| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2007 01:41:13 AM |
| Object: |
TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
kenseto wrote:
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame?
It is of course a projection of an object's proper length onto the
coordinates used by an observer to make a measurement of its length.
Is this a valid measurement of the length of a moving train: mark its
back end at time 12:00 and its front end at time 13:00, and then measure
the distance between marks? OF COURSE NOT! To qualify as a "measurement
of the length of a moving object" it is absolutely necessary that one
mark the front and back ends SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is INHERENTLY a
projection of the moving object's length onto the coordinates used.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking has been dismissed). Now it is time for you to tackle even
the most difficult problems related to the concept of length
contraction. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick
remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If one sees the mark,
one sees the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well.
How long is the trapped stick? If you are really the Albert Einstein
of our generation, you will be able to twist and turn and camouflage
the absurdity in the end. Let us see.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Pentho Valley STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOG |
02 Apr 2007 04:22:29 PM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 7:41?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
kenseto wrote:
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame?
It is of course a projection of an object's proper length onto the
coordinates used by an observer to make a measurement of its length.
Is this a valid measurement of the length of a moving train: mark its
back end at time 12:00 and its front end at time 13:00, and then measure
the distance between marks? OF COURSE NOT! To qualify as a "measurement
of the length of a moving object" it is absolutely necessary that one
mark the front and back ends SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is INHERENTLY a
projection of the moving object's length onto the coordinates used.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking has been dismissed). Now it is time for you to tackle even
the most difficult problems related to the concept of length
contraction. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick
remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If one sees the mark,
one sees the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well.
How long is the trapped stick? If you are really the Albert Einstein
of our generation, you will be able to twist and turn and camouflage
the absurdity in the end. Let us see.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: spam |
02 Apr 2007 04:47:46 PM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 6:22 pm, "John Jones" <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
CROSSPOSTING TO SCI
Date: 2 Apr 2007 14:22:29 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <1175548948.979968.205270@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1175323273.650317.13130@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.93.21.98
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1175548950 9732 127.0.0.1 (2 Apr 2007
21:22:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:22:30 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1175323273.650317.13130@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.1.1 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [los-te031 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-los-
ad02.proxy.aol.com[C35D1562] (Traffic-Server/6.1.5 [uScM])
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=195.93.21.98;
posting-account=ZZRs2g0AAAD-rbi3F59OFw1ZzDoeJ3Wf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
02 May 2007 03:23:36 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
kenseto wrote:
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame?
It is of course a projection of an object's proper length onto the
coordinates used by an observer to make a measurement of its length.
Is this a valid measurement of the length of a moving train: mark its
back end at time 12:00 and its front end at time 13:00, and then measure
the distance between marks? OF COURSE NOT! To qualify as a "measurement
of the length of a moving object" it is absolutely necessary that one
mark the front and back ends SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is INHERENTLY a
projection of the moving object's length onto the coordinates used.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking has been dismissed). Now it is time for you to tackle even
the most difficult problems related to the concept of length
contraction. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick
remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If one sees the mark,
one sees the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well.
How long is the trapped stick? If you are really the Albert Einstein
of our generation, you will be able to twist and turn and camouflage
the absurdity in the end. Let us see.
Roberts Roberts I thought you avoid length contraction problems but
you don't - perhaps because your student Dirk Van de moortel is so
helpful:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/25254728b32e9627?
Roberts Roberts why don't you solve the seeing-behind-the-stick
problem described above? How long is the trapped stick? Dirk Van de
moortel will help you again I am sure. If Roberts Roberts you do solve
the seeing-behind-the-stick problem I promise to sing "Divine
Einstein"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
three times. Three times Roberts Roberts!
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
17 May 2007 01:46:53 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
kenseto wrote:
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame?
It is of course a projection of an object's proper length onto the
coordinates used by an observer to make a measurement of its length.
Is this a valid measurement of the length of a moving train: mark its
back end at time 12:00 and its front end at time 13:00, and then measure
the distance between marks? OF COURSE NOT! To qualify as a "measurement
of the length of a moving object" it is absolutely necessary that one
mark the front and back ends SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is INHERENTLY a
projection of the moving object's length onto the coordinates used.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking has been dismissed). Now it is time for you to tackle even
the most difficult problems related to the concept of length
contraction. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick
remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If one sees the mark,
one sees the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well.
How long is the trapped stick? If you are really the Albert Einstein
of our generation, you will be able to twist and turn and camouflage
the absurdity in the end. Let us see.
Roberts Roberts I thought you avoid length contraction problems but
you don't - perhaps because your student Dirk Van de moortel is so
helpful:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/25254728b32e9627?
Roberts Roberts why don't you solve the seeing-behind-the-stick
problem described above? How long is the trapped stick? Dirk Van de
moortel will help you again I am sure. If Roberts Roberts you do solve
the seeing-behind-the-stick problem I promise to sing "Divine
Einstein"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
three times. Three times Roberts Roberts!
Roberts Roberts length contraction problems may be difficult for you
(then why do your brothers hypnotists set them in textbooks?) but this
does not mean you are not the Albert Einstein of our generation. I
know you are expert in time dilation problems so let us go there. A
few months ago there was some fuss in Einstein's criminal cult about a
1918 paper where Divine Albert explained the twin paradox in an
obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's
Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop
Grumman Corp)
In his obscure 1918 paper Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging
was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did
Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox
had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin
paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
I hope you will agree Roberts Roberts this is an expremely important
problem. Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin
is due to acceleration! Even if the world does not want to know (which
is quite probable), you Roberts Roberts is a honest man and will
explain everything. You are not like your criminal brothers hypnotists
who only care about money and explain nothing.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
17 May 2007 09:43:41 AM |
|
|
Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin
is due to acceleration!
They remain silent because they do not want to look like fools.
Many Relativist are to dumb to realize that the TP can be solved w/o
accelerations. Since they cant figure that out by themselves, they
just repeat what is found in books: the accelerations explanation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
17 May 2007 12:57:08 PM |
|
|
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.. ahahaha...
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179413021.278412.308160@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Relativists are too dumb to figure out by themselves,...
they just repeat what is found in books...
[hanson]
ahahaha... ahahaha....You have hit the nail on the head dude!
But this is also what makes the Einstein Dingleberries so funny.
.... It's like arguing with the missionaries of the 'Latter Day Saints"
when they come to your door and pitch their holy grail...
Same *****!... Religion like physics and physics like religion...
Thanks for the laughs!... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
17 May 2007 01:21:46 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:UH03i.40367$145.23784@trnddc02...
: ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.. ahahaha...
: <rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:1179413021.278412.308160@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: > Relativists are too dumb to figure out by themselves,...
: > they just repeat what is found in books...
: >
: [hanson]
: ahahaha... ahahaha....You have hit the nail on the head dude!
: But this is also what makes the Einstein Dingleberries so funny.
: ... It's like arguing with the missionaries of the 'Latter Day Saints"
: when they come to your door and pitch their holy grail...
: Same *****!... Religion like physics and physics like religion...
: Thanks for the laughs!... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
:
Exactly. I invite them and Allah's Witnesses (the Watch Tower Shower)
in for a drink and carefully explain that I cannot be saved, I'm already
damned from a blood transfusion when I was 18 years old and wrecked
a Triumph Tiger 100.
http://tiger100.co.uk/jpg%20folder/mcqueen-steve.jpg
Mind you, mine had longhorn handlerbars and room for a passenger.
They can't wait to get out again for some reason...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
25 Jun 2007 03:20:30 AM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha.. ahahaha...
<rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179413021.278412.308160@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Relativists are too dumb to figure out by themselves,...
they just repeat what is found in books...
[hanson]
ahahaha... ahahaha....You have hit the nail on the head dude!
But this is also what makes the Einstein Dingleberries so funny.
... It's like arguing with the missionaries of the 'Latter Day Saints"
when they come to your door and pitch their holy grail...
Same *****!... Religion like physics and physics like religion...
Thanks for the laughs!... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11614 "At the end of a
new book called It's About Time, the recently retired physics
professor N. David Mermin, who taught relativity at Cornell for
decades, asks the same question. He asks of moving sticks and clocks
that allegedly shrink and lag: "Do these things really happen, or are
they just secondary manifestations... leading to disagreements about
what constitutes a valid measurement?" Mermin's answer is one that you
might consider surprising in a book published exactly 100 years after
Einstein's theory was invented: There is by no means unanimity among
practicing physicists on this question, and one frequently finds
assertions that, for example, moving clocks appear to run slowly when
measured by stationary ones, or that moving sticks appear to shrink."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm "I expect that the
scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics
theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the
Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or
that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
03 Jun 2007 01:55:48 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roberts Roberts length contraction problems may be difficult for you
(then why do your brothers hypnotists set them in textbooks?) but this
does not mean you are not the Albert Einstein of our generation. I
know you are expert in time dilation problems so let us go there. A
few months ago there was some fuss in Einstein's criminal cult about a
1918 paper where Divine Albert explained the twin paradox in an
obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's
Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop
Grumman Corp)
In his obscure 1918 paper Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging
was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did
Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox
had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin
paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
I hope you will agree Roberts Roberts this is an expremely important
problem. Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin
is due to acceleration! Even if the world does not want to know (which
is quite probable), you Roberts Roberts is a honest man and will
explain everything. You are not like your criminal brothers hypnotists
who only care about money and explain nothing.
Roberts Roberts, apart from Einstein's 1918 obscurity, there is
another problem in Einstein criminal cult: there are too many
explanations of the twin paradox. And your brothers hypnotists suggest
the following reason:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
"An old lawyer joke: "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client
never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he
returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was
already present when he borrowed it." Or to quote Shakespeare:
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why so many different
explanations? Are the relativists just trying to bamboozle their
opponents?"
Roberts Roberts do you think the process of bamboozling started in
1918 when Divine Albert said acceleration was responsible for the
greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Or perhaps the process of
bamboozling started earlier, e.g. in 1905?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
03 Jun 2007 02:53:56 AM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 3:55 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roberts Roberts length contraction problems may be difficult for you
(then why do your brothers hypnotists set them in textbooks?) but this
does not mean you are not the Albert Einstein of our generation. I
know you are expert in time dilation problems so let us go there. A
few months ago there was some fuss in Einstein's criminal cult about a
1918 paper where Divine Albert explained the twin paradox in an
obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's
Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop
Grumman Corp)
In his obscure 1918 paper Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging
was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did
Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox
had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin
paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
I hope you will agree Roberts Roberts this is an expremely important
problem. Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin
is due to acceleration! Even if the world does not want to know (which
is quite probable), you Roberts Roberts is a honest man and will
explain everything. You are not like your criminal brothers hypnotists
who only care about money and explain nothing.
Roberts Roberts, apart from Einstein's 1918 obscurity, there is
another problem in Einstein criminal cult: there are too many
explanations of the twin paradox. And your brothers hypnotists suggest
the following reason:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/t...
"An old lawyer joke: "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client
never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he
returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was
already present when he borrowed it." Or to quote Shakespeare:
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why so many different
explanations? Are the relativists just trying to bamboozle their
opponents?"
In this forum John Baez offered no support for any
of the three methods and pointed out he was just
providing web-space.
C. S. Unnikrishnan offers a through analysis of
all three methods, finding none valid.
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
So the ming vase never even existed.
Also... Scientists are supposed to attack messages,
not messengers. On the rare occasion that you make
a valid point, it is completely blunted when you package
it up as a personal attack. With allies like you, who
needs enemies. Please go help my opponents make
their arguments. You aren't winning any friends for
rational thought. :-(
Sue...
Roberts Roberts do you think the process of bamboozling started in
1918 when Divine Albert said acceleration was responsible for the
greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Or perhaps the process of
bamboozling started earlier, e.g. in 1905?
Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
03 Jun 2007 09:01:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:53:56 -0700, Sue... wrote:
Also... Scientists are supposed to attack messages,
not messengers. On the rare occasion that you make
a valid point, it is completely blunted when you package
it up as a personal attack. With allies like you, who
needs enemies. Please go help my opponents make
their arguments. You aren't winning any friends for
rational thought. :-(
Sue...
Are you horny, Sue? Do you want it? You're in an
unprotected forum again. Stop acting. Readers here want
performance!
The only thing in you that makes sense to a guy like me
is your ***** :) Oh you understand me all right.
--
"khodAyA, maz-habe bi'avAm, imAne
biriyA, khubiye binemud, gostAkhiye
bihAmi, manA'ate bighorur, eshghe
bihavas, tanhA'iye dar anbuhe jam'iyat,
va dustdAshtan bi'Anke dust bedAnad,
ruzi kon."
- Ali Shari'ati
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
03 Jun 2007 03:29:32 AM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
On Jun 3, 3:55 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roberts Roberts length contraction problems may be difficult for you
(then why do your brothers hypnotists set them in textbooks?) but this
does not mean you are not the Albert Einstein of our generation. I
know you are expert in time dilation problems so let us go there. A
few months ago there was some fuss in Einstein's criminal cult about a
1918 paper where Divine Albert explained the twin paradox in an
obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's
Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop
Grumman Corp)
In his obscure 1918 paper Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging
was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did
Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox
had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin
paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
I hope you will agree Roberts Roberts this is an expremely important
problem. Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin
is due to acceleration! Even if the world does not want to know (which
is quite probable), you Roberts Roberts is a honest man and will
explain everything. You are not like your criminal brothers hypnotists
who only care about money and explain nothing.
Roberts Roberts, apart from Einstein's 1918 obscurity, there is
another problem in Einstein criminal cult: there are too many
explanations of the twin paradox. And your brothers hypnotists suggest
the following reason:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/t...
"An old lawyer joke: "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client
never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he
returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was
already present when he borrowed it." Or to quote Shakespeare:
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why so many different
explanations? Are the relativists just trying to bamboozle their
opponents?"
In this forum John Baez offered no support for any
of the three methods and pointed out he was just
providing web-space.
C. S. Unnikrishnan offers a through analysis of
all three methods, finding none valid.
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
So the ming vase never even existed.
Also... Scientists are supposed to attack messages,
not messengers. On the rare occasion that you make
a valid point, it is completely blunted when you package
it up as a personal attack. With allies like you, who
needs enemies. Please go help my opponents make
their arguments. You aren't winning any friends for
rational thought.
I certainly do not need your friendship for rational thought. But the
reference you give is relevant. This text:
"The very fact that Einstein used the gravitational time dilation
predicted by the theory of general relativity, invented ten years
after the formulation of special relativity, to justify the
asymmetrical time dilation of transported
clocks...."
gives support to my discovery that the original name of Divine Albert
was Albert the Juggler.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
03 Jun 2007 03:40:51 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180859372.573625.136250@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
:
: Sue... wrote:
: > On Jun 3, 3:55 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
: > > > Roberts Roberts length contraction problems may be difficult for you
: > > > (then why do your brothers hypnotists set them in textbooks?) but
this
: > > > does not mean you are not the Albert Einstein of our generation. I
: > > > know you are expert in time dilation problems so let us go there. A
: > > > few months ago there was some fuss in Einstein's criminal cult about
a
: > > > 1918 paper where Divine Albert explained the twin paradox in an
: > > > obscure way:
: > >
: > > >http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
: > > > 2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
: > > > Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 :
Einstein's
: > > > Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop
: > > > Grumman Corp)
: > >
: > > > In his obscure 1918 paper Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging
: > > > was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did
: > > > Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox
: > > > had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin
: > > > paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
: > >
: > > >http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
: > >
: > > > I hope you will agree Roberts Roberts this is an expremely important
: > > > problem. Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
: > > > meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
: > > > wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling
twin
: > > > is due to acceleration! Even if the world does not want to know
(which
: > > > is quite probable), you Roberts Roberts is a honest man and will
: > > > explain everything. You are not like your criminal brothers
hypnotists
: > > > who only care about money and explain nothing.
: > >
: > > Roberts Roberts, apart from Einstein's 1918 obscurity, there is
: > > another problem in Einstein criminal cult: there are too many
: > > explanations of the twin paradox. And your brothers hypnotists suggest
: > > the following reason:
: > >
: > >
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/t...
: > > "An old lawyer joke: "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client
: > > never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he
: > > returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was
: > > already present when he borrowed it." Or to quote Shakespeare:
: > > "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why so many different
: > > explanations? Are the relativists just trying to bamboozle their
: > > opponents?"
: >
: > In this forum John Baez offered no support for any
: > of the three methods and pointed out he was just
: > providing web-space.
: >
: > C. S. Unnikrishnan offers a through analysis of
: > all three methods, finding none valid.
: > http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
: >
: > So the ming vase never even existed.
: >
: > Also... Scientists are supposed to attack messages,
: > not messengers. On the rare occasion that you make
: > a valid point, it is completely blunted when you package
: > it up as a personal attack. With allies like you, who
: > needs enemies. Please go help my opponents make
: > their arguments. You aren't winning any friends for
: > rational thought.
:
: I certainly do not need your friendship for rational thought. But the
: reference you give is relevant. This text:
:
: "The very fact that Einstein used the gravitational time dilation
: predicted by the theory of general relativity, invented ten years
: after the formulation of special relativity, to justify the
: asymmetrical time dilation of transported
: clocks...."
:
: gives support to my discovery that the original name of Divine Albert
: was Albert the Juggler.
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
Aww... Irrational Sue wants a friend. Better watch out, she's an
aetherialist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
05 Jul 2007 11:10:16 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roberts Roberts length contraction problems may be difficult for you
(then why do your brothers hypnotists set them in textbooks?) but this
does not mean you are not the Albert Einstein of our generation. I
know you are expert in time dilation problems so let us go there. A
few months ago there was some fuss in Einstein's criminal cult about a
1918 paper where Divine Albert explained the twin paradox in an
obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's
Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop
Grumman Corp)
In his obscure 1918 paper Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging
was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did
Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox
had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin
paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
I hope you will agree Roberts Roberts this is an expremely important
problem. Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin
is due to acceleration! Even if the world does not want to know (which
is quite probable), you Roberts Roberts is a honest man and will
explain everything. You are not like your criminal brothers hypnotists
who only care about money and explain nothing.
Roberts Roberts, apart from Einstein's 1918 obscurity, there is
another problem in Einstein criminal cult: there are too many
explanations of the twin paradox. And your brothers hypnotists suggest
the following reason:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
"An old lawyer joke: "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client
never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he
returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was
already present when he borrowed it." Or to quote Shakespeare:
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why so many different
explanations? Are the relativists just trying to bamboozle their
opponents?"
Roberts Roberts do you think the process of bamboozling started in
1918 when Divine Albert said acceleration was responsible for the
greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Or perhaps the process of
bamboozling started earlier, e.g. in 1905?
Roberts Roberts the process of bamboozling has gone so far that even
bamboozlers are bamboozled now:
http://www.physorg.com/news102850833.html
Why don't you organize some conference in Einstein criminal cult
Roberts Roberts? You cannot keep your heads in the sand forever, other
parts of your bodies grotesquely exposed. Things have become too
dangerous for you and your brothers Roberts Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
09 Jul 2007 02:13:51 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roberts Roberts length contraction problems may be difficult for you
(then why do your brothers hypnotists set them in textbooks?) but this
does not mean you are not the Albert Einstein of our generation. I
know you are expert in time dilation problems so let us go there. A
few months ago there was some fuss in Einstein's criminal cult about a
1918 paper where Divine Albert explained the twin paradox in an
obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's
Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop
Grumman Corp)
In his obscure 1918 paper Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging
was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did
Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox
had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin
paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
I hope you will agree Roberts Roberts this is an expremely important
problem. Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin
is due to acceleration! Even if the world does not want to know (which
is quite probable), you Roberts Roberts is a honest man and will
explain everything. You are not like your criminal brothers hypnotists
who only care about money and explain nothing.
Roberts Roberts, apart from Einstein's 1918 obscurity, there is
another problem in Einstein criminal cult: there are too many
explanations of the twin paradox. And your brothers hypnotists suggest
the following reason:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
"An old lawyer joke: "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client
never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he
returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was
already present when he borrowed it." Or to quote Shakespeare:
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why so many different
explanations? Are the relativists just trying to bamboozle their
opponents?"
Roberts Roberts do you think the process of bamboozling started in
1918 when Divine Albert said acceleration was responsible for the
greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Or perhaps the process of
bamboozling started earlier, e.g. in 1905?
Roberts Roberts the process of bamboozling has gone so far that even
bamboozlers are bamboozled now:
http://www.physorg.com/news102850833.html
Why don't you organize some conference in Einstein criminal cult
Roberts Roberts? You cannot keep your heads in the sand forever, other
parts of your bodies grotesquely exposed. Things have become too
dangerous for you and your brothers Roberts Roberts.
Roberts Roberts I suggest the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
should kick you out:
http://www.iit.edu/~bcps/database/search.cgi/Roberts/T/Physics/:/frontend/faculty/faculty_web_page
For years I have been trying to force you to resolve the following
problem:
Two bombs lie on a train platform, a distance L apart. As a train
passes by at speed v, the bombs explode simultaneously (in the
platform frame) and leave marks on the train. Due to the length
contraction of the train, we know that the marks on the train will be
a distance gamma.L apart when viewed in the train's frame (since this
distance is what is length-contracted down to the given distance L in
the platform frame). http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
p.46)
This setup could be replaced with another which is equivalent:
Two unbreakable barriers are installed on a train platform, a distance
L apart. As a train passes by at speed v, the barriers fall
simultaneously (in the platform frame) and block the railway. The
proper length of the train is greater than L but, due to the length
contraction of the train, right before the barriers fall, the observer
in the platform frame sees the train occupying only a short segment of
the distance between the barriers. In other words, the observer sees
the barriers "catching" the train. How long is the caught train?
You never cared Roberts Roberts and now Einstein criminal cult is
going to die. Why don't you care Roberts Roberts? A brother hypnotist
of yours called "The Boldest Shopkeeper" did try to resolve the
problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
However The Boldest Shopkeeper is not the Albert Einstein of our
generation - YOU are, Roberts Roberts (Hawking is no longer etc.). I
am afraid the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign does not need
an Albert Einstein of our generation who is unable to resolve any
problem.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
23 Jun 2007 03:44:13 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roberts Roberts length contraction problems may be difficult for you
(then why do your brothers hypnotists set them in textbooks?) but this
does not mean you are not the Albert Einstein of our generation. I
know you are expert in time dilation problems so let us go there. A
few months ago there was some fuss in Einstein's criminal cult about a
1918 paper where Divine Albert explained the twin paradox in an
obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's
Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop
Grumman Corp)
In his obscure 1918 paper Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging
was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did
Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox
had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin
paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
I hope you will agree Roberts Roberts this is an expremely important
problem. Why are your brothers hypnotists silent? They organized a
meeting, discussed the problem and....nothing. Is it fair? The world
wants to know whether the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin
is due to acceleration! Even if the world does not want to know (which
is quite probable), you Roberts Roberts is a honest man and will
explain everything. You are not like your criminal brothers hypnotists
who only care about money and explain nothing.
Roberts Roberts, apart from Einstein's 1918 obscurity, there is
another problem in Einstein criminal cult: there are too many
explanations of the twin paradox. And your brothers hypnotists suggest
the following reason:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
"An old lawyer joke: "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client
never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he
returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was
already present when he borrowed it." Or to quote Shakespeare:
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why so many different
explanations? Are the relativists just trying to bamboozle their
opponents?"
Roberts Roberts do you think the process of bamboozling started in
1918 when Divine Albert said acceleration was responsible for the
greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Or perhaps the process of
bamboozling started earlier, e.g. in 1905?
Roberts Roberts your silence proves the process of bamboozling started
in 1905:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Albert Einstein:
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved
with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B
the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B
lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to
magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in
the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still
holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and
also when the points A and B coincide."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN LENGTH CONTRACTION |
25 May 2007 04:13:00 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
kenseto wrote:
1. Length contraction: In SR is length contraction a real physical
process or just merely the projection of the length of the observed
rod onto the observer's frame?
It is of course a projection of an object's proper length onto the
coordinates used by an observer to make a measurement of its length.
Is this a valid measurement of the length of a moving train: mark its
back end at time 12:00 and its front end at time 13:00, and then measure
the distance between marks? OF COURSE NOT! To qualify as a "measurement
of the length of a moving object" it is absolutely necessary that one
mark the front and back ends SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is INHERENTLY a
projection of the moving object's length onto the coordinates used.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking has been dismissed). Now it is time for you to tackle even
the most difficult problems related to the concept of length
contraction. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick
remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If one sees the mark,
one sees the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well.
How long is the trapped stick? If you are really the Albert Einstein
of our generation, you will be able to twist and turn and camouflage
the absurdity in the end. Let us see.
Roberts Roberts you are still keeping your head in the sand but your
brothers etherists will resolve the problem at this conference:
http://physicsweb.org/events/11134
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy in the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory
http://www.phil-inst.hu/PIRT_Budapest
07 Sep 2007 - 09 Sep 2007
Budapest, Hungary
"While the organizing committee encourages critical investigations and
welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.)
approaches, including the recently proposed ether-type theories, it is
assumed that the received formal structure of the theory is valid and
anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."
At the conference your brothers etherists will discuss "the
ontological status of length-contraction and time-dilatation":
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/Brochure.htm
Do you know anything about "the ontological status of length-
contraction and time-dilatation", Roberts Roberts? No? That is the
reason why you Roberts Roberts, although the Albert Einstein of our
generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), cannot resolve the "Seeing
behind the stick" problem. Only brothers etherists can.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
