Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Inertial on 7 Jan 2010 19:52 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3163ec60-65c4-4620-8272-2b71a8de7f8a(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... > 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" Whose comment (was it mine?)? And who are you asking to comment on the comment (Henry?)? Can't quite tell from the above, as the comment you want a comment on has been snipped.
From: Androcles on 7 Jan 2010 20:47 "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.. >>> [...] >> >> [...] [...]
From: eric gisse on 7 Jan 2010 22:50 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] >> >>For the box itself, the speed is zero relative to itself. So the momentum >>magnitude for the box is zero. > > Vector momentum is indeed zero...that's why the box doesn't shoot of > spontaneously. > Scalar momentum however is certainly not zero. Really? A vector that's equal to zero has nonzero magnitude? Are you sure? [...]
From: Inertial on 7 Jan 2010 23:31 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:4hbdk55dvm6ai9pmjupplpaahpf6544ija(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:50:57 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>[...] >> >>>> >>>>For the box itself, the speed is zero relative to itself. So the >>>>momentum >>>>magnitude for the box is zero. >>> >>> Vector momentum is indeed zero...that's why the box doesn't shoot of >>> spontaneously. >>> Scalar momentum however is certainly not zero. >> >>Really? A vector that's equal to zero has nonzero magnitude? >> >>Are you sure? > > We are talking about sigma(scalar momentum)/N. No .. we are talking about the "box itself" (not the air within it, which was discussed separately). You just claimed it has a vector momentum of zero but has a scalar momentum (ie magnitude of the vector momentum) that is "certainly notzero".
From: Inertial on 7 Jan 2010 23:33
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:ifbdk5dedknitqcal9nssjpc2b2m3s1ts7(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:52:35 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:20:08 -0800, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:29:28 -0800, eric gisse >>>>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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? >>> >>> I have to learn to deal with the idiots before I take on the big boys. >> >>And when will that be, Ralph? You can't even answer simple questions like >>'what books have you read about physics?' without getting argumentative >>and >>insulting, much less answer in depth questions and handle constructive >>criticism without flying off the handle. >> >>But perhaps I'm wrong, let's test. >> >>What books on electromagnetic theory have you read? > > [...] So .. an empty set .. zero books. |