Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Androcles on 4 Jan 2010 22:46 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:22p4k5plecf3l3lprhu14kd58iafpadn6t(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:16:30 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:tji4k5tid5lc9n5gngp4shk4gg4sb8bc54(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:53:30 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Jan 2, 1:12 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:21:39 -0800 (PST), PD >>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >On Jan 1, 2:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>>> >> So why are some things frame dependent and not others? >>>>> >>>>> >> They must contain L/T or (L/T)^2 >>>>> >>>>> >There are a number of things that don't, like electric field. So >>>>> >obviously, it's not true that they "must". >>>>> >>>>> What are the dimensions of electric field? >>>> >>>>Newtons per coulomb. Why is this hard? >>> >>> What are hte dimensions of a coulomb? >> >>Charge. > > What are the dmensions of charge? What are the dimensions of mass? What are the dimensions of time? What are the dimensions of length? The dimension of charge is charge. > >>What are the dimensions of heat? > > If you mean I mean exactly what I say. What are the dimensions of heat? > 'heat energy' the answer is M(L/T)^2 > If you mean 'temperature', it is related to momentum but I think Do you have any evidence to support the absurd and obviously false assertion/assumption that you come even close to thinking? > is expressed > as a ratio and therefore doesn't have any dimensions. Heat, time, charge, length, mass all exist in Nature. So does marge, the magnetic equivalent of charge and mass. Charge and mass are measured using force - therefore so is marge. I can quite easily levitate objects using their marge. Iron has lots of marge, wood has very little. Take an ordinary magnet and collect iron filings, it's easy. It won't collect sawdust, though. What are the dimensions of marge? Since the force/charge ratio is named after Coulomb, and the force/mass ratio is named after Newton, Phuckwit Duck can name the force/marge ratio as newtons per androcles. Nothing in Nature (or theory) exists or is thought about until you give it a name, that's why quarks have the attributes up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom. And if you say "silly old pom" then you'd better say why it's silly. Really think for a change.
From: Androcles on 5 Jan 2010 04:28 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:ksv5k59ojfucg3l0c88dkq4doi3d3oegie(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 03:46:19 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:22p4k5plecf3l3lprhu14kd58iafpadn6t(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:16:30 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> >>> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> What are hte dimensions of a coulomb? >>>> >>>>Charge. >>> >>> What are the dmensions of charge? >> >>What are the dimensions of mass? >>What are the dimensions of time? >>What are the dimensions of length? >> >>The dimension of charge is charge. > > Currently, yes...but that's not enough... > >>>>What are the dimensions of heat? >>> >>> If you mean >> >>I mean exactly what I say. >>What are the dimensions of heat? > > I already answered you. > >>> 'heat energy' the answer is M(L/T)^2 >>> If you mean 'temperature', it is related to momentum but I think >> >>Do you have any evidence to support the absurd and obviously >>false assertion/assumption that you come even close to thinking? > > All forms of energy have dimensions M(L/T)^2. > > ...but pommie engineer wouldn't know that.. > >>> is expressed >>> as a ratio and therefore doesn't have any dimensions. >> >>Heat, time, charge, length, mass all exist in Nature. > >>So does marge, the magnetic equivalent of charge and mass. >>Charge and mass are measured using force - therefore so >>is marge. I can quite easily levitate objects using their marge. >>Iron has lots of marge, wood has very little. Take an ordinary >>magnet and collect iron filings, it's easy. It won't collect sawdust, >>though. > > ...but pommie engineer wouldn't know that.. > >>What are the dimensions of marge? >> >>Since the force/charge ratio is named after Coulomb, >>and the force/mass ratio is named after Newton, >>Phuckwit Duck can name the force/marge ratio as newtons per androcles. > > ...but pommie engineer wouldn't know that.. > >>Nothing in Nature (or theory) exists or is thought about until you give it >>a name, that's why quarks have the attributes up, down, charm, strange, >>top and bottom. > > ...but pommie engineer wouldn't know that.. > >>And if you say "silly old pom" then you'd better say why it's silly. >>Really think for a change. > > ...but pommie engineer wouldn't know that.. > > Once again I've proven the stooopid ignorant drunken ozzie sheep shagger wring.
From: Inertial on 5 Jan 2010 04:31 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:fqv5k515q0m7m5aql5m72ml4ino0f1jasj(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:25:54 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:16:30 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >>> > >>>>>>> What are the dimensions of electric field? >>>>>> >>>>>>Newtons per coulomb. Why is this hard? >>>>> >>>>> What are hte dimensions of a coulomb? >>>> >>>>Charge. >>> >>> What are the dmensions of charge? >> >>You don't know? >> >>I find that rather amazing. > > You don't know, do you? So what do you think are the dimensions of charge then? >>> >>>>What are the dimensions of heat? >>> >>> If you mean 'heat energy' the answer is M(L/T)^2 >>> If you mean 'temperature', it is related to momentum but I think is >>> expressed as a ratio and therefore doesn't have any dimensions. >> >>Didn't you remark to me once that you were an expert in thermodynamics? > > I am. BAHAHA .. then you'd come up with something more authoritative and precise than 'it has something to do with this, but I think it might be something else' > You don't know anything about it. You're a pot.
From: Inertial on 5 Jan 2010 05:56 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:pp26k5h1l9u3rv3c58cu21a2fd2danj2h9(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:27:07 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>> poor little eric doesn't know the difference between the MMX and >>> Michelson's extensive Fizeau experiments. >> >>He didn't say "Michelson", he said "Michelson-Morley". > > ...so you finally read something about the experiment, eh? > >>Please learn to read. > > please learn to shut up Renshaw is correct when he mentions Michelson and Morley, as they replicated his experiment as well as performing their own famous experiment (though they are famous for one, that doesn't preclude them from performing other experiments :) ) That does not mean his supposed refutation of SR is correct, however.
From: eric gisse on 6 Jan 2010 21:48
PD wrote: [...] >> >> Yes, you looked it up. I know. > > That's because among your many talents, you read minds. He thought I went out and bought the entire contents of my bookshelf just for him when I showed him a picture to prove a point. He still can't tell me what books on physics he has read, beyond 'many'. [...] |