Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: eric gisse on 17 Jun 2010 21:05 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:08:07 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>Just a thought...is this what you expect to be doing in 10 years? Arguing >>about classical mechanics from a position of ignorance while expounding on >>how well you understand astrophysics from your armchair? > > Poor boy.......would dearly love to be a real physicist like I am. Real physicists aren't intellectual cowards. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 17 Jun 2010 21:27 On Jun 17, 4:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >WRONG. If you let go of your pill bottle with the carousel in > >free fall, then INITIALLY, it appears to you as if it were > >accelerating radially outwards from the center of rotation. That > >is the effect known as "centrifugal force". > > OK forget your pill bottle. Won't admit defeat, eh? > ...but don't forget to take your pills... > You are riding on the edge of the crousel. At a certain instant, you fire a > paint ball at the ground. > > What do YOU think happens to the spot? Ground = absolute frame. Your entire analysis rests on the existence of an absolute frame, to which the paint ball sticks. What is the equivalent in emission theory? > >If you drop your pill bottle on the ground, then INITIALLY, it > >appears to you as if it were moving tangentially away from you > >at a constant rate corresponding to the velocity at the > >circumference. > > Don't be difficult Crank. You actually know what the experiment is. Yes I do. I know that there is no absolute frame. You, however, are utterly confused. You deny the existence of an absolute frame, yet your Sagnac analysis requires its existence. > >NEXT QUESTION. If the carousel is mounted on a jet-powered car > >that is racing northwards at 1000 miles per hour and you drop > >the pill bottle on the ground when you are at the northern-most > >point of the circuit, how does the pill bottle appear to move > >relative to you? If you drop the pill bottle on the ground when > >you are at the southern-most point of the circuit, how does the > >pill bottle appear to move relative to you? > > >For the emission source to move "backwards" as you claim it does, > >the emission source must be, ahem, "stationary" with respect to > >a non-rotating frame that is tied to the center of rotation of > >the carousel. > > >In other words, you believe that every rotating carousel is tied > >to its own absolute frame, whatever in heck that is supposed to > >mean... > > That's the whole basis of SR's sagnac explanation.. Nope. > You obviously don't even understand your own theory. On the contrary. YOU don't understand YOURS. I, however, understand BaTh far better than you do, which is why I can dismiss BaTh as utter, total, self-contradictory nonsense, without a single shred of supporting evidence. :-) Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Jun 2010 18:48 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jun 17, 4:32�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >WRONG. If you let go of your pill bottle with the carousel in >> >free fall, then INITIALLY, it appears to you as if it were >> >accelerating radially outwards from the center of rotation. That >> >is the effect known as "centrifugal force". >> >> OK forget your pill bottle. > >Won't admit defeat, eh? OK I admit that I was wrong when I said your dementia pill bottle is empty. >> ...but don't forget to take your pills... >> You are riding on the edge of the crousel. At a certain instant, you fire a >> paint ball at the ground. >> >> What do YOU think happens to the spot? > >Ground = absolute frame. Ground....inertial, nonrotating frame, dopey. The carousel rotation axis is at rest in that frame. >Your entire analysis rests on the existence of an absolute frame, >to which the paint ball sticks. I love arguing with morons. They are so easy to beat. >What is the equivalent in emission theory? In the nonR inertial frame in which the gyro rotation axis is at rest, the emision point of any paricular wave element moves backwards, as viewed in the rotating frame. That also applies to the SR analysis...so if I'm wrong, then so is Einstein. >> >If you drop your pill bottle on the ground, then INITIALLY, it >> >appears to you as if it were moving tangentially away from you >> >at a constant rate corresponding to the velocity at the >> >circumference. >> >> Don't be difficult Crank. You actually know what the experiment is. > >Yes I do. I know that there is no absolute frame. Of course there isn't..but there is an absolutely NONROTATING FRAME at rest with the gyro rotation axis. One doesn't have to be very bright to understand this. >You, however, are utterly confused. You deny the existence of an >absolute frame, yet your Sagnac analysis requires its existence. Crank, I'm seriously worried about your mental state. You seem to have completely lost the ability to reason. >> >NEXT QUESTION. If the carousel is mounted on a jet-powered car >> >that is racing northwards at 1000 miles per hour and you drop >> >the pill bottle on the ground when you are at the northern-most >> >point of the circuit, how does the pill bottle appear to move >> >relative to you? If you drop the pill bottle on the ground when >> >you are at the southern-most point of the circuit, how does the >> >pill bottle appear to move relative to you? >> >> >For the emission source to move "backwards" as you claim it does, >> >the emission source must be, ahem, "stationary" with respect to >> >a non-rotating frame that is tied to the center of rotation of >> >the carousel. >> >> >In other words, you believe that every rotating carousel is tied >> >to its own absolute frame, whatever in heck that is supposed to >> >mean... >> >> That's the whole basis of SR's sagnac explanation.. > >Nope. even Andro's pet chimp could understand what I'm trying to tell you... >> You obviously don't even understand your own theory. > >On the contrary. YOU don't understand YOURS. > >I, however, understand BaTh far better than you do, which is why >I can dismiss BaTh as utter, total, self-contradictory nonsense, >without a single shred of supporting evidence. :-) ....like I said.., I just love arguing with morons.... >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 19 Jun 2010 01:43 On Jun 18, 5:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > >Yes I do. I know that there is no absolute frame. > > Of course there isn't..but there is an absolutely NONROTATING FRAME at rest > with the gyro rotation axis. > One doesn't have to be very bright to understand this. This is hilarious. Imagine a Sagnac apparatus rotating clockwise with an edge velocity of 1e-6 c. Moving along the x axis from right to left, the apparatus crosses your line of sight at a velocity of 0.1 c The light source emits a pulse of light at the 3 o'clock position. According to you, the emission point moves along the x axis at 0.1 c from right to left so that it keeps up with the apparatus's horizontal motion, but the emission point shows ABSOLUTELY NO MOTION ALONG THE Y AXIS despite the fact that the edge velocity of the apparatus was 1e-6 c when the light pulse was emitted. Your concept of how the emission point keeps up with the apparatus is totally ludicrous. Jerry
From: Jerry on 19 Jun 2010 06:54
On Jun 19, 12:43 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 18, 5:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:27:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > >Yes I do. I know that there is no absolute frame. > > > Of course there isn't..but there is an absolutely NONROTATING FRAME at rest > > with the gyro rotation axis. > > One doesn't have to be very bright to understand this. > > This is hilarious. > > Imagine a Sagnac apparatus rotating clockwise with an edge > velocity of 1e-6 c. > > Moving along the x axis from right to left, the apparatus crosses > your line of sight at a velocity of 0.1 c > > The light source emits a pulse of light at the 3 o'clock position. > > According to you, the emission point moves along the x axis at > 0.1 c from right to left so that it keeps up with the apparatus's > horizontal motion, but the emission point shows ABSOLUTELY NO > MOTION ALONG THE Y AXIS despite the fact that the edge velocity > of the apparatus was 1e-6 c when the light pulse was emitted. > > Your concept of how the emission point keeps up with the apparatus > is totally ludicrous. To newbies who may be wondering what we are talking about... YES, we two ARE arguing fantasy physics. Here is some history: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm Jerry |