Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 7 Apr 2010 09:29 On Apr 7, 9:03 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 abr, 03:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 7 Apr, 05:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > yes .. just as we would if we said that the barn-frame observer says the > > > pole both fits and doesn't. But, despite you obfuscation and trying to > > > distract from what is actually being discussed .. that is not the case > > > It's not obfuscation. My arguments are perfectly reasonable. And my > > question is this: "does the ladder fit with both doors shut, or not?". > > It cannot fit and not fit at the same time. There are only two > > objects, ladder and barn. You can't say "according to the barn, it > > fits, but according to the ladder, it doesn't", because then you have > > two objects that disagree about their relationship with each other, > > and indeed make mutually exclusive and contradictory statements about > > their relationship.. > ================= > Again, your problem (as anybody else here and everywhere clearly > understand the gedanken) is that you misunderstand basic physics. "A > nuclear blast happens" ... <<The standard model is a gauge theory of the strong (SU(3)) and electroweak (SU(2)×U(1)) interactions with the gauge group (sometimes called the Standard Model symmetry group) SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1). It does not take into account gravitation. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model By equivalence, it doesn't not apply to inertia. IOW Nuclear reactions do not obey Newtons laws in *any* inertial frame so they can't preserve those laws in a relatively moving frame. Sue...
From: paparios on 7 Apr 2010 09:37 On 7 abr, 09:29, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 7, 9:03 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7 abr, 03:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7 Apr, 05:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > yes .. just as we would if we said that the barn-frame observer says the > > > > pole both fits and doesn't. But, despite you obfuscation and trying to > > > > distract from what is actually being discussed .. that is not the case > > > > It's not obfuscation. My arguments are perfectly reasonable. And my > > > question is this: "does the ladder fit with both doors shut, or not?".. > > > It cannot fit and not fit at the same time. There are only two > > > objects, ladder and barn. You can't say "according to the barn, it > > > fits, but according to the ladder, it doesn't", because then you have > > > two objects that disagree about their relationship with each other, > > > and indeed make mutually exclusive and contradictory statements about > > > their relationship.. > > ================= > > > Again, your problem (as anybody else here and everywhere clearly > > understand the gedanken) is that you misunderstand basic physics. "A > > nuclear blast happens" ... > > <<The standard model is a gauge theory of the > strong (SU(3)) and electroweak (SU(2)×U(1)) > interactions with the gauge group (sometimes > called the Standard Model symmetry group) > SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1). > > It does not take into account gravitation. >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model > > By equivalence, it doesn't not apply to inertia. > > IOW Nuclear reactions do not obey Newtons laws > in *any* inertial frame so they can't preserve > those laws in a relatively moving frame. > > Sue... Yeah....right!!! And quite relevant too!!! We know your problems are not in the underwear you use, but what is inside it. In such a case, more toilet paper is advised... Miguel Rios
From: Sue... on 7 Apr 2010 09:55 On Apr 7, 9:37 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 abr, 09:29, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 7, 9:03 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7 abr, 03:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 7 Apr, 05:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > yes .. just as we would if we said that the barn-frame observer says the > > > > > pole both fits and doesn't. But, despite you obfuscation and trying to > > > > > distract from what is actually being discussed .. that is not the case > > > > > It's not obfuscation. My arguments are perfectly reasonable. And my > > > > question is this: "does the ladder fit with both doors shut, or not?". > > > > It cannot fit and not fit at the same time. There are only two > > > > objects, ladder and barn. You can't say "according to the barn, it > > > > fits, but according to the ladder, it doesn't", because then you have > > > > two objects that disagree about their relationship with each other, > > > > and indeed make mutually exclusive and contradictory statements about > > > > their relationship.. > > > ================= > > > > Again, your problem (as anybody else here and everywhere clearly > > > understand the gedanken) is that you misunderstand basic physics. "A > > > nuclear blast happens" ... > > > <<The standard model is a gauge theory of the > > strong (SU(3)) and electroweak (SU(2)×U(1)) > > interactions with the gauge group (sometimes > > called the Standard Model symmetry group) > > SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1). > > > It does not take into account gravitation. >> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model > > > By equivalence, it doesn't not apply to inertia. > > > IOW Nuclear reactions do not obey Newtons laws > > in *any* inertial frame so they can't preserve > > those laws in a relatively moving frame. > > > Sue... > > Yeah....right!!! > > And quite relevant too!!! > > We know your problems are not in the underwear you use, but what is > inside it. In such a case, more toilet paper is advised... <<Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario. That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no description of any possible physical process. For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) claimed that another planet passing near the earth caused the earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This is all he said. He gave no mechanisms. But the mechanism is all-important, because the laws of physics rule out the process as impossible. >> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Sue... > > Miguel Rios
From: Inertial on 7 Apr 2010 10:53 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:d787d8ad-0ff0-43d3-9780-461b5a197daa(a)r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 1:19 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:6db9453e-2e8f-4738-94c8-5f87db3d3e65(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 7, 12:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >>news:e4994a4b-93da-4ece-bd88-077ab91ec886(a)r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Apr 6, 9:39 pm, "Peter Webb" >> >> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> <SNIP> >> >> >> >> > Any change in velocity involves acceleration, because that is >> >> >> > what >> >> >> > acceleration is. >> >> >> >> >>> >> > Indeed, a bullet that flies past >> >> >> >>> >> > your ear undergoes a dramatic change of relative velocity >> >> >> >>> >> > to >> >> >> >>> >> > you >> >> >> >>> >> > as >> >> >> >>> >> > it >> >> >> >>> >> > passes (it approaches and then recedes), >> >> >> >> >>> >> No .. it doesn't >> >> >> >> >>> > I would argue that it does, >> >> >> >> >>> And you'd lose. It has the same velocity the whole time >> >> >> >>> (unless >> >> >> >>> you >> >> >> >>> include >> >> >> >>> slowing due to air-resistance, and acceleration due to gravity >> >> >> >>> .. >> >> >> >>> but >> >> >> >>> I >> >> >> >>> don't think that is what you meant) >> >> >> >> >> I don't see how this can be true. >> >> >> >> > Then thingk >> >> >> >> >> The bullet changes angle, distance, >> >> >> >> > You get that because it is moving .. not because of acceleration >> >> >> >> >> and speed, and direction, relative to the head as it passes. >> >> >> >> > No .. it doesn't. It has the same velocity and direction the >> >> >> > whole >> >> >> > time >> >> >> > in the head's frame of reference. it is moving at a constant >> >> >> > speed >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > straigh line (we are ignoring air reistance and gravity here) >> >> >> >> >> Are you sure we aren't arguing over the difference between >> >> >> >> "velocity >> >> >> >> relative to a coordinate system" (which I think is what you >> >> >> >> mean), >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> "velocity relative to each other, with no coordinate system in >> >> >> >> play" (which is what I mean - if indeed I'm using the right >> >> >> >> words >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> describe it)? >> >> >> >> > No .. we are arguing over your completely misunderstanding the >> >> >> > motion >> >> >> > of a >> >> >> > bullet. >> >> >> >> No, the problem is that Ste does not understand basic concepts like >> >> >> acceleration, and hence basic Newtonian physics. >> >> >> > ==================== >> >> >> >> A pre-requisite, I would have thought, for understanding SR. >> >> >> > Actually, if one never learns of Newton's light-corpuscles >> >> > SR isn't needed to unlearn them. >> >> > ============== >> >> SR does not depend on whether light is corpuscular or not >> >> > <<Consider a light wave which propagates along >> > the x-axis in S with velocity c. According >> > to the Galilean transformation, the >> >> > --> apparent speed <-- >> >> > of propagation in S' is c-v, which violates the >> > relativity principle.>> >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html >> >> Yeup .. do you see how it is described as a wave there? Not as >> corpuscular. >> Probably not. >> >> > Would you care to elaborate how the speed >> > of light could acquire the *apperance* >> > indicated by the formula? >> >> You think waves cannot have speed? That only corpuscles can? >> >> SR doesn't depends on any particular means of propagation for light .. >> only >> that the speed at which it does so between any two points where you >> measure >> it is c. > > Consider a remedial reading course so you No need for me. For you it would be advisable > won't be answering questions that were > never asked. BAHAHA .. that's your failing .. not mine. You continually post irrelevant quotes as replies, and only occasionally flue some relevance.
From: Inertial on 7 Apr 2010 10:55
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:53c72560-ff88-4d11-8bbc-e1cec6bc6a71(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 9:03 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7 abr, 03:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 7 Apr, 05:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > > yes .. just as we would if we said that the barn-frame observer says >> > > the >> > > pole both fits and doesn't. But, despite you obfuscation and trying >> > > to >> > > distract from what is actually being discussed .. that is not the >> > > case >> >> > It's not obfuscation. My arguments are perfectly reasonable. And my >> > question is this: "does the ladder fit with both doors shut, or not?". >> > It cannot fit and not fit at the same time. There are only two >> > objects, ladder and barn. You can't say "according to the barn, it >> > fits, but according to the ladder, it doesn't", because then you have >> > two objects that disagree about their relationship with each other, >> > and indeed make mutually exclusive and contradictory statements about >> > their relationship.. >> > ================= > >> Again, your problem (as anybody else here and everywhere clearly >> understand the gedanken) is that you misunderstand basic physics. "A >> nuclear blast happens" ... > > <<The standard model is a gauge theory of the > strong (SU(3)) and electroweak (SU(2)�U(1)) > interactions with the gauge group (sometimes > called the Standard Model symmetry group) > SU(3)�SU(2)�U(1). > > It does not take into account gravitation. >> Completely irrelevant > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model > > By equivalence, it doesn't not apply to inertia. Completely irrelevant > IOW Nuclear reactions do not obey Newtons laws > in *any* inertial frame so they can't preserve > those laws in a relatively moving frame. Completely irrelevant |