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: whoever on 23 May 2010 19:39 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1fb454dd-c3d3-4551-a7ac-2640ac4dbcea(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > On May 23, 12:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:5505ba9b-77cf-4654-97d8-4ae39f526b17(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 23, 8:31 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:HfSdnfox3dNSa2vW4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... >> >> >> > Inertial wrote: >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> However, both LET and SR predict that relatively moving observers >> >> >> will >> >> >> measure a shorter spatial distance between two events than a >> >> >> co-moving >> >> >> observer will measure. >> >> >> > Not quite. This holds for measuring the length of an object, not for >> >> > any >> >> > arbitrary pair of events. Necessarily when measuring the length of a >> >> > moving object in an inertial frame, both ends of the object must be >> >> > marked >> >> > simultaneously in the frame; that cannot be done for an arbitrary >> >> > pair >> >> > of >> >> > events. >> >> >> Yeup .. fair enough. I'll happily reword that as 'length of object' >> >> :):) >> >> > That leaves objects fortuitously changing shape to preserve >> > imagined properties of never detected particles. >> >> Nope .. but its not surprising that you don't understand >> >> > But >> > heck, if religion isn't good for things like that what >> > use is it? >> >> > Still haven't found any study time I see. >> >> Haven't you? Not surprising as all you seem to do is hunt for quotes and >> links, and never know what is relevant .. as shown below ... >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory >> > > ============== > >> We were discussing (primarily) SR. You should study it yourself some >> time > > I plan to do that just as soon as I complete my studies > of Caloric Theory. :-)) Nonsense [snip irrelevant quote] --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Sue... on 23 May 2010 21:16 On May 23, 7:39 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message ================== > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > > ============== > > >> We were discussing (primarily) SR. You should study it yourself some > >> time > > > I plan to do that just as soon as I complete my studies > > of Caloric Theory. :-)) > > Nonsense > > [snip irrelevant quote] That is the customary way to concede a point but I don't think you are supposed to do it for another poster. Unsnip << Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological foundation of those formulas must be sought in the context of the general theory.>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm See also: Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html Sue...
From: whoever on 23 May 2010 23:09 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:95cdbc25-6af2-45ce-b2cb-87659df79285(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On May 23, 7:39 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > ================== >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory >> >> > ============== >> >> >> We were discussing (primarily) SR. You should study it yourself some >> >> time >> > > >> > I plan to do that just as soon as I complete my studies >> > of Caloric Theory. :-)) >> >> Nonsense >> >> [snip irrelevant quote] > > That is the customary way to concede a point No .. its a way to remove things that are too irrelevant to bother responding to. You are notorious for posting irrelvant quotes and link mining [snip again .. try to stay on topic, Sue, if you can even understand what the topic is] --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Dono. on 23 May 2010 23:34 On May 23, 9:31 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Next question, as long as u & n don't change 'locally' the resulting c > is constant. Paulie, old fart What in c'=(c+V)/(1+cV/c0^2) didn't you understand?
From: Surfer on 24 May 2010 00:34
On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:15:58 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > >If Lorentz was right, then DeWitte could not have measured what he >thought he measured. Scientists are open minded but sceptical. ;-) > Figure 6 in this paper compares the sideral time phasing of EM speed anisotropy recorded by DeWitte with similar data from other experiments. The correspondence is interesting. "Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow" http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5404 |