Minkowski Metric.
in [Physics]
|
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
From: Jerry on 19 Jun 2010 18:11 On Jun 19, 4:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > Poor old Jerry seems to have lost any semblence of intelligence he ever had. > > He cannot understand that a car's body represents an absolutely nonrotating > frame to its spinning flywheel. ....and CO-MOVING with the center of rotation of the flywheel!!! AGAIN you inist that every rotating object drags along its own frame of absolutely non-rotating space so that the emission point of a light pulse remains fixed with respect to the center of rotation of the object!!! You really don't see the total absurdity of such a claim? Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 19 Jun 2010 18:21 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:43:27 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(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. Crank,old girl, you are now quite clueless. Here's an easy experiment that might relieve you of some of your ignorance. Cut out a paper circle about 3 in diameter. Place it centrally on a sheet of A4 and stick a pin through the middle. Stick the A4 to a table and mark an adjacent point on both circle and A4. Assume your room has zero absolute rotation. Spin the circle whilst standing on the ground. Q) Does the A4 spin as a result? A) No Q) Does the circle centre move wrt the A4? A) No Q) If you perform the experiment in a moving car, does the circle centre move wrt the A4? A) No Q) If you were sitting on the edge of the circle, what would the A4 sheet appear to do? A) It would appear to rotate. Q) If you were sitting on the edge of the circle, what would you believe happens to the mark on the A4? A) it would appear to move around the edge of your circle. I hope this message reaches your brain cell and you then apologise to your relativist colleagues for being so stupid and for lowering the standard of their already pathetic arguments. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 19 Jun 2010 18:38
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jun 19, 4:53�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> Poor old Jerry seems to have lost any semblence of intelligence he ever had. >> >> He cannot understand that a car's body represents an absolutely nonrotating >> frame to its spinning flywheel. > >...and CO-MOVING with the center of rotation of the flywheel!!! > >AGAIN you inist that every rotating object drags along its own >frame of absolutely non-rotating space so that the emission point >of a light pulse remains fixed with respect to the center of >rotation of the object!!! Hahahhahha! It doesn't 'drag it along'. Such a frame exists. That is what matters. >You really don't see the total absurdity of such a claim? Then the SR argument here is also absurd: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |