Minkowski Metric.
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 14 Jun 2010 20:59 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > It is only when they are plotted (displacement against time) that one can > describe changes in phase angles in terms of an 'angular velocity'. But > that's hardly a common procedure. Especially for people who have never worked a problem set out of a mechanics or electrodynamics textbook. [...] > Paul, it was obviously Einstein who was the fake. Is that what you tell yourself when you can't even work through 19th century physics problems? [...] > > SR does NOT predict the results when SR is correcty applied. How would you know? You claim to find SR incomprehensible. [...]
From: Jerry on 15 Jun 2010 09:19 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? :-) > Ralph's assertion, of course, only makes sense in the context of a belief in absolute space and a preferred coordinate system. He seems unable to understand this point. Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 15 Jun 2010 17:09 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:19:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(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? >He seems unable to understand this point Paul's great claim to fame is that he was able to demonstrate that, according to BaTh, there is no fringe displacement in a nonrotating ring gyro. Does he deserve some kind of prize, I wonder? >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Jerry on 16 Jun 2010 08:04 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? Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 16 Jun 2010 18:13
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(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. >Jerry > Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |