From: Sue... on 24 May 2010 17:01 On May 24, 4:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 3:47 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On May 24, 4:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 24, 3:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On May 24, 1:37 am, spammer <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > If we make a videos of both twins one rocket away (with some speed of > > > > > light) into space and the other stayed on earth and then how would the > > > > > movies (motion) of both twins be best explained if played side by side > > > > > after? One camera is on board the rocket and the other is on earth. > > > > > They didn't have videos in 1905. :-)) > > > > They didn't have rockets that could leave earth orbit in 1905 either. > > > > This must mean that the laws of physics have changed enormously in the > > > last 105 years. > > > Perhaps they have. Let's see: > > > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical > > experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense > > between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's > > laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. > > Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of > > relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the > > same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > > [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > an imaginary magnitude > > > sqrt(-1) > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > > the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > > same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > > > > <<...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. >> > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > > > > > Sue... > > > I leave research of the exact dates as an exercise > > for readers that are intimidated by generalised Maxwell's equations. > > > Sue... > > I was talking about the laws of nature as nature obeys them, not the > laws of physics as written down by humans trying to figure them out. > > Idiot. Thank you for the splendid demonstration. <<Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature. For instance, the interpretations of astrology depend on the names of things, which are accidental and vary from culture to culture. If the ancients had given the name Mars to the planet we call Jupiter, and vice versa, astronomy could care less but astrology would be totally different, because it depends solely on the name and has nothing to do with the physical properties of the planet itself. >> <<Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms. >> <<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...
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Sci.physics.research (:-)!!! Next: Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% |