Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: eric gisse on 9 Jan 2010 15:38 Anti Vigilante wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:38:55 -0800, eric gisse wrote: > >> ..@..(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. >> >> How dumb does one have to be to say that vector momentum is equal to >> zero but scalar momentum, you know - the magnitude of vector momentum, >> is not equal to zero? >> > > You know there is one scenario: > > Two ball bearings pointed at a rubber ball. They have equal scalar > momentum but their vectors cancel out. While it's true that the rubber > ball (in a perfectly times and aligned experiment) will end up with zero > momentum imparted upon it, it will get squeezed, and perhaps heat up a > bit. > > The momentum _of the system_ is equal to zero, so the scalar momentum _of the system_ is also equal to zero. The momentum of the individual objects is nonzero, but that was never in doubt.
From: Greg Neill on 9 Jan 2010 16:20 Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > That's due to the imperfect elasticity of rubber. > > Frankly, i'm getting tired of teaching basic physics to all the startrek babies > here. They must be the only ones who'll sit and listen to you. > .....but I see I'll have to do it again. Consider the one dimensional case. > > M1>3 M2>4 M6>8 4<M7 6<M8 > M4>8 5<M3 1<M8 4<M9 > > there are nine air molecules in a box with momenta as shown. Missing M5 and there are two M8's with different momentums. Shoddy and shabby work right from the start. > > their total vector momentum is zero...so the box doesn't wanna move > spontaneously.........(what a pity...that would be a 'Wilson's Demon') The right pointing values add to 23 while the left pointing ones add to 20. So there is a net difference of 3 pointing to the right. The sum is not zero as you claim. It seems that you can't even make accurate observations about your own examples. > > their total scalar momentum is 58/9 = 6.4 Sorry, that's not a total it's an average. Did they not teach you about averages while you were sending in two box tops for your fake degree? > > If the box is at the same temperature as the air, then the average scalar > momentum of its molecules will also be 6.4. > > (In practice is is not that simple. All the degrees of freedom must be > considered). > > ......See what you can learn when youtalk to a real physicist. Sure. Much more than you'd learn talking with a fake one like Henry/Ralph!
From: Greg Neill on 9 Jan 2010 20:29 Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:20:36 -0500, "Greg Neill" <gneillRE(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> > wrote: > >> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> That's due to the imperfect elasticity of rubber. >>> >>> Frankly, i'm getting tired of teaching basic physics to all the startrek babies >>> here. >> >> They must be the only ones who'll sit and listen to you. >> >>> .....but I see I'll have to do it again. Consider the one dimensional case. >>> >>> M1>3 M2>4 M6>8 4<M7 6<M8 >>> M4>8 5<M3 1<M8 4<M9 >>> >>> there are nine air molecules in a box with momenta as shown. >> >> Missing M5 and there are two M8's with different momentums. >> Shoddy and shabby work right from the start. > > 3<M5 was accidentally deleted....obviously. Obviously? How about the inclusion of an extra M8? Was that supposed to be 'obvious' too? Face it Henry/Ralph, you're a lying, know-nothing crank. > >>> their total vector momentum is zero...so the box doesn't wanna move >>> spontaneously.........(what a pity...that would be a 'Wilson's Demon') >> >> The right pointing values add to 23 while the left pointing >> ones add to 20. So there is a net difference of 3 pointing >> to the right. The sum is not zero as you claim. >> >> It seems that you can't even make accurate observations about >> your own examples. > > irrelevant Irrelevant? The fact that your powers of observation are so pitiful that you can't even accurately produce and describe your very own example? I think not. I think it is damning evidence that you are a hopeless ninny. > >>> their total scalar momentum is 58/9 = 6.4 >> >> Sorry, that's not a total it's an average. > > irrelevant Irrelevant? The fact that you can't distinguish between a sum and an average? And yet you would like us to believe that you have some form of education and a degree bestowed by an institution of higher learning? Methinks not, Ralph the Untutored Ninny. > > Mistakes are inevitable when something is done in haste. Why are you in a rush? Are you going somewhere? Let us fervently hope so. You can't get your own trivial example right, an example involving trivial sums of integers, you can't distinguish between a sum and an average, yet you claim to be able to pronounce on mathematics that you have shown absolutely no aptitude for and in fact have shown a rather blatant ineptitude. > > Like I said, I'm sick of educating these idiots...you're obviously no better. Riiiight. Dream on, Ralph Untutored Ninny.
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 21:07 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:b5aik5plvn8k94e4dqab9551p5b6hehhlo(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:52:01 +0000 (UTC), Anti Vigilante > <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:24:29 -0800, eric gisse wrote: >> >>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >>>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>> How dumb does one have to be to say that vector momentum is equal to >>>>>> zero but scalar momentum, you know - the magnitude of vector >>>>>> momentum, is not equal to zero? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>You know there is one scenario: >>>>> >>>>>Two ball bearings pointed at a rubber ball. They have equal scalar >>>>>momentum but their vectors cancel out. While it's true that the rubber >>>>>ball (in a perfectly times and aligned experiment) will end up with >>>>>zero momentum imparted upon it, it will get squeezed, and perhaps heat >>>>>up a bit. >>>> >>>> That's due to the imperfect elasticity of rubber. >>>> >>>> Frankly, i'm getting tired of teaching basic physics to all the >>>> startrek babies here. >>>> .....but I see I'll have to do it again. Consider the one dimensional >>>> case. >>>> >>>> M1>3 M2>4 M6>8 4<M7 6<M8 >>>> M4>8 5<M3 1<M8 4<M9 >>>> >>>> there are nine air molecules in a box with momenta as shown. >>>> >>>> their total vector momentum is zero...so the box doesn't wanna move >>>> spontaneously.........(what a pity...that would be a 'Wilson's Demon') >>> >>> Maxwell's demon, dipshit. Your willingness to attach your name to ideas >>> that are not your own is rather pathetic. >>> >>> >>>> their total scalar momentum is 58/9 = 6.4 >>> >>> No, stupid. It is still zero. >>> >> >>It's worse. Until some of them hit the walls of the box the box has 0 >>momentum regardless the momentum of the particles. > > Gawd! How dumb does one have to be to become a relativist? > As dumb as a Wilson, Mr. gravity accelerated light.
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 21:08
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hibaci$hd6$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > [...] [...] |