Honestly, how would you *ever* expect to
understand any derivation *what-so-ever*?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
20 Sep 2006 09:34:03 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158739257.262865.81390@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are "locally
sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated motion is a
series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud you have
presented such proof.
The part in quotes makes sense, the rest of it is crap. The part you
quoted was from dirk, the rest you made up. Interesting correspondance.
What part of "local" confuses you? It simply means that the effects due
to gravity are negligible.
You sound very naive. If a method is to be general it must apply in
every case of accelerated motion you must agree with that. Then, at
which point in the path of a free falling object near the surface of
the earth or elsewhere you think there is a "sufficiently restricted
inertial reference frame" in the words of Dork?
I'm not going to get into this with you if you are just going to be
childish.
The concept of intertial frames and sufficiently local is dealt with in
any decent general relativity text.
I never disputed that. But GR makes additional assumptions and
postulations for these types of frames to exist. My argument was that
without such assumptions (EP, arbitrarily curved spacetime) no such
frames can be introduced in SR for the shake of incorporating
accelerated motion.
Can you ever answer an argument right to the point without going around
it?
For instance, do you agree that accelerated motion can be introduced in
SR the way Dork did it or not?
The thing is, Eleatis, you are too dumb to understand the way
I did it. Just look at how you compute the number of days it
takes to dig a hole:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
Just Look At It.
Seriously and Honestly, how would you *ever* expect to
understand any derivation *what-so-ever*?
Seroiously, I made a mistake in a hurry for something I could hide away
and not even try to solve it and you keep posting the link three times
a day with the libellous objective of character defamation, which is
your only task in these groups.
You are a very immature and malicious person. Go ask any expert in SR
and they will tell you you are wrong. This is why Roberts and others
hide away when you try to promote your acceleration fumbles.
When you post a link to a thread and you do not post along with it the
long to another thread where I admit my error and correct it it is a
proof you are maliciously attacking people.
The main difference between me and you is that you never admit your
mistakes.
The negative energy you emit pretty soon will conquer you with grave
consequences for your well being unless you change behavior.
Mike
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
20 Sep 2006 09:49:46 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1158762843.205458.200870@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1158739257.262865.81390@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > >
| > > Eric Gisse wrote:
| > >> Mike wrote:
| > >> > Eric Gisse wrote:
| > >> > > Mike wrote:
| > >> > > > Eric Gisse wrote:
| > >> > > > > Mike wrote:
| > >> > > > > > DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
| > >> > > > >
| > >> > > > > I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to
do that,
| > >> > > > > or that you think we are impressed.
| > >> > > > >
| > >> > > > You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
| > >> > > > otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are
"locally
| > >> > > > sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
| > >> > > > infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated
motion is a
| > >> > > > series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud
you have
| > >> > > > presented such proof.
| > >> > >
| > >> > > The part in quotes makes sense, the rest of it is crap. The part
you
| > >> > > quoted was from dirk, the rest you made up. Interesting
correspondance.
| > >> > >
| > >> > > What part of "local" confuses you? It simply means that the
effects due
| > >> > > to gravity are negligible.
| > >> >
| > >> > You sound very naive. If a method is to be general it must apply in
| > >> > every case of accelerated motion you must agree with that. Then, at
| > >> > which point in the path of a free falling object near the surface
of
| > >> > the earth or elsewhere you think there is a "sufficiently
restricted
| > >> > inertial reference frame" in the words of Dork?
| > >>
| > >> I'm not going to get into this with you if you are just going to be
| > >> childish.
| > >>
| > >> The concept of intertial frames and sufficiently local is dealt with
in
| > >> any decent general relativity text.
| > >
| > > I never disputed that. But GR makes additional assumptions and
| > > postulations for these types of frames to exist. My argument was that
| > > without such assumptions (EP, arbitrarily curved spacetime) no such
| > > frames can be introduced in SR for the shake of incorporating
| > > accelerated motion.
| > >
| > > Can you ever answer an argument right to the point without going
around
| > > it?
| > >
| > > For instance, do you agree that accelerated motion can be introduced
in
| > > SR the way Dork did it or not?
| >
| > The thing is, Eleatis, you are too dumb to understand the way
| > I did it. Just look at how you compute the number of days it
| > takes to dig a hole:
| > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
| > Just Look At It.
| > Seriously and Honestly, how would you *ever* expect to
| > understand any derivation *what-so-ever*?
|
|
| Seroiously, I made a mistake in a hurry for something I could hide away
| and not even try to solve it and you keep posting the link three times
| a day with the libellous objective of character defamation, which is
| your only task in these groups.
|
| You are a very immature and malicious person. Go ask any expert in SR
| and they will tell you you are wrong. This is why Roberts and others
| hide away when you try to promote your acceleration fumbles.
|
| When you post a link to a thread and you do not post along with it the
| long to another thread where I admit my error and correct it it is a
| proof you are maliciously attacking people.
|
| The main difference between me and you is that you never admit your
| mistakes.
|
| The negative energy you emit pretty soon will conquer you with grave
| consequences for your well being unless you change behavior.
|
| Mike
Mike, you should restrict your responses to one line, he's too stupid
to read a paragraph. His own posts are seldom more, he has NEVER
originated a thread and he failed miserably to convince Vroom of
his religious convictions. He's a born loser and he gets his rocks off
by snipping, sniping and (k)nitting.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
20 Sep 2006 12:03:05 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158762843.205458.200870@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158739257.262865.81390@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Mike wrote:
DiRk VaN DeR MoOrTel wrote in:
I don't know what is more amusing...that you took the time to do that,
or that you think we are impressed.
You should be studying instead of hovering around in these ngs
otherwise you will end up like Dork and think there are "locally
sufficiently restricted inertial reference frames" and use
infinitesimals to justify them and think that accelerated motion is a
series of constant velocity motions and actually be very proud you have
presented such proof.
The part in quotes makes sense, the rest of it is crap. The part you
quoted was from dirk, the rest you made up. Interesting correspondance.
What part of "local" confuses you? It simply means that the effects due
to gravity are negligible.
You sound very naive. If a method is to be general it must apply in
every case of accelerated motion you must agree with that. Then, at
which point in the path of a free falling object near the surface of
the earth or elsewhere you think there is a "sufficiently restricted
inertial reference frame" in the words of Dork?
I'm not going to get into this with you if you are just going to be
childish.
The concept of intertial frames and sufficiently local is dealt with in
any decent general relativity text.
I never disputed that. But GR makes additional assumptions and
postulations for these types of frames to exist. My argument was that
without such assumptions (EP, arbitrarily curved spacetime) no such
frames can be introduced in SR for the shake of incorporating
accelerated motion.
Can you ever answer an argument right to the point without going around
it?
For instance, do you agree that accelerated motion can be introduced in
SR the way Dork did it or not?
The thing is, Eleatis, you are too dumb to understand the way
I did it. Just look at how you compute the number of days it
takes to dig a hole:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
Just Look At It.
Seriously and Honestly, how would you *ever* expect to
understand any derivation *what-so-ever*?
Seroiously, I made a mistake in a hurry for something I could hide away
and not even try to solve it and you keep posting the link three times
a day with the libellous objective of character defamation, which is
your only task in these groups.
You are a very immature and malicious person.
Strange, that's exactly how most normal people would describe
you. It's probably a matter of taste, so don't let it bother you
too much ;-)
Go ask any expert in SR
and they will tell you you are wrong. This is why Roberts and others
hide away when you try to promote your acceleration fumbles.
If it was wrong, some expert would have corrected it a long
time ago. You are too stupid for this - it's not my fault that the
only formal training you ever had, was in lower high school.
Face it, this is way over your head. Stick to hole dinging and
"ratten fingures".
When you post a link to a thread and you do not post along with it the
long to another thread where I admit my error and correct it it is a
proof you are maliciously attacking people.
The main difference between me and you is that you never admit your
mistakes.
The main difference between me and you is that you are just
stupid, and here is the documented proof
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroclesTeach.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101quater.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101ter.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101bis.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Physics101.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sociology.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BrainHoles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotsAndrocles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StockWithIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EleatisStyle.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OfCourseBozzo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Bourbaki.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Psychotic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DinkDonk.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RealTroubles.html
This is a science newsgroup for Pete's sake. What the hell
do you think you are *doing* here? ;-)
The negative energy you emit pretty soon will conquer you with grave
consequences for your well being unless you change behavior.
I've heard that before from you.
I'm waiting ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
20 Sep 2006 08:45:22 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[...]
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sociology.html
[...]
By that metric Nursing must be "wrong" since men don't like it so much
and Engineering must be wrong because women don't like it so much.
Misplaced misogyny annoys me nearly as much as abject stupidity because
there is such a strong correlation. Ask Henri Wilson about women in
physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: More Immortal Fumbles by Great SRians |
21 Sep 2006 07:28:45 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[...]
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sociology.html
[...]
By that metric Nursing must be "wrong" since men don't like it so much
and Engineering must be wrong because women don't like it so much.
By that metric, you and Dork are misearble artifacts with no sense of
humor. Humor is the primary metric of intelligence. You both show none.
You never answer questions directly and you only persist in defending
each others stupidity.
Misplaced misogyny annoys me nearly as much as abject stupidity because
there is such a strong correlation. Ask Henri Wilson about women in
physics.
Women do not come to physics because of people like you and Dork. They
see you as misearable, self-centered, limited reach individuals whose
primary function is to misinterpret others and as a result physical
reality.
But again, Androcles may be right this time around, this response is to
long and you attention span too short to read it.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
