| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Mar 2005 12:35:42 PM |
| Object: |
SRT lesson |
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must give
them a short lesson.
The SRT lesson to relativity supporters
----------------------------------------
Any number of points in a still inertial system x1, x2, x3,... xn share
the same time t. Any number of points in an inertial system moving
uniformly x1', x2', x3',... xn' share the same time t'.
I insist that this is the Special Relativity standpoint - it allows for
different inertial systems to have different measures of space and
time, but entire inertial system shares "single" time.
This allows us to write Lorentz equations in the form
Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
I found now on the web virtually the same explanation for this that I
gave to Dirk yesterday. Please visit the
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html and tell
me how is length contraction and time dilation formula explanation
different from the explanation I gave in the yesterday's thread
(subject: origin of inertia). I gave equations, which are standard
physics textbook simplified Lorentz transformations.
What's the problem then?
------------------------
Dirk Van de Moortel has introduced a view that each point in THE SAME
inertial system has its own time (x1, t1), (x2, t2), ... etc. And
insists that this is the SRT point if view.
His interpretation, supported by several other posters, is that in
original Lorentz equations one can place a "delta" in front of every
coordinate (which assumes that each point x1, x2,... has its own time
t1, t2, etc. both for primed and non-primed coordinates), like this:
Dx' = g ( Dx - v Dt )
Dt' = g ( Dt - v Dx / c^2 )
with g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Which results in claim that the example
Dx' = 1/2 Dx
Dt' = 2 Dt
can only be valid for
Dx' = Dt' = Dx = Dt = 0.
Solution
--------
Come on people, there must be knowledgeable people reading this.
Regardless of my view that entire SRT is a historic joke of human kind,
or perhaps YOURS that relativity is valid theory, NO supporter of
relativity should defend favorite theory by misrepresentation. Share
your opinion!
Aleksandar Vukelja
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
15 Mar 2005 01:07:40 PM |
|
|
<aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1110911742.231318.118270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[follow-up set to sci.physics.relativity]
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must give
them a short lesson.
The SRT lesson to relativity supporters
----------------------------------------
Any number of points in a still inertial system x1, x2, x3,... xn share
the same time t. Any number of points in an inertial system moving
uniformly x1', x2', x3',... xn' share the same time t'.
I insist that this is the Special Relativity standpoint - it allows for
different inertial systems to have different measures of space and
time, but entire inertial system shares "single" time.
This allows us to write Lorentz equations in the form
Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
I found now on the web virtually the same explanation for this that I
gave to Dirk yesterday. Please visit the
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html and tell
me how is length contraction and time dilation formula explanation
different from the explanation I gave in the yesterday's thread
(subject: origin of inertia). I gave equations, which are standard
physics textbook simplified Lorentz transformations.
They are not simplified Lorentz transformations.
They are two standard applications of the transformation.
As seen in the one dimensional case only, this is the transformation
for the coordinates:
x' = g ( x - v t )
t' = g ( t - v x / c^2 )
with g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and its inverse:
x = g ( x' + v t' )
t = g ( t' + v x' / c^2 )
This is the transformation for the coordinate differences:
Dx' = g ( Dx - v Dt )
Dt' = g ( Dt - v Dx / c^2 )
with g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and its inverse:
Dx = g ( Dx' + v Dt' )
Dt = g ( Dt' + v Dx' / c^2 )
Both forms can be derived from the other and they are
valid for all events.
The equation for length contraction is
Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and it is only valid for events that also satisfy
Dt' = 0
The equation for time dilation is
Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and it is only valid for events that also satisfy
Dx = 0
So the equations
Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
when taken together can only be valid if
Dx = Dx' = Dt = Dt' = 0 or v = 0
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
15 Mar 2005 08:52:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
*Plonk*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
16 Mar 2005 12:24:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must give
them a short lesson.
How did you learn SRT? On what basis do you claim that it is
you who understands it correctly, and the others have got it wrong?
The SRT lesson to relativity supporters
----------------------------------------
Any number of points in a still inertial system x1, x2, x3,... xn share
the same time t.
Any number of points in the threedimensional sense, yes. Any number of
points in the fourdimensional sense, i.e. events, no.
You keep missing this *crucial* distinction.
Any number of points in an inertial system moving
uniformly x1', x2', x3',... xn' share the same time t'.
Dito.
I insist that this is the Special Relativity standpoint
Then you are wrong, plain and simple.
- it allows for
different inertial systems to have different measures of space and
time, but entire inertial system shares "single" time.
Every single inertial system shares the same time *rate*, in a sense.
Nothing stops *events* in an inertial system from having different times.
This allows us to write Lorentz equations in the form
Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
No, that is wrong, as explained in detail by Dirk. You mostly ignored
his proof, and your few counterarguments were trivially wrong.
I found now on the web virtually the same explanation for this that I
gave to Dirk yesterday. Please visit the
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html and tell
me how is length contraction and time dilation formula explanation
different from the explanation I gave in the yesterday's thread
(subject: origin of inertia).
Quite simple: in contrast to you, they do not claim that both formula
are valid *at once*. The two formulas are special cases. The first is
only valud for Dt = Dt' = 0, the second only for Dx = Dx' = 0. That's
what you keep ingoring.
I gave equations, which are standard
physics textbook simplified Lorentz transformations.
No, the equations above are *not* "standard textbook simplified Lorentz
transformations". They are *conclusions* from the Lorentz
transformations *applied to two different special cases*.
What's the problem then?
Read again Dirk's posts. Try to understand them this time.
------------------------
Dirk Van de Moortel has introduced a view that each point in THE SAME
inertial system has its own time (x1, t1), (x2, t2), ... etc.
In the same *fourdimensional* system, indeed.
And insists that this is the SRT point if view.
This is already the view of Galilean relativity. SR did not change it.
His interpretation, supported by several other posters, is that in
original Lorentz equations one can place a "delta" in front of every
coordinate (which assumes that each point x1, x2,... has its own time
t1, t2, etc. both for primed and non-primed coordinates), like this:
Hint: this is not simply an interpretation. He *proved* that. And he
is completely right.
Dx' = g ( Dx - v Dt )
Dt' = g ( Dt - v Dx / c^2 )
with g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Which results in claim that the example
Dx' = 1/2 Dx
Dt' = 2 Dt
can only be valid for
Dx' = Dt' = Dx = Dt = 0.
And that's exactly right.
Solution
--------
Come on people, there must be knowledgeable people reading this.
Dirk *is* knowledgeable. Why do you persistenly refuse to understand
his arguments, and keep thinking that you understand SR better than him?
Regardless of my view that entire SRT is a historic joke of human kind,
or perhaps YOURS that relativity is valid theory, NO supporter of
relativity should defend favorite theory by misrepresentation.
And equally, no denier of relativity should attack it by
misrepresentation. Unfortunately, that's what every single denier of
SR I've seen so far has done.
Share your opinion!
My opinion is that you don't understand SR. And not even Galilean
relativity.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
16 Mar 2005 01:35:01 PM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:d19tkh$i9$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
[follow-up set to sci.physics.relativity]
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must give
them a short lesson.
[snip lesson]
This allows us to write Lorentz equations in the form
Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
No, that is wrong, as explained in detail by Dirk. You mostly ignored
his proof, and your few counterarguments were trivially wrong.
I found now on the web virtually the same explanation for this that I
gave to Dirk yesterday. Please visit the
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html and tell
me how is length contraction and time dilation formula explanation
different from the explanation I gave in the yesterday's thread
(subject: origin of inertia).
Quite simple: in contrast to you, they do not claim that both formula
are valid *at once*. The two formulas are special cases. The first is
only valud for Dt = Dt' = 0, the second only for Dx = Dx' = 0. That's
what you keep ingoring.
<nitpick>
Actually, Bjoern, this is too strong.
The first is only valid for Dt' = 0, the second only for Dx = 0.
Only when taken together we see that
Dt' = 0 implies Dt = 0 (through the second)
and
Dx = 0 implies Dx' = 0 (through the first)
</nitpick>
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
16 Mar 2005 06:43:04 PM |
|
|
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles he'll need to consider
how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
To provide a counter balance to the well
known "3 Stooges", you should look at
Dovers "PoR", pg 119, Eq.3 and thus find
a new and improved means of solving 4D
problems, the well known stooges don't
known.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
How did you learn SRT? On what basis do you claim that it is
you who understands it correctly, and the others have got it wrong?
The SRT lesson to relativity supporters
----------------------------------------
Any number of points in a still inertial system x1, x2, x3,... xn
share
the same time t.
Any number of points in the threedimensional sense, yes. Any number
of
points in the fourdimensional sense, i.e. events, no.
You keep missing this *crucial* distinction.
Any number of points in an inertial system moving
uniformly x1', x2', x3',... xn' share the same time t'.
Dito.
I insist that this is the Special Relativity standpoint
Then you are wrong, plain and simple.
- it allows for
different inertial systems to have different measures of space and
time, but entire inertial system shares "single" time.
Every single inertial system shares the same time *rate*, in a sense.
Nothing stops *events* in an inertial system from having different
times.
This allows us to write Lorentz equations in the form
Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
No, that is wrong, as explained in detail by Dirk. You mostly ignored
his proof, and your few counterarguments were trivially wrong.
I found now on the web virtually the same explanation for this that
I
gave to Dirk yesterday. Please visit the
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html and
tell
me how is length contraction and time dilation formula explanation
different from the explanation I gave in the yesterday's thread
(subject: origin of inertia).
Quite simple: in contrast to you, they do not claim that both formula
are valid *at once*. The two formulas are special cases. The first is
only valud for Dt = Dt' = 0, the second only for Dx = Dx' = 0. That's
what you keep ingoring.
I gave equations, which are standard
physics textbook simplified Lorentz transformations.
No, the equations above are *not* "standard textbook simplified
Lorentz
transformations". They are *conclusions* from the Lorentz
transformations *applied to two different special cases*.
What's the problem then?
Read again Dirk's posts. Try to understand them this time.
------------------------
Dirk Van de Moortel has introduced a view that each point in THE
SAME
inertial system has its own time (x1, t1), (x2, t2), ... etc.
In the same *fourdimensional* system, indeed.
And insists that this is the SRT point if view.
This is already the view of Galilean relativity. SR did not change
it.
His interpretation, supported by several other posters, is that in
original Lorentz equations one can place a "delta" in front of
every
coordinate (which assumes that each point x1, x2,... has its own
time
t1, t2, etc. both for primed and non-primed coordinates), like
this:
Hint: this is not simply an interpretation. He *proved* that. And he
is completely right.
Dx' = g ( Dx - v Dt )
Dt' = g ( Dt - v Dx / c^2 )
with g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Which results in claim that the example
Dx' = 1/2 Dx
Dt' = 2 Dt
can only be valid for
Dx' = Dt' = Dx = Dt = 0.
And that's exactly right.
Solution
--------
Come on people, there must be knowledgeable people reading this.
Dirk *is* knowledgeable. Why do you persistenly refuse to understand
his arguments, and keep thinking that you understand SR better than
him?
Regardless of my view that entire SRT is a historic joke of human
kind,
or perhaps YOURS that relativity is valid theory, NO supporter of
relativity should defend favorite theory by misrepresentation.
And equally, no denier of relativity should attack it by
misrepresentation. Unfortunately, that's what every single denier of
SR I've seen so far has done.
Share your opinion!
My opinion is that you don't understand SR. And not even Galilean
relativity.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
16 Mar 2005 06:51:16 PM |
|
|
In article <1111020184.428810.239950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> writes:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles he'll need to consider
how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Ken, you're beginning to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Tone it
down.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
17 Mar 2005 07:30:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1111020184.428810.239950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> writes:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles he'll need to consider
how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Ken, you're beginning to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Tone it
down.
Mati
It's a spit-ball fight. I've recently reviewed
the psychology of baseball players and physicists.
Boltzman, Ehrenfest, for example who took things
too seriously, I'd like to retain some comical
levity aka "3 stooges".
Glance the bios of the two I mentioned and note.
When I was a kid in PS, I'd start a spit-ball
fight, it relieves the tension of learning,
and nobody is hurt.
Kids ought to that, then maybe you'd have fewer
plotting to take AKA 47-s in to blast the class.
Ok....???
Ken
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
17 Mar 2005 04:16:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1111066214.662037.146460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1111020184.428810.239950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> writes:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles he'll need to consider
how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Ken, you're beginning to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Tone it
down.
Mati
It's a spit-ball fight.
Then take it to alt.spit_ball_fight.silly. Don't polute.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
17 Mar 2005 08:33:41 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1111020184.428810.239950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> writes:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles he'll need to consider
how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Ken, you're beginning to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Tone it
down.
Mati
It's a spit-ball fight. I've recently reviewed
the psychology of baseball players and physicists.
Boltzman, Ehrenfest, for example who took things
too seriously, I'd like to retain some comical
levity aka "3 stooges".
Glance the bios of the two I mentioned and note.
When I was a kid in PS, I'd start a spit-ball
fight, it relieves the tension of learning,
and nobody is hurt.
Kids ought to that, then maybe you'd have fewer
plotting to take AKA 47-s in to blast the class.
Ok....???
Well, that clears it up: the reason for Ken's constant
trolling is that he has not grown up yet. He is still on the
childish spit-ball fight level.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
17 Mar 2005 04:31:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1111020184.428810.239950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> writes:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles he'll need to consider
how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Ken, you're beginning to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Tone it
down.
Beginning???
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
17 Mar 2005 04:03:29 PM |
|
|
In article <d1bm9d$ah0$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1111020184.428810.239950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> writes:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles he'll need to consider
how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Ken, you're beginning to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Tone it
down.
Beginning???
Point taken:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
17 Mar 2005 04:30:46 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles
Is this supposed to mean "over-throw"?
he'll need to consider how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
That is not an equation invented by GR. It was already used in SR.
You keep bringing up GR when SR is totally sufficient to address
a problem. Are these attempts at obfuscation, or do you really
understand so little of SR and GR that you don't realize that?
I suspect it's a mixture of both.
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
An equation does not have a value. Only an expression can have a
value.
So add "basic math" to the things you don't understand.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
No, we argue that it is already an equation of SR, and that
it is largely irrelevant to the question at hand.
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Indeed. Thanks for showing us an example of such an idiot with your post.
To provide a counter balance to the well
known "3 Stooges", you should look at
Dovers "PoR", pg 119, Eq.3 and thus find
a new and improved means of solving 4D
problems, the well known stooges don't
known.
Oh, yet another example of a book about relativity
you did misunderstand.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
P.S.: Still waiting for an apology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
17 Mar 2005 07:06:44 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles
Is this supposed to mean "over-throw"?
he'll need to consider how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
That is not an equation invented by GR. It was already used in SR.
KOOK, there's no such thing as SR.
You keep bringing up GR when SR is totally sufficient to address
a problem. Are these attempts at obfuscation, or do you really
understand so little of SR and GR that you don't realize that?
I suspect it's a mixture of both.
see above
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
An equation does not have a value. Only an expression can have a
value.
So add "basic math" to the things you don't understand.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
No, we argue that it is already an equation of SR, and that
it is largely irrelevant to the question at hand.
see above
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Indeed. Thanks for showing us an example of such an idiot with your
post.
see above
To provide a counter balance to the well
known "3 Stooges", you should look at
Dovers "PoR", pg 119, Eq.3 and thus find
a new and improved means of solving 4D
problems, the well known stooges don't
known.
Oh, yet another example of a book about relativity
you did misunderstand.
prove it.
Bye,
Bjoern
P.S.: Still waiting for an apology.
Dr. Furerbacher, I apologize.
((I'm certain your degree in Proctology will
elevate you beyond your wildest brain farts.))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
17 Mar 2005 08:37:12 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles
Is this supposed to mean "over-throw"?
he'll need to consider how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
That is not an equation invented by GR. It was already used in SR.
KOOK, there's no such thing as SR.
Talking to yourself, I see. But why are you telling yourself such
blatant nonsense?
You keep bringing up GR when SR is totally sufficient to address
a problem. Are these attempts at obfuscation, or do you really
understand so little of SR and GR that you don't realize that?
I suspect it's a mixture of both.
see above
Indeed.
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
An equation does not have a value. Only an expression can have a
value.
So add "basic math" to the things you don't understand.
And yet again something where you won't admit that you were in error.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
No, we argue that it is already an equation of SR, and that
it is largely irrelevant to the question at hand.
see above
Indeed.
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
Indeed. Thanks for showing us an example of such an idiot with your
post.
see above
Indeed.
To provide a counter balance to the well
known "3 Stooges", you should look at
Dovers "PoR", pg 119, Eq.3 and thus find
a new and improved means of solving 4D
problems, the well known stooges don't
known.
Oh, yet another example of a book about relativity
you did misunderstand.
prove it.
You have already proven this with your posts, thank you.
Bye,
Bjoern
P.S.: Still waiting for an apology.
Dr. Furerbacher, I apologize.
If you could now additionally also spell my name right...
((I'm certain your degree in Proctology will
elevate you beyond your wildest brain farts.))
Hint: if one combines "I apologize" with yet another insult, it
isn't really an apology.
Stop trolling.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
18 Mar 2005 04:26:41 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Dr. Furerbacher, I apologize.
If you could now additionally also spell my name right...
You not the guy who sells popcorn?
((I'm certain your degree in Proctology will
elevate you beyond your wildest brain farts.))
Hint: if one combines "I apologize" with yet another insult, it
isn't really an apology.
NO, you claimed I did Insult(1), so I did
Apology(1), then you claimed I did I(2),
which cancels A(1) and I find that insulting,
i.e. Insult'(1), so you owe me an A'(1).
From your posts, I assumed your degree was in
Proctology, you never said otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
21 Mar 2005 06:12:54 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Dr. Furerbacher, I apologize.
If you could now additionally also spell my name right...
You not the guy who sells popcorn?
((I'm certain your degree in Proctology will
elevate you beyond your wildest brain farts.))
Hint: if one combines "I apologize" with yet another insult, it
isn't really an apology.
NO, you claimed I did Insult(1), so I did
Apology(1), then you claimed I did I(2),
which cancels A(1) and I find that insulting,
i.e. Insult'(1), so you owe me an A'(1).
From your posts, I assumed your degree was in
Proctology, you never said otherwise.
Stop trolling.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
15 Mar 2005 02:13:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must give
them a short lesson.
Why bother? You're attempting to construct
a field theory so use
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.
SR has no applications in *theory*, it's a
simplification of limited value in
theoretical physics. It's a mere teaching
aid for students who understand algebra and
a bit of calculus.
Einstein formally replaced SR with GR in 1916,
by using Minkowski SpaceTime.
Dirk's use of 1905 SR is wrong, and leads to
many errors, as is evident, that's why it was
replaced.
Good Luck
Ken S. Tucker
The SRT lesson to relativity supporters
----------------------------------------
Any number of points in a still inertial system x1, x2, x3,... xn
share
the same time t. Any number of points in an inertial system moving
uniformly x1', x2', x3',... xn' share the same time t'.
I insist that this is the Special Relativity standpoint - it allows
for
different inertial systems to have different measures of space and
time, but entire inertial system shares "single" time.
This allows us to write Lorentz equations in the form
Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
I found now on the web virtually the same explanation for this that I
gave to Dirk yesterday. Please visit the
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html and tell
me how is length contraction and time dilation formula explanation
different from the explanation I gave in the yesterday's thread
(subject: origin of inertia). I gave equations, which are standard
physics textbook simplified Lorentz transformations.
What's the problem then?
------------------------
Dirk Van de Moortel has introduced a view that each point in THE SAME
inertial system has its own time (x1, t1), (x2, t2), ... etc. And
insists that this is the SRT point if view.
His interpretation, supported by several other posters, is that in
original Lorentz equations one can place a "delta" in front of every
coordinate (which assumes that each point x1, x2,... has its own time
t1, t2, etc. both for primed and non-primed coordinates), like this:
Dx' = g ( Dx - v Dt )
Dt' = g ( Dt - v Dx / c^2 )
with g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Which results in claim that the example
Dx' = 1/2 Dx
Dt' = 2 Dt
can only be valid for
Dx' = Dt' = Dx = Dt = 0.
Solution
--------
Come on people, there must be knowledgeable people reading this.
Regardless of my view that entire SRT is a historic joke of human
kind,
or perhaps YOURS that relativity is valid theory, NO supporter of
relativity should defend favorite theory by misrepresentation. Share
your opinion!
Aleksandar Vukelja
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
16 Mar 2005 04:57:01 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1110917597.150742.65860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
SR has no applications in *theory*,
You should borrow a good book on Quantum Electrodynamics
it's a
simplification of limited value in
theoretical physics. It's a mere teaching
aid for students who understand algebra and
a bit of calculus.
You should see if any engineer or physicist in an accelerator lab
might be persuaded to employ you as an apprectice. Unless you really
are as dense as you make yourself out to be, you might learn something
about the applications of SR there.
[snip]
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
15 Mar 2005 02:29:35 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1110917597.150742.65860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must give
them a short lesson.
Why bother? You're attempting to construct
a field theory so use
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.
SR has no applications in *theory*, it's a
simplification of limited value in
theoretical physics. It's a mere teaching
aid for students who understand algebra and
a bit of calculus.
Einstein formally replaced SR with GR in 1916,
by using Minkowski SpaceTime.
Dirk's use of 1905 SR is wrong, and leads to
many errors, as is evident, that's why it was
replaced.
Good Luck
Ken S. Tucker
You finally seem to have given up drinking in combination
with your medication, so you manage to write coherent
sentences again. Good.
But now you seem to have stopped taking your medication
altogether. Bad idea, Ken... you should listen to the doctors.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
15 Mar 2005 03:01:36 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1110917597.150742.65860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Why bother? You're attempting to construct
a field theory so use
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.
SR has no applications in *theory*, it's a
simplification of limited value in
theoretical physics. It's a mere teaching
aid for students who understand algebra and
a bit of calculus.
Einstein formally replaced SR with GR in 1916,
by using Minkowski SpaceTime.
Dirk's use of 1905 SR is wrong, and leads to
many errors, as is evident, that's why it was
replaced.
Good Luck
Ken S. Tucker
[snip Vd crap]
Dirk Vdm
BULL, Your driving around in your old 1905 SR
clunker, and the rest of physics is driving
post 1916 streamlined GR machines. Your a
pollution hazard!
Let's see you solve the problem using GR
simplified to SR aka Minkowski SpaceTime, at
least the latter will trade you up to 1908.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
15 Mar 2005 03:07:28 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1110920496.052561.109840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1110917597.150742.65860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
them a short lesson.
Why bother? You're attempting to construct
a field theory so use
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.
SR has no applications in *theory*, it's a
simplification of limited value in
theoretical physics. It's a mere teaching
aid for students who understand algebra and
a bit of calculus.
Einstein formally replaced SR with GR in 1916,
by using Minkowski SpaceTime.
Dirk's use of 1905 SR is wrong, and leads to
many errors, as is evident, that's why it was
replaced.
Good Luck
Ken S. Tucker
[snip Vd crap]
Dirk Vdm
BULL, Your driving around in your old 1905 SR
clunker, and the rest of physics is driving
post 1916 streamlined GR machines. Your a
pollution hazard!
Let's see you solve the problem using GR
simplified to SR aka Minkowski SpaceTime, at
least the latter will trade you up to 1908.
Ken
Ding!
Ding!
Medication Time... line up now...
Ding!
Ding!
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
16 Mar 2005 12:30:12 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
BULL, Your driving around in your old 1905 SR
clunker, and the rest of physics is driving
post 1916 streamlined GR machines.
Let's see.
* Atomic and molecular physics? No GR is used. But often SR.
* Nuclear physics? No GR is used. But very often SR.
* Particle physics? No GR is used. But almost all the time SR.
* Solid state physics? No GR is used. Essentially only classical
mechanics (and non-relativistic QM)
* Environmental physics? No GR is used. Only classical mechanics.
* Plasma physics? No GR is used. Only classical physics and sometimes
QM, and sometimes SR.
So, what is this "rest of physics" which uses only GR, but not SR?
Thanks for showing yet again that you have no clue what you are
talking about.
Stop trolling.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
P.S.: Still waiting for an apology.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: SRT lesson |
16 Mar 2005 12:26:49 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must give
them a short lesson.
Why bother? You're attempting to construct
a field theory so use
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.
SR has no applications in *theory*,
Well, depends on what you mean with "application in theory".
it's a simplification of limited value in
theoretical physics.
As is every physicsal theory. Your point?
It's a mere teaching
aid for students who understand algebra and
a bit of calculus.
It's much more than that. Ever heard of the Dirac equation, for example?
Or of QED? Of the Standard Model? Ever noticed that particle physics
uses almost exclusively SR?
Einstein formally replaced SR with GR in 1916,
by using Minkowski SpaceTime.
Err, no. Minkowski spacetime is SR, not GR.
Dirk's use of 1905 SR is wrong,
In no way.
and leads to many errors, as is evident, that's why it was
replaced.
Thanks for showing yet again that you have no clue of SR and GR.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
