Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 19 Mar 2010 19:44 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6ccf2e81-d143-4c8f-86da-9a6ba90e81ea(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 19 mar, 17:39, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/19/10 1:59 AM, JT wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 19 mar, 07:53, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 3/19/10 1:48 AM, JT wrote: >> >> >>> No you are wrong two particle accelerators 300 000 km apart firing >> >>> particle C and D simultaneous in frame A and B will not be measured 2 >> >>> seconds later as 4.2 km apart in frame A and B. They will still be >> >>> 300 >> >>> 000 km apart there is no spatial length contraction in reality, only >> >>> in Lorentz transformation interpretated of Einstein as a propagation >> >>> delay due to tension in media. >> >> >> Take the perspective of the cosmic muon making it to the ground >> >> before its mean lifetime of 2.2 s. The distance the muon >> >> experiences is foreshortened as predicted by special relativity. >> >> > You are an idiot Sam there is two particles simultaneously fired from >> > accelerators at 0.9999999999. >> > Accelerators is at a distance of 300 000 km in a frame called A and B. >> >> > How do i know you are an idiot? >> > Only an idiot would claim that they will be measured 2 seconds later >> > 4.2 km apart in frame A and B. >> >> > So it is time to take back the contraction of spatial separation, only >> > idiots claim that to happen, Einstein was no idiot. >> >> > JT >> >> As far as I can tell, JT, you do NOT understand inertial frames of >> reference, nor the basics of special relativity. End of story. >> >> JT--You really need to sit down and learn special relativity. >> There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction >> of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and >> you should take the time to learn it, JT. >> >> What is the experimental basis of special relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >> >> How do you add velocities in special relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html >> >> Can special relativity handle acceleration? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html- >> D�lj citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text - > > Well i understand this Sam, the particles C and D as per the example > will not be separated by 4.2 km in frame A and B. > > Now this even Inertial understand, it is plain logic. He is still correct .. you do NOT understand inertial frames of reference, nor the basics of special relativity.
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Mar 2010 08:51 On 3/21/10 5:01 AM, JT wrote: > So there is no physic within special relativity just wishfull thinking > from people who learned to parrot math. > They have no clue about logic, macrocosmic determinism, physic, units. > JT--You really need to sit down and learn special relativity. There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and you should take the time to learn it, JT. What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html How do you add velocities in special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html Can special relativity handle acceleration? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Mar 2010 22:24 On 3/21/10 9:19 PM, JT wrote: > There is no conspiracy i said just low budget IQ brains. > > JT Regardless of what your IQ is JT, you have not educated yourself in physics. Saying that the well tested physics is wrong without any justification is simply stooopid behavior on your part. JT--You really need to sit down and learn special relativity. There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and you should take the time to learn it, JT. What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html How do you add velocities in special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html Can special relativity handle acceleration? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
From: JT on 21 Mar 2010 23:08 On 22 mar, 03:24, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/21/10 9:19 PM, JT wrote: > > > There is no conspiracy i said just low budget IQ brains. > > > JT > > Regardless of what your IQ is JT, you have not educated yourself > in physics. Saying that the well tested physics is wrong without > any justification is simply stooopid behavior on your part. > > JT--You really need to sit down and learn special relativity. > There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction > of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and > you should take the time to learn it, JT. > > What is the experimental basis of special relativity? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > How do you add velocities in special relativity? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html > > Can special relativity handle acceleration? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html Then we take it again Sam slow. Two accelerators X-> and later Y-> are placed 300 000 km apart, in a frame called AB. The accelerators fire two particles simultaneous at moment T in AB. The particle C from X and D from Y move at 0.9999999999 within frame of AB. Now 600 000 km ahead of last accelerator is first sensor placed we call it E, 4.2 km from E is next sensor we call it F 300 000 km from E is a third sensor we call it G Now at moment U in frame of AB the particle from X(C) is aligned with the sensor E. Now my question where is Y(D) particle at moment U is it at sensor F or at sensor G. JT
From: Peter Webb on 21 Mar 2010 23:26
Just to get this straight, you are asking for the prediction made by SR ? Why? I thought you didn't believe in SR? So doesn't this mean you won't believe the answer? Why do you want an answer that you believe to be wrong ? It seems to me that the only answer that you will believe must be based on whatever physics you believe to be true. As you are the only person who knows what physics you believe to be true, you are the only person who can answer your question with an answer you will believe. So, why bother asking what SR predicts when you don't believe SR? |