A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 06:00 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:190599c1-6e5e-4ad8-a741-272499753ad8(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > You didn't ask for a "definition of gravity". He asked: 'Explain to me what gravity "really is" under Newton.' If asking what something "really is" is NOT asking for a definition, then I'm not sure what is (other than using the exact words "what is a definition of gravity")
From: Bruce Richmond on 1 Mar 2010 07:29 On Mar 1, 12:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Illustration: > > > > E1 > > > > -------- > > > > E2 > > > > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the > > > observers may move while always reporting both events to be > > > simultaneous. > > > You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on > > the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the > > line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about > > seperation along the axis of travel. In the train experient A and B > > are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off > > to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally > > considered in the train experiment. > > This is called "revisionism", Bruce. The statement was not "about > seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is > simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste, > you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR". I haven't read every one of the posts in this thread but I think the topic was RoS. The question is "Is what is simultaneous in one frame necessarily simultaneous in the other?" You have set up a special case where they are. But we can also set up situations where they are not, so the answer is no. And I did not call you an idiot. Please comment on the remainder of that post. > Apparently, both statements have been falsified. Hehehe. Next!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Bruce Richmond on 1 Mar 2010 07:34 On Mar 1, 12:45 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e9b52490-dec2-4027-8a71-c831115ab04a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 28 Feb, 17:20, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 27, 8:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> > You should give Ste a specific book recommendation: > > >> > Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler > > >> > The second edition can generally be picked up used for about $25. > >> > The first edition is frequently found on eBay with a "Buy it now" > >> > price of $5 to $10. > > >> [...] > > >> IMO that book stinks for explaining SR. It presents the math but > >> doesn't provide the underlying reason for the math. > > > Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand > > in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading > > lists! > > >> Another thing I don't like is their constant repetition of how things > >> aren't what we expect because we aren't used to dealing with the > >> speeds involved. That's BS. > > > Yes, I get a bit tired of that even on this newsgroup. > > Yet it is correct. Whether you tired of it or not.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, it is an easy way of avoiding a full explaination.
From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 08:00 What he does is demand continually that you dumb it down, and then finally he complains its dumb. The good news is that he almost certainly does not design cyclotrons for a living, or develop space comunications systems, or teaches science or physics at any level, and accordingly his views on SR are probably of no wider concern than his own wildly inflated opinions of his own incredibly meagre talents.
From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 08:05
Excellent. |