Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: LHC marries Aunt-Al
Next: SR and a lightbulb
From: xxein on 1 Jan 2010 21:57 On Dec 31 2009, 1:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 10:03 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 6:51 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > > > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. > > > > Note: I am not really an "Einstein supporter". Rather, I > > > am a physicist. That is, I STUDY physics and use the theories > > > which best model the physical phenomena of the world. For this > > > sort of question by far the best model is Special Relativity > > > (no other theory comes close, except for theories > > > indistinguishable from SR). > > > > Tom Roberts > > >xxein: 'That is', that you refuse to recognise or distinguish other > > theories. You'd bleed to death over your belief of 'your' physics. I > > hate to explain to brick walls and the physic hates it also, but the > > physic is just the physic and someone other than the 'pontificating > > TR' can certainly understand it better than you. > > > Can you describe the physical mechanism (not a/some physics) of how > > velocity addition works to our perception and measure of it? NO. The > > only thing you have is a math formula designed to describe the math of > > how it eerily conforms only to subjective observation. > > Objective observation, where the objectivity is determined by the > common result obtained by independent investigators using > complementary methods. > > The second you start saying that observation is suspect and that > objective truth can be determined without reference or verification > from observation, you have stopped doing science. > > > > > You have > > discounted the objectiveness of the physic. > > > Einstein died with a healthy doubt of his own very successful > > theories. I don't see you relinquishing yours.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: On the contrary. The invesitgators are subjective to the objective affects (however hidden from thinking in their mode of investigation). If you doubt that, then dismiss the Doppler effect. You can make a math about it but then you have to explain how the physic works to support it. A man-made physics is just a guess and never correct enough. Otherwise we would have TOE's running rampant because there would be no ultimate qualification.
From: Inertial on 2 Jan 2010 05:21 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:veutj5dfed52r51rcgrrmt1p6m5267rgno(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:06:41 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:6rjsj5t8ngptj9nvi7fjj4n96nc0apnges(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 22:41:29 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>I see you can't argue with that >>>> >>>>> I'm just realising I'm arguing with a real nutcase.. >>>> >>>>You talking to yourself again? >>>> >>>>>>If we assume Newtonian physics, you can have values that include L/T >>>>>>in >>>>>>their dimensions that are equal in multiple frames of reference. >>>>>> >>>>>>Back to the drawing board, Henry. >>>>> >>>>> You really don't have aclue... >>>> >>>>I proved you wrong. I've more of a clue than you ! >>>> >>>>> even little eric is now brighter than you. >>>> >>>>Maybe. I'm not sure how clever he is .. but he does seem quite bright. >>>>I'm >>>>not in any competition for brightness. >>> >>> well you wouldn't be. Nobody likes to come last at anything.... >> >>I don't need to worry about that .. I've got you and Andy and Porat and >>Seto >>and any number of crackpots all so far behind me there is no worry about >>me >>being last in the intelligence stakes .. its not an issue for me if there >>are people more intelligent than me or not. > > I was only joking. Don't get upset. I wasn't > You can obviously use a computer...and that > puts you well above chimp level. Well above.
From: Inertial on 2 Jan 2010 05:22 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:nhutj5lv16v95uteidp68bgh10snhvd31a(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 11:09:02 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:t0tsj5t9bsc3a2mkcofat68g6998annumo(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:41:27 -0800, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>> >>>>[...] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So why are some things frame dependent and not others? >>>> >>>>Yes, Ralph, why are some things frame dependent and other are not? >>>> >>>>You seem to think time and length are frame independent while being >>>>completely unable to consider otherwise. But why is velocity and kinetic >>>>energy frame dependent while length and time are not? What's so special >>>>about those? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> They must contain L/T or (L/T)^2 >>>> >>>>There's that curious assumption about L/T again. You keep bringing it up >>>>as >>>>if it somehow proved a point. >>> >>> you don't even know how to define your 'frame'. >> >>You really shouldn't be the one pointing out what people don't know .. >>after >>all your admissions that you don't know what SR says and you don't care >>what >>it says. > > I'm as interested in what SR says as I am in the Koran. Hence anything you have to say about it is worthless .. you don't understand it and don't have any interest in what it says. >>Of course .. all you are doing is diverting away from yet another >>demonstration of your ignorance. Why do you even both posting, old man? >>You should know by now that as you are no good at physics and can't be >>bothered to learn it, you should find another hobby for your retirement. > > Consider the case of two moving mirrors. No thanks.. I've wasted enough time on you .. you aren't interested in what SR says, so no point telling yiou. [snip idiot Henry]
From: Inertial on 2 Jan 2010 05:23 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:ftvtj55478b353q10g6vp3gidibqnofm71(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 11:06:19 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:9ulsj5ld28i7n20uddp1af8lhmfc9hj293(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:21:35 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: > >>>>I know the whole idea of observer-dependent quantities just throws you >>>>for a loop. >>>>But even Galileo noted that even the *shape* of the trajectory of a >>>>falling body changes just because someone else looks at it. A >>>>cannonball dropped from the mast of a ship falls in a *straight line* >>>>to the bottom of the mast, according to an observer on the deck. But >>>>it falls in a parabola, according to an observer on shore. >>>>Now, according to you, if a path is one shape, it can hardly be made a >>>>different shape just because someone else looks at it. But it's plain >>>>that this DOES happen. So what you think is impossible appears to be >>>>possible after all, even though you don't understand how it can be. >>>>Same thing here. >>> >>> So why are some things frame dependent and not others? >> >>Its the nature of the transforms between the frames. Change transforms >>and >>you get a different set of frame dependant values. >> >>with Lorentz transforms, for example, the speed of something travelling at >>c >>in one frame is not frame dependent, but lengths and time intervals are. >> >>with Galilean transforms, for example, the speed of something travelling >>at >>c in one frame IS frame dependent, but lengths and time intervals are not. > > Why should they be?...We know nothing actually happens to them. Same for SR and Lorentz transforms >>However, the principle of relativity applies in both cases, as it just >>says >>that the same laws of physics apply in any inertial frame. It says >>nothing >>about which measurements are frame dependent and what are not. Only how >>the >>measurements are relate d by the law of physics. >> >>> They must contain L/T or (L/T)^2 >> >>I see you are changing your statement each time .. because you had no idea >>what you were saying initially, and each time we point out that you were >>wrong, you change it. You seem to confuse the PoR with what measurement >>are >>frame independent .. that's yet another of your misunderstandings about >>physics. You really should have gone to university and studied it, and >>learnt something. > > Well the question is, should dv/dt be classified as a speed.... No .. its acceleration > of course > not...so it is not frame dependent. Irrelevant > Energy and momentum on the other hand contain v^2 and v and are therefore > frame > dependent. So you think energy and momentum are speeds? BAHAHA.
From: eric gisse on 2 Jan 2010 07:02
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > > I'm as interested in what SR says as I am in the Koran. Yet you keep demanding that scientists make you understand. [...] |