Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 14:19 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bf87c7db-7767-44a0-a255-21dceefe9566(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... On Jan 6, 9:45 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:12:35 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(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? Can't find the dimensions of an ampere? ========================================== If plural it's not fundamental. Can't find your brain, Phuckwit Duck?
From: Wendy Parker on 7 Jan 2010 15:44 John Parker wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:bf87c7db-7767-44a0-a255-21dceefe9566(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 6, 9:45 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:12:35 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(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? > > Can't find the dimensions of an ampere? > ========================================== > If plural it's not fundamental. > Can't find your brain, Phuckwit Duck? Dad, could you, please, stop making a fool of yourself and abusing sane people?
From: Inertial on 7 Jan 2010 17:24 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:0kkck5t8vf9lph4qmsporq274tdne6snok(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:58:54 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: [snip] > if you add up the momentum MAGNITUDES A magnitude is always a value greater than or equal to zero. > of all the air molecules in a > box and divide by the number of molecules, you will get the same answer as > when > you do the same for the box itself. > (velocities are relative to box) For the box itself, the speed is zero relative to itself. So the momentum magnitude for the box is zero. The only way for the sum of the MAGNITUDES of the air molecules to add up to zero (as you claim) is if every single one of them is zero (ie they are all stationary within the box.
From: Inertial on 7 Jan 2010 18:26 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hi5q78$ibd$5(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:29:28 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:07:03 -0000, "Androcles" >>>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:hi3l11$qv6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>[...] >>>> >>>> Yes, You've made you point.. he really is a dumb idiot.......so you can >>>> take the plug out of your mouth now.. >>> >>>So 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? >> >> [...] > > Interesting. I guess all that fluff and blather about how you don't read > and > don't go to the library is because you can't find anything that agrees > with > you once you are there. > > But now that you found someone FINALLY who managed to put his barely > coherent thoughts in something approximating a publication, you jump all > over it. > > I note with interest that you have been talking about publishing various > things for many years but never quite ever get around to doing it. I > wonder > what's up with that. Perhaps you don't actually believe the idiocies you > spout and just like to troll for attention? Only problem is .. if we plonk Henry and his idiocy, then there is almost nothing left in the newsgroup to respond to. Playing the 'what fundamental mistakes has Henry made in THIS post' game is about all the entertainment there is in this group lately.
From: Darwin123 on 7 Jan 2010 19:42
On Dec 29 2009, 7:25 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:06:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message > >news:6tmkj593emf34b0jft1bjc369pnir83pb3(a)4ax.com... > >> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. > Care to comment on his comment? "but the clocks in the mirror frame are synchronized differently" |