Science > Physics > Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
05 Oct 2006 09:31:36 AM |
| Object: |
Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
For example:
1. Some SRians will say that length contraction is real and measurable
but this disagree with most knowledgeable SR experts.
2. Some SRians will say that identical clocks are running at the same
rate in all inertial frame but his disagree with the fact that all
clocks accumulate different elapsed time in different frames.
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 08:28:42 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
Because we expect the person we are conversing with to have basic
comprehension ability and can understand the many explanations that have
been posted on sci.physics.relativity innumerable times.
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
For example:
1. Some SRians will say that length contraction is real and measurable
but this disagree with most knowledgeable SR experts.
Who says that? SR says length contraction is measurable - whether it is
real is a philosophical issue.
2. Some SRians will say that identical clocks are running at the same
rate in all inertial frame but his disagree with the fact that all
clocks accumulate different elapsed time in different frames.
That you can't see that is not an issue simply shows your woeful
comprehension ability.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
06 Oct 2006 09:46:17 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
Because we expect the person we are conversing with to have basic
comprehension ability and can understand the many explanations that have
been posted on sci.physics.relativity innumerable times.
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
Yes.
For example:
1. Some SRians will say that length contraction is real and measurable
but this disagree with most knowledgeable SR experts.
Who says that?
Most knowledgeable SRians would say that length contraction is the
result of the projected length of the moving rod in the observ's frame.
SR says length contraction is measurable - whether it is
real is a philosophical issue.
If it is measurable as you said why it is not measured directly? You do
know that to meaure length contraction you need to mark both ends of
the moving rod simultaneously in your frame.....right??
2. Some SRians will say that identical clocks are running at the same
rate in all inertial frame but his disagree with the fact that all
clocks accumulate different elapsed time in different frames.
That you can't see that is not an issue simply shows your woeful
comprehension ability.
Clocks accumulating different elapsed time in different frames means
that they are not running at the same rate. So I guess that it is you
who have comprehension problem.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
06 Oct 2006 09:08:09 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160145977.177190.118240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
Because we expect the person we are conversing with to have basic
comprehension ability and can understand the many explanations that have
been posted on sci.physics.relativity innumerable times.
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
Yes.
For example:
1. Some SRians will say that length contraction is real and measurable
but this disagree with most knowledgeable SR experts.
Who says that?
Most knowledgeable SRians would say that length contraction is the
result of the projected length of the moving rod in the observ's frame.
As usual you avoided answering the question. What SRians say length
contraction is real and measurable rather than simply the different
projection of its length like rotating a rod to fit through a door?
Rest of rubbish snipped.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
07 Oct 2006 08:11:40 AM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160145977.177190.118240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
Because we expect the person we are conversing with to have basic
comprehension ability and can understand the many explanations that have
been posted on sci.physics.relativity innumerable times.
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
Yes.
For example:
1. Some SRians will say that length contraction is real and measurable
but this disagree with most knowledgeable SR experts.
Who says that?
Most knowledgeable SRians would say that length contraction is the
result of the projected length of the moving rod in the observ's frame.
As usual you avoided answering the question. What SRians say length
contraction is real and measurable rather than simply the different
projection of its length like rotating a rod to fit through a door?
Ask PD....he said that length contraction is real and measurable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not whatSR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
07 Oct 2006 09:27:25 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Ask PD....he said that length contraction is real and measurable.
Comes out of the 1905 paper...
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
There has never been a prediction of special relativity that was
contradicted by an observation, Seto, including time dilation,
mass increase and length contraction. Reality is observer dependent!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
07 Oct 2006 08:36:07 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160145977.177190.118240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
Because we expect the person we are conversing with to have basic
comprehension ability and can understand the many explanations that have
been posted on sci.physics.relativity innumerable times.
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
Yes.
For example:
1. Some SRians will say that length contraction is real and measurable
but this disagree with most knowledgeable SR experts.
Who says that?
Most knowledgeable SRians would say that length contraction is the
result of the projected length of the moving rod in the observ's frame.
As usual you avoided answering the question. What SRians say length
contraction is real and measurable rather than simply the different
projection of its length like rotating a rod to fit through a door?
Ask PD....he said that length contraction is real and measurable.
Yup.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
07 Oct 2006 08:35:15 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Bill Hobba wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
Because we expect the person we are conversing with to have basic
comprehension ability and can understand the many explanations that have
been posted on sci.physics.relativity innumerable times.
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
Yes.
For example:
1. Some SRians will say that length contraction is real and measurable
but this disagree with most knowledgeable SR experts.
Who says that?
Most knowledgeable SRians would say that length contraction is the
result of the projected length of the moving rod in the observ's frame.
No. Close but not quite what was said, and the difference is crucial.
SR says length contraction is measurable - whether it is
real is a philosophical issue.
If it is measurable as you said why it is not measured directly?
It is. I've already told you so.
You do
know that to meaure length contraction you need to mark both ends of
the moving rod simultaneously in your frame.....right??
Yes, but there are many ways to do that, too. You have to keep in mind,
please, that the way that is imagined in a "gedanken" does not define
the *only* proper way to make that measurement. I realize that, for
you, the assocation would be much more conveniently apparent if they
did that, but it isn't a requirement.
2. Some SRians will say that identical clocks are running at the same
rate in all inertial frame but his disagree with the fact that all
clocks accumulate different elapsed time in different frames.
That you can't see that is not an issue simply shows your woeful
comprehension ability.
Clocks accumulating different elapsed time in different frames means
that they are not running at the same rate.
Nope. And understanding why this is not a logical necessity is key to a
proper understanding of SR. Insisting that it IS a logical necessity is
not only wrong, but will prevent you from understanding SR.
So I guess that it is you
who have comprehension problem.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
06 Oct 2006 05:45:45 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
The answer:
1. They invoke the phrase because you don't understand SR
and what it says.
2. They don't explain what SR really says because not only
are you too stupid to understand, you are first of all too stupid
to even *listen* to what they tell you.
Ken, do you realize that you are even more stupid than
*Androcles*?
I know that this sounds absolutely incredible, but doesn't that
terrify you?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
06 Oct 2006 06:25:17 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
The answer:
1. They invoke the phrase because you don't understand SR
and what it says.
2. They don't explain what SR really says because not only
are you too stupid to understand, you are first of all too stupid
to even *listen* to what they tell you.
Ken, do you realize that you are even more stupid than
*Androcles*?
No way.
Ken at least pretends to listen every once in awhile.
Androcles has completely seperated off into his own little compactified
dementia where he won't even respond coherently to what people say to
him. Ken, in comparison, is simply an idiot.
I know that this sounds absolutely incredible, but doesn't that
terrify you?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
07 Oct 2006 08:31:07 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
The answer:
1. They invoke the phrase because you don't understand SR
and what it says.
2. They don't explain what SR really says because not only
are you too stupid to understand, you are first of all too stupid
to even *listen* to what they tell you.
Ken, do you realize that you are even more stupid than
*Androcles*?
No way.
Ken at least pretends to listen every once in awhile.
Androcles has completely seperated off into his own little compactified
dementia where he won't even respond coherently to what people say to
him. Ken, in comparison, is simply an idiot.
Gisse is a runt of the SRians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
07 Oct 2006 02:21:45 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1160058696.033718.245000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
but at the same time don't explain what SR really says????
The answer:
1. they don't know what SR says.
2. most of them have different interpretations what SR says.
No.
The answer:
1. They invoke the phrase because you don't understand SR
and what it says.
2. They don't explain what SR really says because not only
are you too stupid to understand, you are first of all too stupid
to even *listen* to what they tell you.
Ken, do you realize that you are even more stupid than
*Androcles*?
No way.
Ken at least pretends to listen every once in awhile.
Androcles has completely seperated off into his own little compactified
dementia where he won't even respond coherently to what people say to
him. Ken, in comparison, is simply an idiot.
Gisse is a runt of the SRians.
Oh Ken-chan ^_^
.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not whatSR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 10:02:37 AM |
|
|
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 12:26:28 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not whatSR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 12:56:51 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
06 Oct 2006 01:45:03 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not whatSR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
06 Oct 2006 02:14:10 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
My point is that SR is a mathematical theory which enjoys
superb agreement with empirical data. Either you understand
the mathematics or you don't. Your posting record, Seto, is
indicative of you NOT understanding special relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
07 Oct 2006 08:29:47 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
My point is that SR is a mathematical theory which enjoys
superb agreement with empirical data. Either you understand
the mathematics or you don't. Your posting record, Seto, is
indicative of you NOT understanding special relativity.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians. He said that he understands SR and yet
he said that in SR there is no absolute rest.....such a statement shows
that he doean't iunderstand SR. He failed to realize that SR doesn't
deny absolute rest it only says that it doesn't need the absolute rest
frame to do physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not whatSR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
07 Oct 2006 09:21:39 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
My point is that SR is a mathematical theory which enjoys
superb agreement with empirical data. Either you understand
the mathematics or you don't. Your posting record, Seto, is
indicative of you NOT understanding special relativity.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians. He said that he understands SR and yet
he said that in SR there is no absolute rest.....such a statement shows
that he doean't iunderstand SR. He failed to realize that SR doesn't
deny absolute rest it only says that it doesn't need the absolute rest
frame to do physics.
SR, nor anything else in physics requires absolute motion or rest.
Such concepts only serve to keep you confused, Seto.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
10 Oct 2006 08:36:13 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
My point is that SR is a mathematical theory which enjoys
superb agreement with empirical data. Either you understand
the mathematics or you don't. Your posting record, Seto, is
indicative of you NOT understanding special relativity.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians. He said that he understands SR and yet
he said that in SR there is no absolute rest.....such a statement shows
that he doean't iunderstand SR. He failed to realize that SR doesn't
deny absolute rest it only says that it doesn't need the absolute rest
frame to do physics.
SR, nor anything else in physics requires absolute motion or rest.
Such concepts only serve to keep you confused, Seto.
No wormy it's you who is confused
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not whatSR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
10 Oct 2006 09:52:34 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
My point is that SR is a mathematical theory which enjoys
superb agreement with empirical data. Either you understand
the mathematics or you don't. Your posting record, Seto, is
indicative of you NOT understanding special relativity.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians. He said that he understands SR and yet
he said that in SR there is no absolute rest.....such a statement shows
that he doean't iunderstand SR. He failed to realize that SR doesn't
deny absolute rest it only says that it doesn't need the absolute rest
frame to do physics.
SR, nor anything else in physics requires absolute motion or rest.
Such concepts only serve to keep you confused, Seto.
No wormy it's you who is confused
Not according to my colleagues, textbooks and published manuscripts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
10 Oct 2006 09:56:16 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
My point is that SR is a mathematical theory which enjoys
superb agreement with empirical data. Either you understand
the mathematics or you don't. Your posting record, Seto, is
indicative of you NOT understanding special relativity.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians. He said that he understands SR and yet
he said that in SR there is no absolute rest.....such a statement shows
that he doean't iunderstand SR. He failed to realize that SR doesn't
deny absolute rest it only says that it doesn't need the absolute rest
frame to do physics.
SR, nor anything else in physics requires absolute motion or rest.
Such concepts only serve to keep you confused, Seto.
No wormy it's you who is confused
Not according to my colleagues, textbooks and published manuscripts.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
10 Oct 2006 03:22:17 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
My point is that SR is a mathematical theory which enjoys
superb agreement with empirical data. Either you understand
the mathematics or you don't. Your posting record, Seto, is
indicative of you NOT understanding special relativity.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians. He said that he understands SR and yet
he said that in SR there is no absolute rest.....such a statement shows
that he doean't iunderstand SR. He failed to realize that SR doesn't
deny absolute rest it only says that it doesn't need the absolute rest
frame to do physics.
SR, nor anything else in physics requires absolute motion or rest.
Such concepts only serve to keep you confused, Seto.
No wormy it's you who is confused
Not according to my colleagues, textbooks and published manuscripts.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
What books are you reading, Ken?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not whatSR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
10 Oct 2006 10:00:48 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
For Seto--From the horses mouth:
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ah....but do you understand what the paper is saying?? I think not.
Funny you should happen to mention that, Seto!
Yes indeed!!!
My point is that SR is a mathematical theory which enjoys
superb agreement with empirical data. Either you understand
the mathematics or you don't. Your posting record, Seto, is
indicative of you NOT understanding special relativity.
Wormy is a runt of the SRians. He said that he understands SR and yet
he said that in SR there is no absolute rest.....such a statement shows
that he doean't iunderstand SR. He failed to realize that SR doesn't
deny absolute rest it only says that it doesn't need the absolute rest
frame to do physics.
SR, nor anything else in physics requires absolute motion or rest.
Such concepts only serve to keep you confused, Seto.
No wormy it's you who is confused
Not according to my colleagues, textbooks and published manuscripts.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
...says the man, Seto, against the rest of the world!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 12:34:23 PM |
|
|
SR really only says two things:
1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
2) dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (c dt)^2 is invariant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 12:52:13 PM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1160069663.671518.287630@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| SR really only says two things:
|
| 1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
What are these mysterious "laws of physics", *****?
Where does Einstein say "inertial", fuckwit?
|
| 2) dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (c dt)^2 is invariant.
HAHAHAHA!
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img40.gif
Have a good jerk-off on that, wanker.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 12:56:29 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1160069663.671518.287630@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| SR really only says two things:
|
| 1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
What are these mysterious "laws of physics", *****?
Where does Einstein say "inertial", fuckwit?
|
| 2) dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (c dt)^2 is invariant.
HAHAHAHA!
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img40.gif
Have a good jerk-off on that, wanker.
Androcles.
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Everyone knows by now that you
fall into the latter category. Jerk off on that, you moron!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 01:07:06 PM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1160070989.540351.324570@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
| > news:1160069663.671518.287630@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | SR really only says two things:
| > |
| > | 1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
| >
| > What are these mysterious "laws of physics", *****?
| > Where does Einstein say "inertial", fuckwit?
| >
| >
| > |
| > | 2) dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (c dt)^2 is invariant.
| >
| > HAHAHAHA!
| >
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img40.gif
| >
| > Have a good jerk-off on that, wanker.
| > Androcles.
|
| Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Everyone knows by now that you
| fall into the latter category. Jerk off on that, you moron!
|
What are these mysterious "laws of physics", ineducable ignorant stupid
*****?
Where does Einstein say "inertial", fuckwit?
Too embarrassed to answer, dumbfuck, or just don't know?
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
05 Oct 2006 01:09:03 PM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:eRbVg.81878$aP3.18448@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1160070989.540351.324570@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
| > news:1160069663.671518.287630@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | SR really only says two things:
| > |
| > | 1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.
| >
| > What are these mysterious "laws of physics", *****?
| > Where does Einstein say "inertial", fuckwit?
| >
| >
| > |
| > | 2) dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (c dt)^2 is invariant.
| >
| > HAHAHAHA!
| >
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img40.gif
| >
| > Have a good jerk-off on that, wanker.
| > Androcles.
|
| Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Everyone knows by now that you
| fall into the latter category. Jerk off on that, you moron!
|
What are these mysterious "laws of physics", ineducable ignorant stupid
*****?
Where does Einstein say "inertial", fuckwit?
Too embarrassed to answer, dumbfuck, or just don't know?
Too intelligent to try to have a technical conversation with
a mongoloid ape like you.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not whatSR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
06 Oct 2006 09:30:34 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Why does the SRians often invokes the phrase "That's not what SR says"
Because what you say SR says, that's not what SR says.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does the SRians often invoking the phrase "That's not what SR says" and at the same time don't explain what SR really says???? |
06 Oct 2006 10:15:32 AM |
|
|
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:eg5pab$o69$1@dolly.uninett.no...
[snip babble]
Let us hypothesize a rigid rod aligned with the x-axis, ends
at 0 and 1, and strike the end of the rod with a hammer to
accelerate the rod in the positive x-direction at t = 0.
The impulse moves along the rod at the speed of sound
(in rod material) and the end which is at 1 begins to move
at t = 1.
Conclusion:
The hypothesis is false, the rod is not rigid.
To be rigid, it is so dense as to be a cylindrical black hole,
which will not move when struck by a hammer.
Ever had that "butterfly in the tummy" feeling that children
love when riding roller coasters? It's because your internal
organs bend your diaphragm relative to your skeleton.
In gravitational free fall ALL of your body accelerates
together simultaneously, but in a push your fat arse is
compressed between your skin and pelvis, which has inertia.
It is this compression that results in bruises when I beat
your hollow head in with a baseball bat. In other people
the same effect causes brain damage, but they have a
brain to be damaged.
Gravity acts THROUGH matter, there are no gravity shields.
Mathematicians use the term "field" for this phenomenon,
but that's only because they have not coined a word for it
and have borrowed from agriculture. An area field of grass
for cattle to graze is the same everywhere (ideally), a volumetric
field is also the same everywhere. If I were a Shakespeare
I'd call it a grield, if you were an Ibsen you'd be just as
confused as you are now. The language needs to develop
to convey the ideas.
Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" <sigh>", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
I'm discussing the concepts that have no words. Alas, I am
no Shakespeare or even Ibsen.
The written page has encouraged 2 dimensional thinking.
Rubik had a very useful educational tool in his cube, a
mathematical group with the operation of rotation on a set.
Every child should own one. We have words such as volume
and area, but we apply "field" to both.
In the case of the "rigid" rod, both ends and all matter between
moves simultaneously in a grield. Should the grield not be uniform
(inverse square law) the rod will turn as one end is accelerated
more than the other, and so the Moon maintains one face toward
the Earth, or did until Commander David Scott hit it with a hammer
and a feather simultanously, the hammer and feather being
rigidly connected as far as I could tell.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
