Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 22 Mar 2010 08:05 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fb077c5c-c03c-473c-97ad-5a27462fbd0d(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 22 mar, 07:43, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:4ba70f1c$0$5421$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> >> >> > Well you see *YOU* told me according to SR there is no difference >> > between a spatial separation or a pole, when it comes to length >> > contraction. >> >> Which is correct. >> >> Of course, the material structure of an object (in its own frame) can >> ALSO >> be affected by acceleration. Eg. if you 'push' an object from behind (eg >> a >> rocket engine pushing the rocket) then that puts the object under >> compression .. pulling on a rope stretches the rope .. etc. There is no >> such thing as a perfectly rigid object. >> >> So, in reality, if you are ACCELERATING an object, then there are other >> factors at play in addition to SR. >> >> > ____________________________________ >> >> > I told you that as well. It is a standard part of SR. >> >> > But I still don't understand why you want an SR solution to an >> > experiment >> > when you don't believe in SR. >> >> > All you have done when similar questions have been asked and answered >> > in >> > the past is to say you don't believe the answer. >> >> Of course he doesn't .. and that is, to him, all that is required for it >> to >> be wrong. >> >> > If SR is used to answer your question, then you won't believe that >> > answer >> > either, because you don't believe in SR. >> >> Nor does he understand SR enough to even know what an SR answer is :) >> >> >> >> > So, why are you bothering to ask for the predictions of a theory you >> > claim >> > is "obviously false" ? If you have some valid reason, happy to help, >> > but >> > if the only purpose is to try and claim the answer is wrong, why should >> > I >> > or anyone else bother?- D�lj citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text - [ snip JT's imaginary ECDT nonsense] Nothing left. So, I guess be your lack of response that you acknowledge your lies.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Mar 2010 06:39 On 22.03.2010 05:19, JT wrote: > On 22 mar, 04:52, "Inertial"<relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "JT"<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7bfe020e-95c7-4c50-9947-2b64f70b1134(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> Here we go again >> >>> Two accelerators X-> and later Y-> are placed 300 000 km apart, in a >>> frame called AB. >> >> Fine >> >>> 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. >> >> As they both have the same velocity profile in frame AB (ie they are >> simultaneously co-moving at every time in frame AB) the distance between >> them in that frame remains 300000km. >> >>> Now 600 000 km ahead of last accelerator is first sensor placed we >>> call it E, >> >> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >>> 4.2 km from E is next sensor we call it F >> >> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >>> 300 000 km from E is a third sensor we call it G >> >> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >>> 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. >> >> If the sensors are at rest in AB, then as the particles are 300000km apart >> in AB, they would get detected by E and G simultaneously.- D�lj citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text - > > That is not according to relativity ask your friends Sam and PD, > according to them the spatial distance of C and D is 4.2 km at moment > U within frame AB. > > I can replace the particles with a pole 300 000 km long, and let the > back be at sensor E at moment U and ask you where is the front at F or > G. How come someone with an IQ of 178 can make such a basic error? :-) Look up Bell's paradox. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: JT on 29 Mar 2010 08:26 On 29 mar, 12:39, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > On 22.03.2010 05:19, JT wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 mar, 04:52, "Inertial"<relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "JT"<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:7bfe020e-95c7-4c50-9947-2b64f70b1134(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > >>> 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. > > >> Here we go again > > >>> Two accelerators X-> and later Y-> are placed 300 000 km apart, in a > >>> frame called AB. > > >> Fine > > >>> 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. > > >> As they both have the same velocity profile in frame AB (ie they are > >> simultaneously co-moving at every time in frame AB) the distance between > >> them in that frame remains 300000km. > > >>> Now 600 000 km ahead of last accelerator is first sensor placed we > >>> call it E, > > >> Is this detector at rest in AB? > > >>> 4.2 km from E is next sensor we call it F > > >> Is this detector at rest in AB? > > >>> 300 000 km from E is a third sensor we call it G > > >> Is this detector at rest in AB? > > >>> 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. > > >> If the sensors are at rest in AB, then as the particles are 300000km apart > >> in AB, they would get detected by E and G simultaneously.- Dölj citerad text - > > >> - Visa citerad text - > > > That is not according to relativity ask your friends Sam and PD, > > according to them the spatial distance of C and D is 4.2 km at moment > > U within frame AB. > > > I can replace the particles with a pole 300 000 km long, and let the > > back be at sensor E at moment U and ask you where is the front at F or > > G. > > How come someone with an IQ of 178 can make such a basic error? :-) > > Look up Bell's paradox. > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - There is no error on my part, only ambivalence on SRIANS part. Euclidian restspace AB, have two particle accelerators A and B 300 000 m apart. sensor X 300 000 meter in front of B, sensor Y 300 004.2 meter in front of B, sensor Z 600 000 meter in front of B. [AB space] A---------->B---------->X->Y---------Z At moment T0 in AB, A will fire particle C at 0.9999999999c and B will fire particle D. ***Now*** at moment T1 in AB, C is aligned next to X, ***where is particle D*** at sensor Y or sensor Z? It turns out that PD and Sam who apply SR beleive that particle D actually will be 4.2 meter in front of C(within AB at sensor Y) due to length contraction of the spatial space between C and D bwahahahaha. I claim it will be at Z, 300 000 meter ahead of C and so do Inertial the ambivalent and logical bot. However he claim Sam and PD to be right suggesting 4.2 meter bwahahahahah. We can not have to much ambivalence within the SR camp, comeon throw some sticks on the fire, we want to know your mojo where in the world is Carmen Diego. Notice though inertials claim that it will be at both places at T1 within frame AB is disqualified as bullshit. One place will do. JT
From: Inertial on 29 Mar 2010 08:31 "JT" <jonas.thornvall(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cc584e66-6829-4877-bf13-a1572a4b8061(a)r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 29 mar, 12:39, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: >> On 22.03.2010 05:19, JT wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 22 mar, 04:52, "Inertial"<relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "JT"<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:7bfe020e-95c7-4c50-9947-2b64f70b1134(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> Here we go again >> >> >>> Two accelerators X-> and later Y-> are placed 300 000 km apart, in >> >>> a >> >>> frame called AB. >> >> >> Fine >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> As they both have the same velocity profile in frame AB (ie they are >> >> simultaneously co-moving at every time in frame AB) the distance >> >> between >> >> them in that frame remains 300000km. >> >> >>> Now 600 000 km ahead of last accelerator is first sensor placed we >> >>> call it E, >> >> >> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >> >>> 4.2 km from E is next sensor we call it F >> >> >> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >> >>> 300 000 km from E is a third sensor we call it G >> >> >> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> If the sensors are at rest in AB, then as the particles are 300000km >> >> apart >> >> in AB, they would get detected by E and G simultaneously.- D�lj >> >> citerad text - >> >> >> - Visa citerad text - >> >> > That is not according to relativity ask your friends Sam and PD, >> > according to them the spatial distance of C and D is 4.2 km at moment >> > U within frame AB. >> >> > I can replace the particles with a pole 300 000 km long, and let the >> > back be at sensor E at moment U and ask you where is the front at F or >> > G. >> >> How come someone with an IQ of 178 can make such a basic error? :-) >> >> Look up Bell's paradox. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/- D�lj citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text - > > There is no error on my part, There is deception. > only ambivalence on SRIANS part. Lets see what you have to say this time > Euclidian restspace AB, have two particle accelerators A and B 300 000 > m apart. Fine > sensor X 300 000 meter in front of B, > sensor Y 300 004.2 meter in front of B, > sensor Z 600 000 meter in front of B. > > [AB space] > > A---------->B---------->X->Y---------Z > > At moment T0 in AB, A will fire particle C at 0.9999999999c and B will > fire particle D. At the same speed as C? > ***Now*** at moment T1 in AB, C is aligned next to X, ***where is > particle D*** at sensor Y or sensor Z? Z > It turns out that PD and Sam who apply SR beleive that particle D > actually will be 4.2 meter in front of C(within AB at sensor Y) due to > length contraction of the spatial space between C and D bwahahahaha. Nope. As usual, you do not know WHAT SR says, nor what those who understand SR say > I claim it will be at Z, 300 000 meter ahead of C and so do Inertial > the ambivalent and logical bot. I am neither > However he claim Sam and PD to be > right suggesting 4.2 meter bwahahahahah. I never claimed that .. you are a blatant liar > We can not have to much ambivalence within the SR camp, There is none > comeon throw > some sticks on the fire, we want to know your mojo where in the world > is Carmen Diego. > > Notice though inertials claim that it will be at both places at T1 I never claimed that .. you are a blatant liar > within frame AB is disqualified as bullshit. One place will do.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Mar 2010 17:03
On 29.03.2010 14:26, JT wrote: > On 29 mar, 12:39, "Paul B. Andersen"<paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: >> On 22.03.2010 05:19, JT wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 22 mar, 04:52, "Inertial"<relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>>> "JT"<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:7bfe020e-95c7-4c50-9947-2b64f70b1134(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>> 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. >> >>>> Here we go again >> >>>>> Two accelerators X-> and later Y-> are placed 300 000 km apart, in a >>>>> frame called AB. >> >>>> Fine >> >>>>> 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. >> >>>> As they both have the same velocity profile in frame AB (ie they are >>>> simultaneously co-moving at every time in frame AB) the distance between >>>> them in that frame remains 300000km. >> >>>>> Now 600 000 km ahead of last accelerator is first sensor placed we >>>>> call it E, >> >>>> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >>>>> 4.2 km from E is next sensor we call it F >> >>>> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >>>>> 300 000 km from E is a third sensor we call it G >> >>>> Is this detector at rest in AB? >> >>>>> 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. >> >>>> If the sensors are at rest in AB, then as the particles are 300000km apart >>>> in AB, they would get detected by E and G simultaneously.- D�lj citerad text - >> >>>> - Visa citerad text - >> >>> That is not according to relativity ask your friends Sam and PD, >>> according to them the spatial distance of C and D is 4.2 km at moment >>> U within frame AB. >> >>> I can replace the particles with a pole 300 000 km long, and let the >>> back be at sensor E at moment U and ask you where is the front at F or >>> G. >> >> How come someone with an IQ of 178 can make such a basic error? :-) >> >> Look up Bell's paradox. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/- D�lj citerad text - >> >> - Visa citerad text - > > There is no error on my part, only ambivalence on SRIANS part. I see you didn't look up Bell's paradox, so you have still no clue about what your basic error is. > > Euclidian restspace AB, have two particle accelerators A and B 300 000 > m apart. > sensor X 300 000 meter in front of B, > sensor Y 300 004.2 meter in front of B, > sensor Z 600 000 meter in front of B. > > [AB space] > > A---------->B---------->X->Y---------Z > > At moment T0 in AB, A will fire particle C at 0.9999999999c and B will > fire particle D. > > ***Now*** at moment T1 in AB, C is aligned next to X, ***where is > particle D*** at sensor Y or sensor Z? > > It turns out that PD and Sam who apply SR beleive that particle D > actually will be 4.2 meter in front of C(within AB at sensor Y) due to > length contraction of the spatial space between C and D bwahahahaha. > > I claim it will be at Z, 300 000 meter ahead of C and so do Inertial > the ambivalent and logical bot. However he claim Sam and PD to be > right suggesting 4.2 meter bwahahahahah. > > We can not have to much ambivalence within the SR camp, comeon throw > some sticks on the fire, we want to know your mojo where in the world > is Carmen Diego. > > Notice though inertials claim that it will be at both places at T1 > within frame AB is disqualified as bullshit. One place will do. > > JT > -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |