Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Inertial on 8 Jan 2010 19:20 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hi83k7$uqj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > [...] > >> >> <plonk> > > If you say so, Ralph. You only seem to manage to "plonk" (whatever that > means in your world) someone for a few days. Get lonely much? > > October: "Look I'm going to take Andro's advice and permanently plonk you. > You have an incurable dose of acute indoctrination. You are beyond help. " > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3770bf5f58c7add7?dmode=source > > October again, with the added bonus of gender confusion: "Why don't you > plonk her like I have. " > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/36999c796ce44c56?dmode=source > > November: > > "This is an automatic reply: > > I do not read your posts." > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4fc8809706e1ea40?dmode=source > > December: > > "idiot.... > > <Plonk> " > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9dda0b6d47256120?dmode=source > > December again: > > "You're a total waste of time > > <plonk> " > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c838e96e7834802c?dmode=source I think that 'plonk' there refers to the bottles of booze he's guzzling at the time
From: YBM on 9 Jan 2010 00:14 Henry Wilson DSc a �crit : > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:56:45 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 1:45 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:43:08 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jan 7, 10:00 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >>>> Please, Henri, are you so devoid of dignity that you deny the >>>> existence of the wall against your back when you paint yourself into a >>>> corner? >>> Anyone who believes a velocity is a ''speed' is an ignorant fool. So is anyone >>> who defends that person. >> That's true. But he didn't say the velocities were equal. He said the >> speeds (the magnitudes of those velocities) were equal. And that's >> true. In one frame, and not in other frames. >> >> Please, Henri, it's really gotten very close to the point where >> Androcles went, claiming that 1/2 = 2, and he nearly burst a blood >> vessel in his head trying to maintain bluster in the face of >> humiliation. Don't you think you'd better try to salvage whatever >> dignity you have left? > > Hey idiot, if you give a speed a direction it becomes a velocity. > > Speeds are expressed as pure numbers. Naturally '5' is frame independent, so is > 10005. > > The idiot inertial used two dissimilar velocities to try to prove me wrong. She > called them speeds...which shows her complete ignorance of physics. Clutching at straws, Ralph? How pathetic...
From: YBM on 9 Jan 2010 00:17 Henry Wilson DSc a �crit : > On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:24:35 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:24:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "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. >>> Vector momentum is indeed zero...that's why the box doesn't shoot of >>> spontaneously. >>> Scalar momentum however is certainly not zero. >> Could you define scalar momentum in terms of vector momentum for us, Henri? >> I think it will be an instructive exercise for everyone. > > Gawd! How dumb does one have to be to become a relativist. Evading again, Ralph?
From: YBM on 9 Jan 2010 00:18 Henry Wilson DSc a �crit : > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:38:43 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 3:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:58:54 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jan 7, 2:33 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:00:52 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Jan 6, 9:45 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>> Really? Who told you that? >>>>> One of my physics lecturers... >>>>> Don't you know the difference between speed and velocity? >>>> Yes, and who told you that there is a version of momentum that uses >>>> the speed and not the velocity? >>>> If one of your physics lecturers told you that, please ask for a >>>> refund. >>> Hey, I know you missed out on a physics introduction but scalar momentum is >>> important in kinetic gas theory. >> Really? Cite reference, please. >> >>> As I said before, the average SCALAR momentum >>> of molecules in substances at the same temperature is the SAME. >>> That means if you add up the momentum MAGNITUDES 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. >> Really? The box has a nonzero scalar momentum? While it's sitting >> there? Isn't what you call the scalar momentum the magnitude of the >> momentum vector? Which direction is the box's momentum vector >> pointing? >> >>> (velocities are relative to box) >>> However, as I also pointed out, the issue is complicated by rotation and >>> vibration of molecules in their various degrees of freedom. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> I'm talking about scalar version. >>>>>> And what's the scalar momentum of the gas in a bottle? >>>>> Ask Maxwell. it has all to do with collisions. >>>> So you don't know... >>> I'm getting sick of teaching you basic physics, diaper. I wont do it for much >>> longer. >> You mean you plan to crawl out a window when you've painted yourself >> into the corner. > Gawd! How dumb does one have to be to become a relativist? Evading again, Ralph?
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 02:06
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hi989v$vjb$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:24:35 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:24:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"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. >>>> >>>> Vector momentum is indeed zero...that's why the box doesn't shoot of >>>> spontaneously. >>>> Scalar momentum however is certainly not zero. >>> >>>Could you define scalar momentum in terms of vector momentum for us, >>>Henri? I think it will be an instructive exercise for everyone. >> >> Gawd! How dumb does one have to be to become a relativist. > [...] What have you got to say to that, Gisse? |