Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Come on creative minds solve this fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico if ?you can
Next: Dark Energy: The problem with Einstein's Cosmological Constant is that there's no physics behind it
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jun 2010 21:43 On 6/13/10 7:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > Dear Sam: You believe whatever you wish. I explain what true science > is. So, a 'conversation' with you isn't needed. Like I said before, > make a '+new post', if you can, and see how many of the readers follow > you there. You, like PD, have nothing to offer but your defense of > the errant status quo. Your "proofs" are always... somewhere else. > In contrast, my New Science is always in plain view. � NoEinstein � Clock rates are perspective dependent. Two different observers can measure different clock rates. This happens all the time and shoots your theory to the rubbish heap. This is demonstrated with satellite clocks. The proper treatment of relativistic effect on satellite clock is discussed in this work by Neil Ashby, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System" http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html Your "New Science" is nothing more than no science. You should consider doing some self education.
From: pete on 13 Jun 2010 22:28 Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 6/13/10 7:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > On Jun 12, 9:30 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > Dear Sam: You believe whatever you wish. I explain what true science > > is. So, a 'conversation' with you isn't needed. Like I said before, > > make a '+new post', if you can, and see how many of the readers follow > > you there. You, like PD, have nothing to offer but your defense of > > the errant status quo. Your "proofs" are always... somewhere else. > > In contrast, my New Science is always in plain view. � NoEinstein � > > Momentum is conserved in closed systems. Momentum can be > changed by force. See Newton's second law: F = dp/dt > > Your "New Science" is nothing more than no science. You > should consider doing some self education. I learned that "angular momentum" was the immutable quantity in a closed system. -- pete
From: NoEinstein on 14 Jun 2010 11:48 On Jun 13, 9:46 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: What does Conservation of Momentum have to do with the present discussion on Radiometers? You are "posturing" by making (sometimes true) statements, and implying that I must have said otherwise. If you have a theory about anything, paraphrase such so that I and the readers can know what your purpose is. I have no desire to discuss with you, a status quo school teacher, what the actual laws of physics are. My New Science covers that well enoughif you would just read and understand. NoEinstein > > On 6/13/10 7:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 9:30 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Sam: You believe whatever you wish. I explain what true science > > is. So, a 'conversation' with you isn't needed. Like I said before, > > make a '+new post', if you can, and see how many of the readers follow > > you there. You, like PD, have nothing to offer but your defense of > > the errant status quo. Your "proofs" are always... somewhere else. > > In contrast, my New Science is always in plain view. NoEinstein > > Momentum is conserved in closed systems. Momentum can be > changed by force. See Newton's second law: F = dp/dt > > Your "New Science" is nothing more than no science. You > should consider doing some self education.
From: NoEinstein on 14 Jun 2010 12:08 On Jun 13, 10:28 pm, pete <pfil...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > Dear Pete: The "stages of your education" aren't of much interest to me nor to the thousands of readers. Can you join several coherent sentences together that might actually contribute to science? NoEinstein > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > On 6/13/10 7:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 9:30 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Sam: You believe whatever you wish. I explain what true science > > > is. So, a 'conversation' with you isn't needed. Like I said before, > > > make a '+new post', if you can, and see how many of the readers follow > > > you there. You, like PD, have nothing to offer but your defense of > > > the errant status quo. Your "proofs" are always... somewhere else. > > > In contrast, my New Science is always in plain view. NoEinstein > > > Momentum is conserved in closed systems. Momentum can be > > changed by force. See Newton's second law: F = dp/dt > > > Your "New Science" is nothing more than no science. You > > should consider doing some self education. > > I learned that "angular momentum" > was the immutable quantity in a closed system. > > -- > pete- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kado on 15 Jun 2010 06:30
On Jun 12, 1:27 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/11/10 11:27 PM, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > snip.. > > > So please just tell me which twin is younger than the other. > > The twin that experienced the accelerations is the younger of the > two when they are back together. See: The Twin Paradox: The Spacetime > Diagram Analysis. > You still have not answered my question. You just responded with a bunch of mainline BS. Just tell me if the twin who took the trip is younger than the stay-at- home twin, or if the twin that stayed at home is younger than his/her sibling. D.Y.K. |