relativity vs velocity addition
in [Relativity]
|
From: Mike on 15 Dec 2006 10:48 PD wrote: > On Dec 14, 3:37 pm, "Mike" <elea...(a)yahoo.gr> wrote: > > PD wrote: > > > On Dec 14, 10:13 am, "Mike" <elea...(a)yahoo.gr> wrote: > > > > > > > The Lorentz transformations just describe rotations in a four > > > > > dimensional space. As such, they are known to be mathematically self > > > > > consistent. It follows that regardless of whether SR is a correct > > > > > discription of reality,before you troll, learn the difference between a model of reality and a > > > > description of reality. SR cannot be a description of reality because > > > > 4-D spacetime is unobservable. > > > > > > > it cannot be invalidated by thought experiments > > > > > which seek to demonstrate internal contradictions.The twin paradox demonsrates an internal contradiction in SR as > > > > Einstein himslef admitted. You continue trolling., > > > > > > > So why do people keep trying? Every such attempt that is posted here > > > > > constitutes nothing more than a request for an explanation of where the > > > > > poster has got his or her maths wrong.Where is your math? I would be surprised if you can present a VALID > > > > derivation of Lorentz tranfrom. Go ahead, make my day. > > > > > > > That's what schools are for. > > > > > > > Who'd have thought that a group on relativity could be so tedius?You want to know had is tedious? LEARN: > > > > > > Axioms of SR: > > > > > > (See for example:http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html) > > > > > > 1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification (and common > > > > sense) > > > > > > 2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification > > > > > > 3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that > > > > fails verification) > > > > > > 4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification > > > > (and common sense) > > > > > > How tedius that was? > > > > > > Mike > > > > > By your terms, Mike, 3D space is not a description of reality because > > > it is not observable, either. > > > > > And Newton's First Law is not a good model for reality, because there > > > is no object on which there is zero net force. > > > ok, I hahahhahahhaha before but I agree with this one. But I never > > started anything on the first law. All my argumenst were about the > > second law or the third. the first law just defines the inertial frames > > the other laws apply. regardless, neither Newton's laws are a true > > description of reality It is just a model. > > > > HAVE I EVER SAID newton's laws are a description of reality? > > > > Mike > > > > Ah, so now I understand a bit better where you're coming from. Your > problem isn't with relativity per se. It's with physics in general, and > the fact that the models that we use to predict behavior are not true > descriptions of reality. In this objection, you include just about > everything that's been done in physics since... well, forever. Your meds Mike > > PD
From: karandash2000 on 15 Dec 2006 11:05 Mike wrote: > There is no need to do any nexperiments when the theory is internally > inconsistent. Experiments, do not prove a theory is correct. > Experiments only falsify a theory. In this case of SR tghis is not even > necessary because it is inconsistent in the first place. Any > compensatory aether based theory generates the same experimental > predictions as SR, including Lorentz relativity. That does not mean the > eather exists of course. > > Mike > Drolly-trolly, You are so boring when you attempt to affect a mainstream tone. You are so much more fun when you attempt to "calculate" and you botch all the calculations. For your informations, the Twins paradox : -is not a paradox -does not show any SR inconsistency For your benefit, read the updated wiki page on it and choke.
From: PD on 15 Dec 2006 18:11 On Dec 15, 9:48 am, "Mike" <elea...(a)yahoo.gr> wrote: > PD wrote: > > > > ok, I hahahhahahhaha before but I agree with this one. But I never > > > started anything on the first law. All my argumenst were about the > > > second law or the third. the first law just defines the inertial frames > > > the other laws apply. regardless, neither Newton's laws are a true > > > description of reality It is just a model. > > > > HAVE I EVER SAID newton's laws are a description of reality? > > > > Mike > > > Ah, so now I understand a bit better where you're coming from. Your > > problem isn't with relativity per se. It's with physics in general, and > > the fact that the models that we use to predict behavior are not true > > descriptions of reality. In this objection, you include just about > > everything that's been done in physics since... well, forever. > > Your meds > > Mike > Well, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, Mike. You could have at least confirmed that the complaint that you lodge against the axioms of special relativity (they are not a description of reality) also apply to Newton's laws, and so you have as little regard for Newton's laws as you do for special relativity. This begs the question, Mike: What part of physics -- anything at all, from any era -- do you regard as being a good description of reality? PD
From: Sorcerer on 15 Dec 2006 22:02 "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166237844.433976.104830(a)t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | | Mike wrote: | | [...] No he didn't, you did.
From: Eric Gisse on 15 Dec 2006 22:57
Sorcerer wrote: > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166237844.433976.104830(a)t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > | > | Mike wrote: > | > | [...] > > > No he didn't, you did. Give it a rest, Androcles. |