Basic postulates of SR
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: curvature of spacetime
Next: Hard SR questions?
From: Tom Roberts on 4 Aug 2006 20:44 Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > We will study the basic postulates of special theory of relativity: the > postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames [...] When the opening sentence of your abstract makes a basic and fundamental error that anyone who can read scientific papers would easily avoid, why should anyone think you have anything sensible to say? Since you seem oblivious, I'll point it out: that is not at all a postulate of SR. <shrug> Tom Roberts
From: Schoenfeld on 4 Aug 2006 21:46 Tom Roberts wrote: > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > We will study the basic postulates of special theory of relativity: the > > postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames [...] > > When the opening sentence of your abstract makes a basic and fundamental > error that anyone who can read scientific papers would easily avoid, why > should anyone think you have anything sensible to say? > > Since you seem oblivious, I'll point it out: that is not at all a > postulate of SR. <shrug> Example 3: The Physics Establishment Is A Historical Laughing Stock An examination of this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329 reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completed at second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds. It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the ground - a freefall. Let's do a simple calculation: distance travelled = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration * total time^2 or s = ut + 1/2at^2 Since the apple was stationary before falling (just like building was prior to collapse), u = 0. Since the height of the building was 174 meters, s = 174. Since we are at ground level the gravitational field strength is a constant, so a = 9.8 m/s^2 Now, 174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2 Solving for t t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8) = 5.9590 Well look at that, an apple would take 6 seconds to fall from the roof of WTC 7, just the same amount of time it took WTC 7 to collapse. The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've freefallen, further deducing that the ENTIRE STRUCTURE MUST'VE COLLAPSED SIMULTANEOUSLY. No minor fires can do that, _ONLY_ synchronized explosions can. That, ladies and gentleman, evidently exceeds the boundaries of the competence of our 'leading physicists' - the Wittens of the world, the Wheelers, their loyal groupies, those so called 'experts' who love to sell fables on gravitation and call others 'laymen', those who love to tell others that they 'have no chance'. > > Tom Roberts
From: hanson on 5 Aug 2006 00:16 "Sorcerer" <Headmaster(a)hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:CgLAg.47292$F8.37132(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > | > > | [hanson] > | Excellent post, Andro. Kudos. You make those Einstein Dingleberries > | wilt and hopefully one day they'll choke from/in their own debris and > |dust. --- Your curtain-closer: "where do we go from here" is and should > |be indeed the question and task of every physicist but not the > |Dingleberries insistence to stay with the status quo and ante. [more in] > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/71e55615b61b9687 > [Andro] > Dunno about you, mate, but I'm heading to the stars. I'll never get > there physically, but mine eyes have seen the glory. We don't live > long, any of us, it's up to us to satisfy our own curiousity about the > universe in which we live and if I can share what I know with others > then I have achieved my goal and then some. > Happiness is curiousity sated. This makes me unhappy: > [hanson] Cool! No argument from my side against your POV & MO. My heading into the unknown leans more towards to other side of the spectrum, asking: What experiments can be dreamed up and carried out that show why 1 mole of electron masses equal the Planck mass, and/or why 1 mole of Plank Lengths do equal the classical radius of the Hydrogen atom. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ddbc4469ef9f3df4 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1377421f6490052e > [Andro] > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm > My time remaining is not long, 10 years or so if I'm lucky, less > if I'm not. I cannot be idle. I've named a planet which I've > discovered, and named it honour of my daughter. > Polaris has been used by navigators since time immemorial, it is > directly above the North Pole and therefore North can always be > found from anywhere in the northern hemisphere. The significance > of Polaris is that all other stars appear to revolve around it as the > Earth turns, not that it is particularly big or bright. We are a maritime > nation and have spread the English language throughout the world, > America in the West and Australia in the East, iron men in wooden > ships, guided by the stars. Wendy was of that same iron. > I had that read at her funeral. > [hanson] That is a beautiful eulogy, John. Again, my condolences and my sympathy. > [Andro] > Thanks for the corrections, pal. I appreciate it. > For some reason when a long url is in place what follows > loses white space. > > Oddly enough it was the dingleberry Uncle Al Schwartz, I think, > that said "I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you" or > something like that. > Androcles > [hanson] hahahaha... I like your line --"the dingleberry Uncle Al Schwartz... that". "THAT" not "who", you indicating that you regard him more as being a dingleberry then a person..... But "Oddly enough" dingleberry Schwartz was not too close to the sphincter of Einstein. Cajoled dingleberry-Al confidently: "If I were Einstein, I'd be sweating it." http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/b1ee34810da1f2ba ahahaha...
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 5 Aug 2006 05:12 Tom Roberts пиÑ?ал(а): > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > We will study the basic postulates of special theory of relativity: the > > postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames [...] > > When the opening sentence of your abstract makes a basic and fundamental > error that anyone who can read scientific papers would easily avoid, why > should anyone think you have anything sensible to say? > > Since you seem oblivious, I'll point it out: that is not at all a > postulate of SR. <shrug> > > > Tom Roberts You become elder, dear Tom. :-) It was Einstein himself who has introduced the term "L-postulate". This is an old primitive relativistic trick. Don't try to catch me in it. :-) Sergey
From: Tom Roberts on 5 Aug 2006 08:27
Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > Tom Roberts ?????(?): >> Since you seem oblivious, I'll point it out: that is not at all a >> postulate of SR. <shrug> > > It was Einstein himself who has > introduced the term "L-postulate". I repeat: anyone who can READ would avoid your error. Just go back and actually READ Einstein's 1905 paper. He does not use what you claim is a postulate, he formulates his postulate in a significantly different way. <shrug> Tom Roberts |