How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: Sue... on 20 May 2010 08:27 On May 20, 6:55 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On May 20, 5:06 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On May 19, 10:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > [..] > > > > DDRR seems to be confusing the two theories. > > > I'm shocked, shocked to find that confusion is going on in here! > > > Sue... ========== > > Hi Sue, don't you think it's amusing? It is slighly more amusing than alcohol and drug addiction. In a moment of sobriety the victim can see the absurdity of his actions but that insight never last long enough to overcome the sense of power and well being that self-delusion can create. The Lorentz etherists are impotent without their parlour tricks and paradoxes so it is pointless to offer logical interpretation. What magical power can one wield uttering mundane statements like: "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments." Two kids playing a game of catch-ball on an aeroplane won't even be impressed with that. ;-) Sue...
From: harald on 20 May 2010 09:41 On May 20, 2:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:64d3e64f-1294-4ea2-90d8-93335f47f715(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 20, 1:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > >>news:0acfa033-9d0d-4e1d-8f78-0cf9d9bad4db(a)i31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On May 20, 1:30 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> messagenews:1e5a95e0-312d-431a-9822-3995e7355f0f(a)e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On May 17, 9:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> >> messagenews:00cb267f-d23d-43d4-a877-28e163decae6(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >>>and the null result did not change anything about light, > >> >> >>it changed what was known about light > > >> >> > Like what? > > >> >> Study up on the history of aether theory and of EMR if you > >> >> don't know. The > >> >> very fact that the result was unexpected meant there need to be > >> >> a change in how light was understood. > > >> > Wrong, > > >> Nope. Stop deluding yourself. > > >> > instead the understanding of mechanics theory was changed. The > >> > special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the Maxwell- > >> > Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. All facts of > >> > experience which support the electromagnetic theory also > >> > support the theory of relativity. > > >> > Harald > > > As I cited from Einstein it's you who is deluding yourself. But I > > don't care if you continue with that. ;-) > > I don't care who you misquote or think you are citing .. MMx changed > how light was thought about. Get over it. Evidently you have something to "get over"! As Einstein emphasized, SRT *kept* Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics (although it was later enhanced with QM). MMX did *not* change how Lorentz and Einstein thought about light. Evidently MMX affected how *you* think about light, but that's irrelevant in a discussion about how SRT "corrected the MMX math". ;-) Harald
From: harald on 20 May 2010 09:42 On May 20, 2:27 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On May 20, 6:55 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On May 20, 5:06 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 10:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > [..] > > > > > DDRR seems to be confusing the two theories. > > > > I'm shocked, shocked to find that confusion is going on in here! > > > > Sue... > > ========== > > > > > Hi Sue, don't you think it's amusing? > > It is slighly more amusing than alcohol and drug > addiction. In a moment of sobriety the victim > can see the absurdity of his actions but that insight > never last long enough to overcome the sense of > power and well being that self-delusion can create. > > The Lorentz etherists are impotent without their > parlour tricks and paradoxes so it is pointless > to offer logical interpretation. > > What magical power can one wield uttering mundane > statements like: > > "All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments." > > Two kids playing a game of catch-ball on an > aeroplane won't even be impressed with that. ;-) > > Sue... :)) And our excuse that an airplane isn't a perfect inertial frame? Harald
From: Daryl McCullough on 20 May 2010 11:04 harald says... >It's reassuring that you understand that the variation of velocity of >the Earth is relevant for stellar aberration. But that makes it even >more amazing that you cannot (or refuse to) understand that the >variation in velocity is equally relevant for Lorentz contraction in >SRT (which the OP called "SRT math"). No motion = nothing to discuss >or consider; I don't understand that point. Even if you ignore the orbital motion of the Earth, the surface of the Earth is moving at over 400 meters per second. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Sue... on 20 May 2010 11:26
On May 20, 9:42 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On May 20, 2:27 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 6:55 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 5:06 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 10:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > > DDRR seems to be confusing the two theories. > > > > > I'm shocked, shocked to find that confusion is going on in here! > > > > > Sue... > > > ========== > > > > Hi Sue, don't you think it's amusing? > > > It is slighly more amusing than alcohol and drug > > addiction. In a moment of sobriety the victim > > can see the absurdity of his actions but that insight > > never last long enough to overcome the sense of > > power and well being that self-delusion can create. > > > The Lorentz etherists are impotent without their > > parlour tricks and paradoxes so it is pointless > > to offer logical interpretation. > > > What magical power can one wield uttering mundane > > statements like: > "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments." > > > Two kids playing a game of catch-ball on an > > aeroplane won't even be impressed with that. ;-) > > > Sue... > ========== > :)) And our excuse that an airplane isn't a perfect inertial frame? Replace this troublesome device with a spring and weight, shielded from the corrosive 'elements' and that excuse might merit some consideration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube Sue... > > Harald |