Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: sue jahn on 28 Jul 2005 11:30 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96A261D6E78BAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea34f2$0$18648 > $14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > > Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's > > relativity say's the shaft should do. > > > > Einsteins relativity doesn't say anything about a shaft extending from one > accelerating FoR to another accelerating FoR, as far as I can tell. Einstein's relativity says volumes about the remote obeservation of clocks and time so if you have any understanding of it at all this should be a simple problem. > > If you can tell me the chapter and verse, I will look it up. Are you complaing because he did not solve that specific problem for you? > The library is still trying to find a copy of "Einsteins Relativity > according to Sue and Snoopy too", perhaps someone gave me the wrong title? > What is the library of congress number for your book? They need that or > your full name. I think if you'll browse this news group's archives you'll find neither Sue nor Snoopy can take credit for it. It does have real gravitational solution and a logical interpretaton but as long as you are relying on myths instead of logic, you may not catch on. http://www.satribune.com/archives/feb29_mar6_04/inset_schools.jpg Real physicsicists can make real predictions. What is your prediction? Sue... > > > > -- > bz > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. > > bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz on 29 Jul 2005 13:00 "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dcdekp$m7e$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns969BB7BCD3613WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbrieo$q9g$1 >> @news.freedom2surf.net: >> >>> We are certainly on the verge of moving to >>> verge of handling single photons routinely. >> >> Yep >> >>> Thanks again for the links. >> >> quite welcome. I looked but I didn't see anything there that would tell >> me the pulse width [photon length?]. >> >> The spectra seem to indicate that the single photons have very narrow >> bandwidth [as I would expect]. > > If a photon has a specific energy and that is > proportional to frequency, then a single photon > has a unique frequency hence zero bandwidth and > infinite duration >:-( > > At least it does with a semi-classical view. > > If you include Heisenberg, then the uncertainty > in the measured energy relates to the uncertainty > in the frequency which depends on the time over > which the frequency is measured, hence the > bandwidth is related to the method of measurement, > and I don't need to point out the crucial role of > measurement methods in QM. > > As a result, I don't think a photon has a specific > length or duration, but the idea of it as a single > cycle with hard ends at the zero crossings can be > ruled out as too simplistic. I suspect that the lil critters don't care about Heisenberg, QM, or information theory. I am not sure if they like rock, classical or semi-classical. The question is interesting, however. Bumper sticker: Heisenberg may have slept here. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz on 29 Jul 2005 13:01 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea4ba2$0$18643 $14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > Real physicsicists can make real predictions. > What is your prediction? > I predict an explosive situation. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: sue jahn on 28 Jul 2005 14:48 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96A27A895D8DFWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea4ba2$0$18643 > $14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > > Real physicsicists can make real predictions. > > What is your prediction? > > > > I predict an explosive situation. Thank you. I will be sure to quote you on that the next time you want to dismiss a clock correction as a path effect. Sue... > > > > -- > bz > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. > > bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz on 29 Jul 2005 15:49
"sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea7a1d$0$18641$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns96A27A895D8DFWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea4ba2$0$18643 >> $14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: >> >> > Real physicsicists can make real predictions. >> > What is your prediction? >> > >> >> I predict an explosive situation. > > Thank you. I will be sure to quote you on that the next time > you want to dismiss a clock correction as a path effect. If you do, you will be quoting me out of context. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |