More Einsteinian Idiocy
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 27 May 2010 12:01 On May 26, 6:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > Einstein's P1 states that, "the laws of physics are the same on all frames". > > Then his stupid theory goes on to point out that they are only the same if and > when the LTs are applied. > > So what is it really? ARE they the same or aren't they? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability. Sigh. There are two bits of information available. 1. We have a good chunk of the laws of physics already. They have been tested against experiment. 2. We assert that these laws should not be dependent on inertial reference frame. Then these two pieces of information dictate the *form* of transformation between inertial reference frames that would be consistent with them. PD
From: waldofj on 27 May 2010 14:35 On May 26, 7:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > Einstein's P1 states that, "the laws of physics are the same on all frames". > > Then his stupid theory goes on to point out that they are only the same if and > when the LTs are applied. > > So what is it really? ARE they the same or aren't they? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability. Just because the laws of physics are the same in all frames doesn't mean the coordinate values assigned to events will be the same in all frames. A point you are clearly incapable of understanding.
From: eon on 27 May 2010 14:51 On May 27, 6:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 6:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > > Einstein's P1 states that, "the laws of physics are the same on all frames". > > > Then his stupid theory goes on to point out that they are only the same if and > > when the LTs are applied. > > > So what is it really? ARE they the same or aren't they? > > > Henry Wilson... > > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability. > > Sigh. > > There are two bits of information available. > 1. We have a good chunk of the laws of physics already. They have been > tested against experiment. > 2. We assert that these laws should not be dependent on inertial > reference frame. law of physics cannot possibly depend on anything, you know, the name "law" > > Then these two pieces of information dictate the *form* of > transformation between inertial reference frames that would be > consistent with them. > > PD
From: harald on 27 May 2010 14:51 On May 27, 1:48 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > Einstein's P1 states that, "the laws of physics are the same on all frames". If you refer to SRT, not exactly so. And Newtonian physics makes the same point. > Then his stupid theory goes on to point out that they are only the same if and > when the LTs are applied. No, the LTs merely explain *why* the PoR is also valid for light even though it propagates like a wave. > So what is it really? ARE they the same or aren't they? As far as we know (ignoring a few odd experiments that haven't been confirmed), the laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems. Nothing new there. Harald > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Androcles on 27 May 2010 15:30
"waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:ffaaf859-70e7-40f2-bfd2-209feb1b5744(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... On May 26, 7:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > Einstein's P1 states that, "the laws of physics are the same on all > frames". > > Then his stupid theory goes on to point out that they are only the same if > and > when the LTs are applied. > > So what is it really? ARE they the same or aren't they? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability. Just because the laws of physics are the same in all frames doesn't mean the coordinate values assigned to events will be the same in all frames. A point you are clearly incapable of understanding. =========================================== Bouncing a photon between fixed pairs of mirrors in my car and an identical pair of mirrors in yours and then claiming the light's speed is independent of the source is a point you are clearly too fuckin' stupid to understand, you fuckin' moronic cretin. |