|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:05:08 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article , Lester Zick wrote: Yes it was much too long for me mainly because you don't know what you're talking about.But that's okay because you're British and aren't expected to know what you're talking about before you talk about it. Ho ho. Ok for now you escaped my killfile as your lunacy was funny. Now the shtick is just old and boring, plonk. Come, come, Phin. Are you British too or am I just no longer as funny as used to be? Bit of a thin skin, what? Certainly my Nielsen ratings must still be higher than DvdM's who can be amusing at times except when he's wrong which in the case of SR seems to be pretty much all the time. I mean do you read my posts for content or just the cartoons as you would the New Yorker? Extraneous mockery and rhetorical hyperbolic irony are certainly perfectly acceptable forensic modalities when opponents refuse to explain themselves which empirics are wont to do because they aren't expected to know what they're talking about but nonetheless expect others to know what they're talking about. How about if I promise never ever to do it again? Of course it wouldn't be so funny but I mean if these empirics would just condescend to proffer reasons for their disagreements instead of egregiously andecdotal disparagements at least I would have something humorless to work with instead. Alas I fear noncewise the most I can offer is that in your absence I shall miss your pithy critiques of my humorous efforts. So in the interegnum pith on you. ~v~~ A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic) which vanishes or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the particle(s) in. ............mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!! Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy. Jim G c'=c+v |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
wrote in message oups.com... Hi Jim, long time no see. A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic) which vanishes or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the particle(s) in. The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of an object is zero in its rest frame and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless of what theory you use. ...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!! Well that is certainly indisputable. Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy. A fine example, energy is of course conserved in SR. George |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote: [snip excr.] ~v~~ A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic) which vanishes or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the particle(s) in. ...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!! Not only do you fail to understand special relativity, There's a lot more that you just don't understand, and we don't need capitals to say it. Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy. If you don't understand the definition of energy, surely you can't possibly understand conservation of energy. That's just about the only thing about you that remotely makes sense. Dirk Vdm |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:58:59 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote: wrote: On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote: On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:05:08 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article , Lester Zick wrote: Yes it was much too long for me mainly because you don't know what you're talking about.But that's okay because you're British and aren't expected to know what you're talking about before you talk about it. Ho ho. Ok for now you escaped my killfile as your lunacy was funny. Now the shtick is just old and boring, plonk. Come, come, Phin. Are you British too or am I just no longer as funny as used to be? Bit of a thin skin, what? Certainly my Nielsen ratings must still be higher than DvdM's who can be amusing at times except when he's wrong which in the case of SR seems to be pretty much all the time. I mean do you read my posts for content or just the cartoons as you would the New Yorker? Extraneous mockery and rhetorical hyperbolic irony are certainly perfectly acceptable forensic modalities when opponents refuse to explain themselves which empirics are wont to do because they aren't expected to know what they're talking about but nonetheless expect others to know what they're talking about. How about if I promise never ever to do it again? Of course it wouldn't be so funny but I mean if these empirics would just condescend to proffer reasons for their disagreements instead of egregiously andecdotal disparagements at least I would have something humorless to work with instead. Alas I fear noncewise the most I can offer is that in your absence I shall miss your pithy critiques of my humorous efforts. So in the interegnum pith on you. ~v~~ A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic) which vanishes or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the particle(s) in. ...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!! Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy. Jim G c'=c+v At one time, Jim, I thought you had come to sci.physics to learn physics concepts. Why do you post here? Maybe to learn to spell instead. Certainly can't learn any physics here. ~v~~ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:43:48 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote: wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote: [snip excr.] ~v~~ A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic) which vanishes or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the particle(s) in. ...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!! Not only do you fail to understand special relativity, There's a lot more that you just don't understand, and we don't need capitals to say it. Oh boo hoo. So you understand everything there is to say about SR, Dutch? We can get the party line from any of thousands of hacks. We don't need you to spell it out for us. Why don't you light up a Hav-a-tampa for a change. Or smoke a White Owl. Lighten up a little. You're not even funny any more. Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy. If you don't understand the definition of energy, surely you can't possibly understand conservation of energy. That's just about the only thing about you that remotely makes sense. Whereas there's nothing about you that makes any sense. ~v~~ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote: wrote in message roups.com... Hi Jim, long time no see. A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic) which vanishes or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the particle(s) in. The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of an object is zero in its rest frame and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless of what theory you use. Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric properties of reference frames in SR. And that one universal frame of reference is the reference frame against which all dynamic properties such as momentum and energy are judged whether at rest or in motion. ...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!! Well that is certainly indisputable. Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy. A fine example, energy is of course conserved in SR. George ~v~~ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On 10 Feb., 18:59, Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... Hi Jim, long time no see. A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic) which vanishes or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the particle(s) in. The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of an object is zero in its rest frame and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless of what theory you use. Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric properties of reference frames in SR. And that one universal frame of reference is the reference frame against which all dynamic properties such as momentum and energy are judged whether at rest or in motion. Newton had the idea of absolute space and time. However, even in Newtonian physics, the meaning of "here", "now" and "motionless" may differ from observer to observer, hence there /are/ different frames of reference. Recall e.g. how the description of a collision is simplified by *choosing* *the* *frame* *of* *reference* where the centre of gravity is at rest. The impossibility to decide which frames rest relative to the absolute space-time frame (not to mention finding the origin of that frame) leads very naturally to the idea of abandoning absolute space-time and developing SR. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
Lester Zick says...
"George Dishman" wrote: The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of an object is zero in its rest frame and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless of what theory you use. Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric properties of reference frames in SR. What in the world are you talking about, Lester? Newtonian physics certainly has a notion of different frames of reference. That's what the Galilean transformations are about: x' = x - vt Velocity, momentum, kinetic energy are all frame-dependent quantities in Newtonian physics. The Newtonian notion of "frame of reference" is pretty much the same as in Special Relativity. I usually prefer not to mention frames of reference, and just talk about coordinate systems, but as it is usually used, a frame of reference is a standard for which objects are "at rest" and which are not. It's sometimes called a "rest frame" for that reason. A frame of reference usually also provides a standard for measuring the distances between events (whether or not they take place at the same time). It's not exactly the same thing as a coordinate system, however, because a frame of reference doesn't specify what is the origin, or what the coordinate axes are. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ... Lester Zick says... "George Dishman" wrote: The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of an object is zero in its rest frame and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless of what theory you use. Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric properties of reference frames in SR. What in the world are you talking about, Lester? Newtonian physics certainly has a notion of different frames of reference. That's what the Galilean transformations are about: x' = x - vt But xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), so that's two transformations. What's the velocity v between x' and xi? What in the ****in' world are you babbling about, McCullough? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
"Lester Zick" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote: .... The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of an object is zero in its rest frame and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless of what theory you use. Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian physics, ... You really need to find out what a frame is, Lester. George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
plate tectonics is based on what assumptions? | don findlay | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 11th 06 12:59 AM |
plate tectonics is based on what assumptions? | don findlay | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 9th 06 04:18 AM |
Some Troubling Assumptions of SRT | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 5 | November 29th 05 03:15 PM |
Some Troubling Assumptions of SRT | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 5 | November 29th 05 03:15 PM |
Incorrect assumptions about the speed of light | Arobinson319 | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | September 29th 03 05:04 PM |