Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 21:11 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hibcgs$sa2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > [...] [...]
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 22:45 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:vmfik55jlfkbmqpdhc3kqjl47l7qqrchif(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:07:57 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"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. > > So you take Einstein's view that it doesn't, eh? > Which side are you REALLY on? > I'm on the side of the angels... or is it the angles? I forget which. Einstein changed his mind when he switched to GR. That way nobody could prove him wring.
From: Inertial on 10 Jan 2010 06:31 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:cq3gk5tv5pocbc16fm5080emsmffsgecoo(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:40:43 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Jan 7, 7:42 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:24:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...(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 >>> >> <thedraperfam...(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. >> >>Interesting. Is what you call the scalar momentum the magnitude of the >>vector momentum? What's the magnitude of a zero vector? > > Gawd! How dumb does one have to be to become a relativist? So .. you can't answer. That's not surprising. You're on the squirm, you lying worm.
From: Androcles on 10 Jan 2010 07:06 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:d48jk5p50952qvppu7mf6l8bc1k2qms9ln(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:45:15 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:vmfik55jlfkbmqpdhc3kqjl47l7qqrchif(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:07:57 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"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. >>> >>> So you take Einstein's view that it doesn't, eh? >>> Which side are you REALLY on? >>> >>I'm on the side of the angels... or is it the angles? I forget which. >>Einstein changed his mind when he switched to GR. That >>way nobody could prove him wring. > > OK you realised your mistake...now apologize for calling me a relativist. Relativists change their pitch angels too. I'm on the side of the angles --- and angels. This angle has an edge-on halo: http://www.squiglysplayhouse.com/ArtsAndCrafts/ColouringPictures/Christmas/AngelHalo.gif These a face-on halo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duccio_di_Buoninsegna_017.jpg http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban2537l.jpg
From: Androcles on 10 Jan 2010 23:43
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:5efkk51jgaq2k0irt9b9e43qqecchpu81r(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:06:05 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:d48jk5p50952qvppu7mf6l8bc1k2qms9ln(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:45:15 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Gawd! How dumb does one have to be to become a relativist? >>>>>>> >>>>>>As dumb as a Wilson, Mr. gravity accelerated light. >>>>> >>>>> So you take Einstein's view that it doesn't, eh? >>>>> Which side are you REALLY on? >>>>> >>>>I'm on the side of the angels... or is it the angles? I forget which. >>>>Einstein changed his mind when he switched to GR. That >>>>way nobody could prove him wring. >>> >>> OK you realised your mistake...now apologize for calling me a >>> relativist. >> >>Relativists change their pitch angels too. >>I'm on the side of the angles --- and angels. This angle has an >>edge-on halo: >> >> http://www.squiglysplayhouse.com/ArtsAndCrafts/ColouringPictures/Christmas/AngelHalo.gif >> >>These a face-on halo: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duccio_di_Buoninsegna_017.jpg >> >> http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban2537l.jpg > > [......]! > Tsk, tsk... It's only 3 periods, like this "[...]" |