Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
Next: Physics Turned Upside Down to Keep the Hour Glass of Time Flowing
From: valls on 16 Jul 2010 14:31
On 16 jul, 09:32, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 12:56 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > On 14 jul, 08:33, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 4:18 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > >  Describe the Sun’s
> > > > trajectory in the ECI.
>
> > > Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago.
>
> > The ECI is a centre of mass inertial frame, in both the Newtonian view
> > and the 1905 Relativity one, in both holding good the Newtonian
> > mechanical laws. And you must know that it is absolutely impossible to
> > describe a Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest following
> > Newton’s laws (Tycho Brahe’s work precedes Newton’s one).
>
> You are an imbecile, old fart.
>
> > To describe
> > the Sun’s trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass
> > inertial frame (or maybe a greater one),
>
> No, old fart. You can use ANY frame. This is the whole point of
> relativity.
>
If you insist, describe then the Sun's trajectory in the ECI.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 16 Jul 2010 17:39
On Jul 16, 11:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > > Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago.
>
> > > The ECI is a centre of mass inertial frame, in both the Newtonian view
> > > and the 1905 Relativity one, in both holding good the Newtonian
> > > mechanical laws. And you must know that it is absolutely impossible to
> > > describe a Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest following
> > > Newton’s laws (Tycho Brahe’s work precedes Newton’s one).
>
> > You are an imbecile, old fart.
>
> > > To describe
> > > the Sun’s trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass
> > > inertial frame (or maybe a greater one),
>
> > No, old fart. You can use ANY frame. This is the whole point of
> > relativity.
>
> If you insist, describe then the Sun's trajectory in the ECI.
>


Old fart, Tycho Brahe already did this almost 600 years ago. How dense
are you?
From: Inertial on 17 Jul 2010 08:28
wrote in message
news:92be25aa-8c21-4b6f-9ed5-b9fbe8492f3a(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>On 14 jul, 16:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:d2d03aaa-33fb-47e7-8436-4148d1627e69(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >Repeating, the ECI is a complete (not �close�) centre of mass inertial
>>
>> WRONG. It is no inertial .. it is in orbit around the sun
>>
>> Please. . try to get the basics right
>>
>> [snip rest of nonsense unread]
>
>Then give us a real example of what you accept as an inertial frame.

A frame associated with an object in inertial motion, though in our part of
the universe at least, such objects don't exist due to the influence of
gravity. One can only give 'real' examples of frames that are close to
inertial. How much such a frame differs from inertial needs to be taken
into account when performing experiments or analysing observations.

Of course. . that doesn't alter your misunderstandings of the 1905 paper
that introduced relativity.

From: BURT on 17 Jul 2010 14:49
On Jul 17, 5:28 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:92be25aa-8c21-4b6f-9ed5-b9fbe8492f3a(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On 14 jul, 16:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> messagenews:d2d03aaa-33fb-47e7-8436-4148d1627e69(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >Repeating, the ECI is a complete (not “close”) centre of mass inertial
>
> >> WRONG.  It is no inertial .. it is in orbit around the sun
>
> >> Please. . try to get the basics right
>
> >> [snip rest of nonsense unread]
>
> >Then give us a real example of what you accept as an inertial frame.
>
> A frame associated with an object in inertial motion, though in our part of
> the universe at least, such objects don't exist due to the influence of
> gravity.  One can only give 'real' examples of frames that are close to
> inertial.  How much such a frame differs from inertial needs to be taken
> into account when performing experiments or analysing observations.
>
> Of course. . that doesn't alter your misunderstandings of the 1905 paper
> that introduced relativity.

There can be movement in the frames of the many gravity fields. But
weight is still in one.

Mitch Raemsch
From: valls on 19 Jul 2010 06:35
On 16 jul, 16:39, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 11:31 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Old fart, Tycho Brache already did that hundreds of years ago.
>
> > > > The ECI is a centre of mass inertial frame, in both the Newtonian view
> > > > and the 1905 Relativity one, in both holding good the Newtonian
> > > > mechanical laws. And you must know that it is absolutely impossible to
> > > > describe a Sun moving with respect to an Earth at rest following
> > > > Newton’s laws (Tycho Brahe’s work precedes Newton’s one).
>
> > > You are an imbecile, old fart.
>
> > > > To describe
> > > > the Sun’s trajectory you need to consider the Galaxy centre of mass
> > > > inertial frame (or maybe a greater one),
>
> > > No, old fart. You can use ANY frame. This is the whole point of
> > > relativity.
>
> > If you insist, describe then the Sun's trajectory in the ECI.
>
> Old fart, Tycho Brahe already did this almost 600 years ago. How dense
> are you?

We are talking here about inertial frames, the ones denoted by 1905
Einstein stationary systems, in which the equations of Newtonian
mechanics hold good. I insist, describe the Sun's trajectory in the
ECI using Newton's laws. I suppose you are sufficiently smart to
understand that Tycho Brahe know nothing about Newton's laws.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
Next: Physics Turned Upside Down to Keep the Hour Glass of Time Flowing