| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John Schoenfeld" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2005 06:11:19 PM |
| Object: |
Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can
have no properties.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#On_Relativity
.
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 07:18:16 PM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can
have no properties.'
Tesla was wrong about a lot of things. He believed in aether. And he
thought it was possible to deliver electric power wirelessly AND
efficiently.
He was also right about a lot of things. He developed the system of
alternating current machinery which benefits us all. He is also the true
inventor of radio, not Marconi. Tesla was producing fm frequency radio
waves while Marconi was struggling with wireless Morse telegraphs. If
Tesla was less of a nut cake, the distress on the Titanic could have
been transmitted to all the ships at sea via an fm broadcast.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 05:56:28 AM |
|
|
In message <365fasF4u0frcU2@individual.net>, robert j. kolker
<nowhere@nowhere.net> writes
John Schoenfeld wrote:
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can
have no properties.'
Tesla was wrong about a lot of things. He believed in aether. And he
thought it was possible to deliver electric power wirelessly AND
efficiently.
He was also right about a lot of things. He developed the system of
alternating current machinery which benefits us all. He is also the
true inventor of radio, not Marconi.
No. That would be Popov.
Or Lodge.
Or Bose.
Or Calzecchi-Onesti.
Or whoever else suits one's personal prejudices. Radio's a prime example
of convergence: a technology just waiting to happen.
Tesla was producing fm frequency radio waves while Marconi was
struggling with wireless Morse telegraphs.
"FM frequency"? Do you merely mean the frequency was around 100 MHz, or
are you suggesting he actually demonstrated frequency modulation before
de Forest invented the triode?
If Tesla was less of a nut cake, the distress on the Titanic could
have been transmitted to all the ships at sea via an fm broadcast.
That would be in the very same year that Armstrong developed the
regenerative oscillator, and about 20 years *before* Armstrong
demonstrated FM?
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Capizzi" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 10:48:12 AM |
|
|
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:MbZtvYWszh$BFw2+@baesystems.com...
In message <365fasF4u0frcU2@individual.net>, robert j. kolker
<nowhere@nowhere.net> writes
John Schoenfeld wrote:
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can
have no properties.'
Tesla was wrong about a lot of things. He believed in aether. And he
thought it was possible to deliver electric power wirelessly AND
efficiently.
He was also right about a lot of things. He developed the system of
alternating current machinery which benefits us all. He is also the true
inventor of radio, not Marconi.
No. That would be Popov.
Or Lodge.
Or Bose.
Or Calzecchi-Onesti.
Or whoever else suits one's personal prejudices. Radio's a prime example
of convergence: a technology just waiting to happen.
Tesla was clearly eccentric, but give credit where credit is due. It is not
simply personal prejudice that Tesla invented radio. It was the decision
of the U.S. Supreme Court to void Marconi's patent in favor of Tesla's
patent #645,576 in 1943, months after Tesla's death, and 50 years after
Tesla first demonstrated radio.
Tesla was producing fm frequency radio waves while Marconi was struggling
with wireless Morse telegraphs.
"FM frequency"? Do you merely mean the frequency was around 100 MHz, or
are you suggesting he actually demonstrated frequency modulation before de
Forest invented the triode?
If Tesla was less of a nut cake, the distress on the Titanic could have
been transmitted to all the ships at sea via an fm broadcast.
That would be in the very same year that Armstrong developed the
regenerative oscillator, and about 20 years *before* Armstrong
demonstrated FM?
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 12:16:28 PM |
|
|
In message <gjtLd.364$f%5.10@trndny03>, Tom Capizzi
<etianshrdlu@verizon.net> writes
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:MbZtvYWszh$BFw2+@baesystems.com...
In message <365fasF4u0frcU2@individual.net>, robert j. kolker
<nowhere@nowhere.net> writes
John Schoenfeld wrote:
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can
have no properties.'
Tesla was wrong about a lot of things. He believed in aether. And he
thought it was possible to deliver electric power wirelessly AND
efficiently.
He was also right about a lot of things. He developed the system of
alternating current machinery which benefits us all. He is also the true
inventor of radio, not Marconi.
No. That would be Popov.
Or Lodge.
Or Bose.
Or Calzecchi-Onesti.
Or whoever else suits one's personal prejudices. Radio's a prime example
of convergence: a technology just waiting to happen.
Tesla was clearly eccentric, but give credit where credit is due. It is not
simply personal prejudice that Tesla invented radio.
It's personal prejudice to say that *any* single individual invented it.
It was the decision
of the U.S. Supreme Court
That, together with the previous sentence, is a misleading introduction.
Whatever the Supreme Court decided, it was not that Tesla, or anyone
else, invented radio. Neither Tesla's patent nor Marconi's was for
"radio" per se, just one aspect of it.
http://www.mercurians.org/nov98/misreading.html
http://www.mercurians.org/may99/rereading.html
to void Marconi's patent in favor of Tesla's
patent #645,576 in 1943, months after Tesla's death,
And it was a decision that saved the US Govt a good deal of expense.
In fact, it could be argued that the key tuned-circuit patent was
Lodge's patent on syntony, which predates both of them...
and 50 years after
Tesla first demonstrated radio.
.... and Lodge made a practical demonstration before either Marconi or
Tesla.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 07:40:39 PM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
John Schoenfeld wrote:
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it
can
have no properties.'
Tesla was wrong about a lot of things. He believed in aether. And he
thought it was possible to deliver electric power wirelessly AND
efficiently.
He was also right about a lot of things. He developed the system of
alternating current machinery which benefits us all. He is also the
true
inventor of radio, not Marconi. Tesla was producing fm frequency
radio
waves while Marconi was struggling with wireless Morse telegraphs. If
Tesla was less of a nut cake, the distress on the Titanic could have
been transmitted to all the ships at sea via an fm broadcast.
His Dynamic Theory of Gravity would be an entertaining read. Perhaps
our betters will allow us the privilege one day.
http://foia.fbi.gov/tesla/tesla1.pdf
http://foia.fbi.gov/tesla/tesla2.pdf
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "penguinista" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 11:36:32 AM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
John Schoenfeld wrote:
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it
can
have no properties.'
Tesla was wrong about a lot of things. He believed in aether. And he
thought it was possible to deliver electric power wirelessly AND
efficiently.
He was also right about a lot of things. He developed the system of
alternating current machinery which benefits us all. He is also the
true
inventor of radio, not Marconi. Tesla was producing fm frequency
radio
waves while Marconi was struggling with wireless Morse telegraphs. If
Tesla was less of a nut cake, the distress on the Titanic could have
been transmitted to all the ships at sea via an fm broadcast.
His Dynamic Theory of Gravity would be an entertaining read. Perhaps
our betters will allow us the privilege one day.
http://foia.fbi.gov/tesla/tesla1.pdf
http://foia.fbi.gov/tesla/tesla2.pdf
Bob Kolker
Tesla's death ray sounds like a SF ion cannon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 11:53:13 AM |
|
|
penguinista wrote:
Tesla's death ray sounds like a SF ion cannon.
The Philadelphia Experiment, an Urban Legend among the conspiriatti is
another Tesla wet dream.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 08:00:04 PM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
His Dynamic Theory of Gravity would be an entertaining read. Perhaps
our betters will allow us the privilege one day.
Does it explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury?
A simple yes or no will do.
Does it explain the redshift in a stronger gravitational field.
A simple yes or no will do.
Would it provide the proper corrections to the timings of the GPS?
A simple yes or no will do.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 06:05:08 PM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
John Schoenfeld wrote:
His Dynamic Theory of Gravity would be an entertaining read.
Perhaps
our betters will allow us the privilege one day.
Does it explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of
Mercury?
A simple yes or no will do.
Does it explain the redshift in a stronger gravitational field.
A simple yes or no will do.
Would it provide the proper corrections to the timings of the GPS?
A simple yes or no will do.
It likely does not explain any of them.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
01 Feb 2005 12:20:25 PM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can
have no properties.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#On_Relativity
So what? I wouldn't listen to Einstein pontificate about the
intricacies of polyphase power generation and distribution, much less
generating big sparks...
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boris Mohar" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 06:43:06 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2005 16:11:19 -0800, "John Schoenfeld"
<j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote:
'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can
have no properties.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#On_Relativity
Tesla was insane
--
Boris Mohar
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 07:19:49 PM |
|
|
Boris Mohar wrote:
Tesla was insane
Highly eccentric. He invented multiphase alternating current generators
and motors. Not bad for a nut case.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 08:04:20 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:365fdpF4u0frcU3@individual.net...
Boris Mohar wrote:
Tesla was insane
Highly eccentric. He invented multiphase alternating current generators
and motors. Not bad for a nut case.
Rated by Edison as probably the best electrical engineer he ever met. He
did some work for Edison that impressed him greatly (and tried to rip him
off at the same time). Westinghouse worshiped the ground he walked on when
he basically gave him the rights to alternating current to save his company.
In return Westinghouse ensured he got whatever he wanted for his
inventions/experiments. By all accounts a very gifted mathematician. But
he could never grasp relativity and rebelled against it to his dying day.
That is probably because he has a very highly developed visual intuition and
actually saw in his mind the interaction between fields and mechanisms that
escapes others. Problem is of course not everything is amenable to such
imagery.
Thanks
Bill
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Shubert" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 09:01:51 PM |
|
|
Rejecting relativity is reasonable, giving the senseless way it's
presented. Too bad Tesla didn't discover a respectable derivation of
SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 10:21:55 PM |
|
|
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Rejecting relativity is reasonable, giving the senseless way it's
presented. Too bad Tesla didn't discover a respectable derivation of
SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Given some high energy experimental data to make reasonable assumptions
from, SR is trivially derivable from Newtonian Mechanics as follows:
Newtons 2nd law demands that,
F = dp/dt
Eulers assumption of constant mass reduces Newton's 2nd law to F = ma.
I perform some high-energy experiments and review my data which reveals
that the mass of a known particle appears to be varying with velocity
and not consistent with Eulers assumption.
My little mind then asks the question - How does mass change with
velocity? I then express mass as a scalar field m(V) which reveals
grad_V (m) is of particular interest.
I review my data once again and observe that the "mass variance" of the
particle is isotropic, thus grad_V(m) = dm.
Armed with this revelation I proceed to curve-fit,
dm/dv = p / (c^2 - V^2)
Expanding to:
dm/dv = p / (c^2 - v^2)
= p / c^2(1 - v^2/c^2)
= y^2 p B/c { y = gamma = 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), B = beta =
v/c)
From the fundamental theorem of calculus,
m(v) - m(u) = INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Let the rest mass m(0) be a constant m0,
Thus,
m(v) = m0 + INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Solving for the integral**, m(v) gets simplified to,
m(v) = y m0
from which all of SR can be completely derived.
**: Instead of integrating dm/dv to find m(v), it is MUCH quicker to
just show that if m = y m0, then dm/dv = p / (c^2 - V^2).
Proof:
Let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c { where B = beta = v/c }
Now since,
m = y m0
Then,
dm/dv = d(m0 y(v))/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c
Reducing to
= p / (c^2 - V^2) = the original hypothesis.
QED
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 02:33:15 AM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107145315.636652.246480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Rejecting relativity is reasonable, giving the senseless way it's
presented. Too bad Tesla didn't discover a respectable derivation of
SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Given some high energy experimental data to make reasonable assumptions
from, SR is trivially derivable from Newtonian Mechanics as follows:
Newtons 2nd law demands that,
F = dp/dt
Eulers assumption of constant mass reduces Newton's 2nd law to F = ma.
I perform some high-energy experiments and review my data which reveals
that the mass of a known particle appears to be varying with velocity
and not consistent with Eulers assumption.
My little mind then asks the question - How does mass change with
velocity? I then express mass as a scalar field m(V) which reveals
grad_V (m) is of particular interest.
I review my data once again and observe that the "mass variance" of the
particle is isotropic, thus grad_V(m) = dm.
Armed with this revelation I proceed to curve-fit,
dm/dv = p / (c^2 - V^2)
Expanding to:
dm/dv = p / (c^2 - v^2)
= p / c^2(1 - v^2/c^2)
= y^2 p B/c { y = gamma = 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), B = beta =
v/c)
From the fundamental theorem of calculus,
m(v) - m(u) = INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Let the rest mass m(0) be a constant m0,
Thus,
m(v) = m0 + INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Solving for the integral**, m(v) gets simplified to,
m(v) = y m0
from which all of SR can be completely derived.
SNIP
You also need to keep Newton's relativity concept, right?
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
01 Feb 2005 11:41:56 AM |
|
|
Harry wrote:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107145315.636652.246480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Rejecting relativity is reasonable, giving the senseless way it's
presented. Too bad Tesla didn't discover a respectable derivation
of
SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Given some high energy experimental data to make reasonable
assumptions
from, SR is trivially derivable from Newtonian Mechanics as
follows:
Newtons 2nd law demands that,
F = dp/dt
Eulers assumption of constant mass reduces Newton's 2nd law to F =
ma.
I perform some high-energy experiments and review my data which
reveals
that the mass of a known particle appears to be varying with
velocity
and not consistent with Eulers assumption.
My little mind then asks the question - How does mass change with
velocity? I then express mass as a scalar field m(V) which reveals
grad_V (m) is of particular interest.
I review my data once again and observe that the "mass variance" of
the
particle is isotropic, thus grad_V(m) = dm.
Armed with this revelation I proceed to curve-fit,
dm/dv = p / (c^2 - V^2)
Expanding to:
dm/dv = p / (c^2 - v^2)
= p / c^2(1 - v^2/c^2)
= y^2 p B/c { y = gamma = 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), B = beta =
v/c)
From the fundamental theorem of calculus,
m(v) - m(u) = INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Let the rest mass m(0) be a constant m0,
Thus,
m(v) = m0 + INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Solving for the integral**, m(v) gets simplified to,
m(v) = y m0
from which all of SR can be completely derived.
SNIP
You also need to keep Newton's relativity concept, right?
Yes (although mathematically equivalent to SR).
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 08:22:44 AM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107145315.636652.246480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Rejecting relativity is reasonable, giving the senseless way it's
presented. Too bad Tesla didn't discover a respectable derivation of
SR.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Given some high energy experimental data to make reasonable
assumptions
from, SR is trivially derivable from Newtonian Mechanics as follows:
Newtons 2nd law demands that,
F = dp/dt
Eulers assumption of constant mass reduces Newton's 2nd law to F = ma.
I perform some high-energy experiments and review my data which
reveals
that the mass of a known particle appears to be varying with velocity
and not consistent with Eulers assumption.
My little mind then asks the question - How does mass change with
velocity? I then express mass as a scalar field m(V) which reveals
grad_V (m) is of particular interest.
I review my data once again and observe that the "mass variance" of
the
particle is isotropic, thus grad_V(m) = dm.
Armed with this revelation I proceed to curve-fit,
dm/dv = p / (c^2 - V^2)
Expanding to:
dm/dv = p / (c^2 - v^2)
= p / c^2(1 - v^2/c^2)
= y^2 p B/c { y = gamma = 1 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), B = beta =
v/c)
From the fundamental theorem of calculus,
m(v) - m(u) = INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Let the rest mass m(0) be a constant m0,
Thus,
m(v) = m0 + INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Solving for the integral**, m(v) gets simplified to,
m(v) = y m0
from which all of SR can be completely derived.
**: Instead of integrating dm/dv to find m(v), it is MUCH quicker to
just show that if m = y m0, then dm/dv = p / (c^2 - V^2).
Proof:
Let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Assume what you want to prove?
Rather circular, isn't it?
It certainly isn't a proof. That's Shubert's method anyway.
This is how to derive SR.
The time it takes for any object to move from A to B is equal to the
time it takes
to move from B to A, by DEFINITION. That's Einstein's definition, see
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Sam and Joe are carrying a 32 ft long ladder and a mosquito flies from
Sam to Joe and back to Sam again.
From the place in the road where the mosquito left Sam to the place in
the road
where it meets Joe is 80 ft. The mosquito flew at 5 fps, then it flew
back to the point Sam has reached, walking at 3 fps, which is at the 60
ft mark
The time to fly the total distance of 80 ft + 20 feet = 100 ft is 20
seconds,
so the speed of the mosquito is 5 fps.
BY DEFINITION, the time it takes to fly from Sam to Joe is 20/2 = 10
seconds.
Einstein says so and if you disagree, too bad, you are disagreeing with
the man that created SR.
Now, the mosquito flies at 5 - 3 = 2 fps away from Sam and travels 32
ft along the ladder, so it takes 32 ft /(5-3) fps = 16 seconds to reach
Joe, and 32/(5+3) = 4 seconds to return, and (16+4) /2 = 10 seconds, by
DEFINITION.
So it reaches Joe 10 seconds after leaving Sam, PROVEN.
Don't you know that (16 + 4)/ 2 = 16?
Sheesh, everyone knows that.
Look:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
½[tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0, 32/(5-3)+32/(5+3))] = tau(32,0,0,32/(5-3))
½[tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,20)] = tau(32,0,0,16)
So having derived the Lorentz Transforms (which is where YOU wanted to
start)
tau = ( t -vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2 / c^2)
xi = ( x-vt ) / sqrt (1-v^2 /c^2)
= (80 - 3 * 16) / sqrt( 1 - 9/25)
= ( 32 ) / 0.8
= 40 ft.
So the ladder is 40 ft long when it isn't moving, and 32 ft long when
moving at 0.6 * the speed of mosquitoes.
That's how you prove SR, not by assuming the the Lorentz Transforms,
but by defining (16 + 4) / 2 = 10.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
31 Jan 2005 08:36:00 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.com> wrote in message
news:UarLd.20476$n9.1294@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
This is how to derive SR.
The time it takes for any object to move from A to B is equal to the
time it takes
to move from B to A, by DEFINITION. That's Einstein's definition,
see
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Balls. That is patently untrue if I carry it from A to B on my
shoulders and it gets brought back by a bloke riding a bicycle.
Learn what is what before letting the ***** drip from your mouth.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
01 Feb 2005 05:44:55 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
Assume what you want to prove?
Rather circular, isn't it?
It certainly isn't a proof. That's Shubert's method anyway.
That's what a proof is, as opposed to a derivation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
01 Feb 2005 06:05:14 PM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107301495.012466.237940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
Assume what you want to prove?
Rather circular, isn't it?
It certainly isn't a proof. That's Shubert's method anyway.
That's what a proof is, as opposed to a derivation.
LOL!
In your dreams, dingbat.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/index.shtml
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
01 Feb 2005 06:21:55 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107301495.012466.237940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
Assume what you want to prove?
Rather circular, isn't it?
It certainly isn't a proof. That's Shubert's method anyway.
That's what a proof is, as opposed to a derivation.
LOL!
In your dreams, dingbat.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/index.shtml
Androcles
It is sufficient to arbitrarily state a proposition, and then proceed
to prove it via the systems axioms and other proven propositions. The
fundamental theorem of arithmetic a good example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
01 Feb 2005 07:32:10 PM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107303715.814847.20030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107301495.012466.237940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
Assume what you want to prove?
Rather circular, isn't it?
It certainly isn't a proof. That's Shubert's method anyway.
That's what a proof is, as opposed to a derivation.
LOL!
In your dreams, dingbat.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/index.shtml
Androcles
It is sufficient to arbitrarily state a proposition, and then proceed
to prove it via the systems axioms and other proven propositions. The
fundamental theorem of arithmetic a good example.
Sure, but Harald pulled a sqrt(1-v^2) out of a hat, AND his second
postulate
had been derived from Section 5 of Electrodynamics, which itself came
from Section 3.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 10:57:35 PM |
|
|
[snip]
From the fundamental theorem of calculus,
m(v) - m(u) = INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Typo: ^^^^^
d (m(x))/dx
Let the rest mass m(0) be a constant m0,
Thus,
m(v) = m0 + INT(x=u,v) [ d m(x) ] . dx
Typo: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
INT(x=0,v) [ d (m(x))/dx ] . dx
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
30 Jan 2005 09:38:26 PM |
|
|
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Rejecting relativity is reasonable, giving the senseless way it's
presented. Too bad Tesla didn't discover a respectable derivation of
SR.
The theories of relativity (special and general) have been thoroughly
tested and never falsified. Special relativity is one of the bases of
quantum field theory which is the most accuarate theory ever developed.
There is no reason at this time for rejecting special theory of
relativity and little for rejecting the general theory of relativity.
It is to be hoped that a theory more general will be found to account
for all four basic interactions and unite gtr with quantum theory. In
any case, it is most likely whatever this new theory will be, it will be
Lorentz invanriant.
Bob kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
10 Feb 2005 09:58:31 AM |
|
|
robert j. kolker claimed:
The theories of relativity (special and general) have been
thoroughly tested and never falsified.
Wrong. The key claim of SR has never been tested; also, it
has been experimentally falsified many times.
This key claim is that light's speed between two clocks in
the same room is isotropic/invariant.
Since no one has ever used such clocks to measure light's
speed, the main claim of SR has not been tested, contrary
to Kolker.
However, as I said, it has been experimentally disproved.
This is done every time any two observers move at different
speeds as a light ray approaches them. As the observers
meet in passing, the ray is equidistant from them, but,
due to their different speeds, the ray will not meet them
simultaneously, but will reach them at absolutely different
times, which can be qualitatively labeled Ta and Tb.
Therefore, the observers see the light ray travel the same
frame distance X but taking different times.
Therefore, they find different light speeds, viz.,
[1] X/Ta
[2] X/Tb
-
=BFComprende?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
10 Feb 2005 03:30:15 PM |
|
|
cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com:
robert j. kolker claimed:
The theories of relativity (special and general) have been
thoroughly tested and never falsified.
Wrong. The key claim of SR has never been tested; also, it
has been experimentally falsified many times.
Relativity doesn't say anything about keys.
[*spam & drivel snipped*]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schroedingers Cat" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
10 Feb 2005 03:36:28 PM |
|
|
<cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108051110.996271.207890@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
robert j. kolker claimed:
The theories of relativity (special and general) have been
thoroughly tested and never falsified.
| Wrong. The key claim of SR has never been tested; also, it
| has been experimentally falsified many times.
|
| This key claim is that light's speed between two clocks in
| the same room is isotropic/invariant.
|
| Since no one has ever used such clocks to measure light's
| speed, the main claim of SR has not been tested, contrary
| to Kolker.
|
| However, as I said, it has been experimentally disproved.
| This is done every time any two observers move at different
| speeds as a light ray approaches them. As the observers
| meet in passing, the ray is equidistant from them, but,
| due to their different speeds, the ray will not meet them
| simultaneously, but will reach them at absolutely different
| times, which can be qualitatively labeled Ta and Tb.
|
| Therefore, the observers see the light ray travel the same
| frame distance X but taking different times.
|
| Therefore, they find different light speeds, viz.,
| [1] X/Ta
| [2] X/Tb
| -
| ¿Comprende?
You are right that the light ray will reach them at different times, but
you are wrong that it will not reach them having traveled different
distances. That is, you have Xa and Xb, not just X.
One of them, say traveler A is traveling towards the light source
relative to traveler B, and B is traveling away from the light source
relative to traveler A, then the ray of light will reach A before B
because, when it does reach traveler A, it will not have traveled
sufficient distance (Xb) to reach traveler B. So
[1] Xa/Ta = c
[2] Xb/Tb = c
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
10 Feb 2005 10:54:39 AM |
|
|
In article <1108051110.996271.207890@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote:
robert j. kolker claimed:
Wrong. The key claim of SR has never been tested; also, it
has been experimentally falsified many times.
The key claim of SR has multiple personality disorder?
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Nikola Tesla on Relativity |
10 Feb 2005 04:28:45 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cug3kf$kur$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <1108051110.996271.207890@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote:
robert j. kolker claimed:
Wrong. The key claim of SR has never been tested; also, it
has been experimentally falsified many times.
The key claim of SR has multiple personality disorder?
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
Note the immediate switch to personal insult as the moron gets dumber
and louder.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
