According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
in [Relativity]
|
From: valls on 3 Jun 2010 16:02 On 3 jun, 13:52, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 3, 9:45 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 10:37, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:> On Jun 1, 1:40 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > I am avoiding here to talk about the Lorentz transformation, not > > > > having yet a definite position about it. For the moment, I note that > > > > in 1905R it applies only FROM a stationary system TO a moving one (see > > > > paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 paper where it is derived). > > > > No, it doesn't. You should start collaborating with the other idiot > > > (Lebau) who claims the same thing. > > > Hello Dono. > > Read the title of paragraph 3 in the 30Jun1905 paper (page 5): > > [parr.3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a > > Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation > > Relatively to the Former] > > > The title is very clear: FROM a Stationary System TO a Moving System. > > Do you think that Stationary System and Moving System are the same > > concept in 1905 Relativity? If you think so, then show us how can you > > apply a transformation of coordinates and time FROM the clock at the > > equator TO the clock at the pole, in the real example 1905 Einstein > > put at the end of paragraph 4 in the same 30Jun1905 paper, obtaining > > then that the clock at the pole runs slower than the clock at the > > equator (in total contradiction with the today GPS huge experimental > > evidence, putting out of any doubt the unidirectional character of the > > transformation, and showing which is the unique right direction (the > > one specified by 1905 Einstein, FROM the pole TO the equator). > > By the way, we are considering here the same GPS ECI inertial system > > that you pretend to use describing the Suns trajectory with respect > > to it. With all respect, you dont finish yet the task? > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > You will NEVER understand the 1905 paper, let alone SR. You should > hook up with the Lebau kook. You two form a perfect pair. Calculate then how slow is moving the clock at the pole with respect to the one at the equator (using what you believe is 1905 Relativity). I will add it to your personal list of (totally impossible) tasks. Not taking into account the experimental evidence, almost sure will always maintain you in the wrong road. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 3 Jun 2010 17:11 On 3 jun, 14:02, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 3, 8:41 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > [...] > > > > > Thanks a lot for your references. > > Resuming, I find very weak the objections against the 1905R derived > > HIS view that you have just presented (maybe I had not understood them > > properly). > > I dont know if you are following or not in detail the whole debate in > > this thread. > > No... It would be impossible to follow a discussion where you > invoke gravitational shielding as part of your theory, but > also claim it is a problem with other theories. > Remember that I am only following 1905 Einsteins Relativity. I explain already in my last post that I am not mentioning at all any gravitational shielding. As you are insisting now in it (without taking into account my last post explanation), I have no other alternative that request to you the exact place where you claim I am referring to a gravitational shielding (before your mention of such a thing) as part of my theory. > > I would like to know your opinion about the more hot > > topics, as rest mass measuring potential energy and being also equal > > to inertial mass, this last equality without any comment at all until > > now. > > Since nothing is ever at rest, that in not very "hot topic". > Surely not at an absolute rest (with possible the whole Universe as the unique exception, not having it any other thing for move with respect to). You really think that rest mass measuring potential energy and at the same time being inertial mass is not a hot topic? Surely you have not now an idea about what the implications are. > There IS however a secret I can share if you promise not to > tell a soul. Only a few people know that Einstein was > so successful with his 1905 paper that he retired from physics > and took up professional violin in 1906. Many of the performances of > the romantic era are actually Einstein playing in disguise and the > later physics papers credited to him were actually written by > violinists who for one reason or another could not attend > a concert and had no other way to pay for his "pinch hitting" :-)) > > Sue... > I am not interested at all in Einsteins personal life, including scientific credits in any epoch. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Sue... on 3 Jun 2010 18:31 On Jun 3, 5:11 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 3 jun, 14:02, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 8:41 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > [...] > > > > Thanks a lot for your references. > > > Resuming, I find very weak the objections against the 1905R derived > > > HIS view that you have just presented (maybe I had not understood them > > > properly). > > > I dont know if you are following or not in detail the whole debate in > > > this thread. > > > No... It would be impossible to follow a discussion where you > > invoke gravitational shielding as part of your theory, but > > also claim it is a problem with other theories. > > Remember that I am only following 1905 Einsteins Relativity. I am constantly reminded of this by others like yourself who stubbornly remain ignorant of advanced electromagnetism, tensor calculus or or much of anything beyond Pythagoras relation and obstinate dishonest debating tactics. It is one of the few occasions when life deals fairly and justly. Delusional people victimise themselves more than anyone else. :-) Sue... > I > explain already in my last post that I am not mentioning at all any > gravitational shielding. As you are insisting now in it (without > taking into account my last post explanation), I have no other > alternative that request to you the exact place where you claim I am > referring to a gravitational shielding (before your mention of such > a thing) as part of my theory.> > I would like to know your opinion about the more hot > > > topics, as rest mass measuring potential energy and being also equal > > > to inertial mass, this last equality without any comment at all until > > > now. > > > Since nothing is ever at rest, that in not very "hot topic". > > Surely not at an absolute rest (with possible the whole Universe as > the unique exception, not having it any other thing for move with > respect to). You really think that rest mass measuring potential > energy and at the same time being inertial mass is not a hot topic? > Surely you have not now an idea about what the implications are.> There IS however a secret I can share if you promise not to > > tell a soul. Only a few people know that Einstein was > > so successful with his 1905 paper that he retired from physics > > and took up professional violin in 1906. Many of the performances of > > the romantic era are actually Einstein playing in disguise and the > > later physics papers credited to him were actually written by > > violinists who for one reason or another could not attend > > a concert and had no other way to pay for his "pinch hitting" :-)) > > > Sue... > > I am not interested at all in Einsteins personal life, including > scientific credits in any epoch. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 4 Jun 2010 15:43 On 3 jun, 17:31, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 3, 5:11 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 jun, 14:02, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Jun 3, 8:41 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > Thanks a lot for your references. > > > > Resuming, I find very weak the objections against the 1905R derived > > > > HIS view that you have just presented (maybe I had not understood them > > > > properly). > > > > I dont know if you are following or not in detail the whole debate in > > > > this thread. > > > > No... It would be impossible to follow a discussion where you > > > invoke gravitational shielding as part of your theory, but > > > also claim it is a problem with other theories. > > > Remember that I am only following 1905 Einsteins Relativity. > > I am constantly reminded of this by others like > yourself who stubbornly remain ignorant of > advanced electromagnetism, tensor calculus or > or much of anything beyond Pythagoras relation > and obstinate dishonest debating tactics. > > It is one of the few occasions when life deals > fairly and justly. Delusional people victimise > themselves more than anyone else. :-) > > Sue... > I have no idea at all what dishonest debating tactics are you talking about. By the way, you forgot to point in what place (before you introducing it), you say I mention gravitational shielding for something (I dont remember that, but if true, I apologize you in advance for saying the contrary). As the topic in this thread refers only to 1905 Relativity, I always make clear and direct references to the relevant 1905 text, with no relation at all with concepts used or developed in its future (like the advanced electromagnetism and tensor calculus that you think I am ignorant, in a senseless comment totally out of context). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Sue... on 4 Jun 2010 15:56
On Jun 4, 3:43 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 3 jun, 17:31, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 5:11 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > On 3 jun, 14:02, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 3, 8:41 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your references. > > > > > Resuming, I find very weak the objections against the 1905R derived > > > > > HIS view that you have just presented (maybe I had not understood them > > > > > properly). > > > > > I dont know if you are following or not in detail the whole debate in > > > > > this thread. > > > > > No... It would be impossible to follow a discussion where you > > > > invoke gravitational shielding as part of your theory, but > > > > also claim it is a problem with other theories. > > > > Remember that I am only following 1905 Einsteins Relativity. > > > I am constantly reminded of this by others like > > yourself who stubbornly remain ignorant of > > advanced electromagnetism, tensor calculus or > > or much of anything beyond Pythagoras relation > > and obstinate dishonest debating tactics. > > > It is one of the few occasions when life deals > > fairly and justly. Delusional people victimise > > themselves more than anyone else. :-) > > > Sue... > > I have no idea at all what dishonest debating tactics are you > talking about. By the way, you forgot to point in what place (before > you introducing it), you say I mention gravitational shielding for > something (I dont remember that, but if true, I apologize you in > advance for saying the contrary). Simply scroll back where you suggest gravitational behaviour is different inside and outside objects. That is "shielding" whether you use the term or not. The example of loose bits in a camera box is offered to show your premise is false. Sue... > As the topic in this thread refers only to 1905 Relativity, I always > make clear and direct references to the relevant 1905 text, with no > relation at all with concepts used or developed in its future (like > the advanced electromagnetism and tensor calculus that you think I am > ignorant, in a senseless comment totally out of context). > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |