Special relativity incoherent drivel [Physics]

Prev: Chandrasekhar limit passed
Next: 9-11 Knowsknothing Collapse Fraud

From: JT on 17 Mar 2010 12:34

My last post to sci.physics for a while, i can not see the theory
become more coherent then last time. You still have to wiggle and
change your mind on every question.

I do find your notion of variant units, to be more confusing for you
than me. I at least understand they are variant. While you treat every
measurement like if it was a valid measurement.

I finally gave up when i did realise inertial wanted to use two
different measure values on same spatial separation.

4.2 km and 300 000 km represented same spatial separation.

These values where both measured from same frame, that was the
endpoint of constructive discussion.

I will leave you alone, SR it is a pet theory for pet brains, we leave
it that way.

JT

From: Sam Wormley on 17 Mar 2010 12:46

On 3/17/10 11:34 AM, JT wrote:
> My last post to sci.physics for a while...

There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction
of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and
you should take the time to learn it, JT.

What is the experimental basis of special relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

How do you add velocities in special relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

Can special relativity handle acceleration?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

From: Uncle Ben on 17 Mar 2010 13:34

On Mar 17, 12:34 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> My last post to sci.physics for a while, i can not see the theory
> become more coherent then last time. You still have to wiggle and
> change your mind on every question.
>
> I do find your notion of variant units, to be more confusing for you
> than me. I at least understand they are variant. While you treat every
> measurement like if it was a valid measurement.
>
> I finally gave up when i did realise inertial wanted to use two
> different measure values on same spatial separation.
>
> 4.2 km and 300 000 km represented same spatial separation.
>
> These values where both measured from same frame, that was the
> endpoint of constructive discussion.
>
> I will leave you alone, SR it is a pet theory for pet brains, we leave
> it that way.
>
> JT

Yes, and the atomic bomb never went off; it was a hoax perpetrated by
a collusion between Japanese and American scientists.

And the GPS system doesn't really work, because the relativistic
corrections to the satellite clocks are just messing them up,
confusing motorists and the US military without their knowing it.

And the LHC will never work, just wasting billion of dollars and
euros.

And every physics department in the world is populated with crackpots.

And all the computer chips in the world are about to fail, having
originally been designed by those crackpots.

And Jonas will just sit in his armchair feeling superior to all these
false intellectuals.

And (this one for real) one cannot learn SR by conversing in this
kooky newsgroup. It takes a college course in physics taught by an
above-average instructor.

Uncle Ben

From: Sue... on 17 Mar 2010 14:15

On Mar 17, 1:34 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 12:34 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My last post to sci.physics for a while, i can not see the theory
> > become more coherent then last time. You still have to wiggle and
> > change your mind on every question.
>
> > I do find your notion of variant units, to be more confusing for you
> > than me. I at least understand they are variant. While you treat every
> > measurement like if it was a valid measurement.
>
> > I finally gave up when i did realise inertial wanted to use two
> > different measure values on same spatial separation.
>
> > 4.2 km and 300 000 km represented same spatial separation.
>
> > These values where both measured from same frame, that was the
> > endpoint of constructive discussion.
>
> > I will leave you alone, SR it is a pet theory for pet brains, we leave
> > it that way.
>
> > JT
>
> Yes, and the atomic bomb never went off; it was a hoax perpetrated by
> a collusion between Japanese and American scientists.
>
> And the GPS system doesn't really work, because the relativistic
> corrections to the satellite clocks are just messing them up,
> confusing motorists and the US military without their knowing it.
>
> And the LHC will never work, just wasting billion of dollars and
> euros.
>
> And every physics department in the world is populated with crackpots.
>
> And all the computer chips in the world are about to fail, having
> originally been designed by those crackpots.

<<..one of Einstein's two main reasons for abandoning
special relativity as a suitable framework for physics
was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics,
special relativity is based on the unjustified and
epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred
class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory"
exists only, aside from its historical importance,
as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas
for important limiting cases of the general theory,
but the epistemological foundation of those formulas
must be sought in the context of the general theory. >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

>
> And Jonas will just sit in his armchair feeling superior to all these
> false intellectuals.
>
> And (this one for real) one cannot learn SR by conversing in this
> kooky newsgroup. It takes a college course in physics taught by an
> above-average instructor.

Maybe he gets his jollies exposing quacks.

<<Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric,
propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid
evidence (which presumably does not exist).>>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...

>
> Uncle Ben

From: Igor on 18 Mar 2010 13:54

|
Pages: 1
Prev: Chandrasekhar limit passed
Next: 9-11 Knowsknothing Collapse Fraud