Minkowski Metric.
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 16 Jun 2010 19:08 ...@..(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?
From: Jerry on 16 Jun 2010 20:30 On Jun 16, 5:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > > > > > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Jun 15, 4:09 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:19:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >On Jun 15, 7:51 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> > >> >wrote: > >> >> On 15.06.2010 01:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > >> >> > I have explained your errors before. You think that a rotating apparatus viewed > >> >> > in the rotating frame is identical to a nonR apparatus viewed in the nonR > >> >> > frame. > > >> >> > You are oblivious to the fact that the emission point of a particular beam > >> >> > element moves backwards in the rotating frame. > > >> >> Some correction, eh? :-) > > >> >Henry's assertion, of course, only makes sense in the context of > >> >a belief in absolute space and a preferred coordinate system. > > >> Jerry, old girl, if you a riding on a carousel and drop your empty dementia > >> pill bottle on the ground, how does it appear to move in your frame? > > >Incorrect analogy of an absolute, fixed ground onto which you > >may drop your bottle and it may remain "at rest". > > >Let's try a different AND STILL INCORRECT analogy. > >Ralph, you senile old man, if you are riding on a carousel in > >outer space and drop your FULL demential pill bottle (that you > >obviously refuse to take), how does it appear to move in your > >frame? > > Hahahhahaha! Poor old Jerry doesn't know the difference between an inertial > frame and a rotating one. > > Rotation is absolute Crank. For every rotating frame, there is a corresponding > nonrotating one. To the carousel, the ground not rotating. > The pill bottle appears to rotate in your rotating frame, just as the emission > point does in a ring gyro. > 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". 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. 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... Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 17 Jun 2010 17:32 On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jun 16, 5:13�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> >> >> >> >> >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >On Jun 15, 4:09 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:19:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> >> >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >On Jun 15, 7:51 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> On 15.06.2010 01:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> >> >> > I have explained your errors before. You think that a rotating apparatus viewed >> >> >> > in the rotating frame is identical to a nonR apparatus viewed in the nonR >> >> >> > frame. >> >> >> >> > You are oblivious to the fact that the emission point of a particular beam >> >> >> > element moves backwards in the rotating frame. >> >> >> >> Some correction, eh? :-) >> >> >> >Henry's assertion, of course, only makes sense in the context of >> >> >a belief in absolute space and a preferred coordinate system. >> >> >> Jerry, old girl, if you a riding on a carousel and drop your empty dementia >> >> pill bottle on the ground, how does it appear to move in your frame? >> >> >Incorrect analogy of an absolute, fixed ground onto which you >> >may drop your bottle and it may remain "at rest". >> >> >Let's try a different AND STILL INCORRECT analogy. >> >Ralph, you senile old man, if you are riding on a carousel in >> >outer space and drop your FULL demential pill bottle (that you >> >obviously refuse to take), how does it appear to move in your >> >frame? >> >> Hahahhahaha! Poor old Jerry doesn't know the difference between an inertial >> frame and a rotating one. >> >> Rotation is absolute Crank. For every rotating frame, there is a �corresponding >> nonrotating one. To the carousel, the ground not rotating. >> The pill bottle appears to rotate in your rotating frame, just as the emission >> point does in a ring gyro. >> > >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. ...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? >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. >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.. You obviously don't even understand your own theory. >Jerry > > > > > > > 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. |