Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: eric gisse on 6 Jan 2010 22:39 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] Henry, why is Renshaw's paper - which has a position you agree with - the first paper I have seen you discuss in nearly 6 years?
From: eric gisse on 6 Jan 2010 22:41 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > > Look irrespective of what you want to call the inifnitesimal elements that > carve out diagonal paths, their velocity is sqrt(c^2 + v^3) in the moving > frame. Falsified by repeated experiment. Now that you are reading literature again, would you like some references? Or do you only consider papers that support your point of view? [...]
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 23:14 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:tslak5tfnbru9q3mcdtp0sq3pon86v70v6(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:12:35 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Jan 6, 6:25 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:34:12 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Jan 6, 4:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >>> You are prepared to accept it is 'charge/T' >>> You are still acceptiing gthat 'sharge' is a fundamental dimension. >> >>No, charge is not the fundamental unit, current is. Charge is current >>times time. It is a DERIVED unit in SI. >>Now, what are the dimensions of the FUNDAMENTAL unit, the ampere?H > > ..what does it feel like, diaper, going round in circles all day. > > Do you become giddy? > >>> >> >> incidentally, do you know what the 'triple point' of water is? >>> >>> >> >Yes. It is 273.16 K. >>> >>> >> Do you know how the unit 'K' is evaluated? >>> >>> >What do you mean by "evaluating" a unit? >>> >>> Giving it a value. >>> >>> The temperature unit of 1 Kelvin is 1/273.16 of the 'temperature >>> DIFFERENCE >>> between absolute zero and the triple point of water....which as you >>> should know >>> is about 0.01C. >>> >>> So temperature SCALES are calibrated as multiples of the standard unit, >>> which >>> is itself a standard fraction of a standard difference between two fixed >>> points. >> >>Yes, in this case. >> >>> >>> Temperature itself is associated with the internal energy of a >>> substance. >>> However contrary to what is often presented, it is not proportional to >>> energy >>> but to MOMEMTUM of molecules. That includes vibrational and rotational >>> as well >>> as translational. >> >>Don't be ridiculous. The net momentum of a gas in a bottle is zero. > > Are you not aware that momentum can be either a scalar or a vector? > I'm talking about scalar version. > >>Please check with Maxwell about the kinetic theory of gases. > > You dig him up and I will. > >>> The molecules of air next to a hot metal plate have about the same >>> average >>> momenta (all forms) as those on the plate. >>> >>> So I would tend to say that the dimensions of the fundamental quantity >>> 'temperature' (as distinct from the figures given on weather report) >>> are >>> probalbly ML/T but that is complicated by the fact that angular momentum >>> has >>> dimensions ML^2/T.... >> >>Oh, good heavens. Nice hand wave. >>Temperature has something to do with kinetic energy so its dimensions >>must be the same as kinetic energy. Or momentum. Or something like >>that. > > yes, it is very tricky. this is why nobody ever quotes dimensions for > temperature. > >>Likewise, an ampere has something to do with the length of wires, so >>the dimensions of amperes must have dimension length. >> >>:) >> > You goofball. > >>> So if you can give me a better answer I'll be very surprised. > > Hank? How can you lie so blatanly like that .. do you REALLY expect anyone to be fooled?
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 23:16 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:c8mak5lg1h8bshbca1k911q7uovjki1q6r(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:48:09 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>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'. >> >>[...] > > One cannot acquire two science degrees without reading some books. I do no believe you have any degrees. You are well known as a liar. If you do, you must have bought them. You clearly do not have anywhere near the basic knowledge of science that anyone who successfully and legitimately earned a degree in science would have.
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 01:01
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hi3i19$kit$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > PD wrote: > > [...] > >>> >>> Yes, you looked it up. I know. >> >> That's because among your many talents, you read minds. > [...] |