Simple question about SR paradox

On 5/28/11 4:46 PM, Darwin123 wrote:
I don't think the phrase "speed of force" is really meaningless.
However, a single force can't literally have a speed.

Background Force Carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

To the best of our current knowledge, speed of light, constrains
the interactions.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:11:36 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:46:52 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123

| | wrote:
| |
| | On May 27, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb" So you don't know either?
| |
| | Why do cranks invent meaningless terms?
| | I don't think the phrase "speed of force" is really meaningless.
| | However, a single force can't literally have a speed. I think they are
| | referring to the delay between the action and the reaction.
| | General rule for all mechanics: For every action, there is a
| | reaction. In other words, if body 1 exerts a force on body 2, then
| | body 2 exerts a force on body 1 that is equal in magnitude but
| | opposite in direction. However, what varies with the mechanics is the
| | delay between these two forces.
| | 1) According to Newton's Laws of mechanics, there is no delay between
| | the action and the reaction. Both forces are simultaneously equal in
| | magnitude and opposite in direction.
| | 2) According to Maxwell's equations, there is a finite time delay
| | between the action and the reaction when electromagnetic fields are
| | involved. The forces at different times are equal in magnitude and
| | opposite in direction.
| | 3) According to SR, there is a finite time delay between the action
| | and the reaction always. The forces at different times are equal in
| | magnitude and opposite in direction.
| |
| | When people are talking about the "speed of a force", they are
| | generally talking about the distance between the two bodies and the
| | time delay between action and reaction. In GR, the "speed" both
| | electromagnetic force and gravity is "c".
| | According to
| |
| | The speed of gravity
|
| Suppose I place two bar magnets on my desk just far enough apart
| so that they do not move, and any lesser distance will result in them
| snapping together. Let us call this distance D.
| I now tap the desk lightly and the vibration varies the friction between
| the desk surface and the magnets. SNAP! The magnets fly together.
| It takes a finite time for the magnets to move a distance D to a
| distance zero, so we'll call that t.
| When they were D apart, resting for an hour before I tapped, what
| was the speed of force between them?
| i) Everybody knows it was c
| ii) it was the speed of magnetism
| iii) it was infinite
| iv) obviously it is D/t
| v) obviously it is D per hour.
| vi) force is instantaneous, it doesn't have a speed.
| vii) Blind Judas Rosen doesn't think.
| viii) Duckfoot hasn't got a ****ing clue either.
| ix) Henry Wilsone hasn't got a ****ing clue either.
|
| Silly old pommie engineer type question...

So the answer is the daft old ozzie sheepshagger
ix) Alf Baggage hasn't got a ****ing clue either.

As Captain of the Good Ship Newton, I ought to throw you overboard.
You are not even useful ballast.

On 5/28/11 5:42 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:


The speed of gravity is the cause of Mercury's anomalous precession.


Cite evidence or articulate a credible calculation, Ralph! Did you
forget that general relativity accurately models the gravitational
precession of the planets?

On 5/28/11 5:25 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Empty space has no permeability of permittivity.


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permitt...m_permittivity

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:11:36 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
| On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:46:52 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123

| wrote:
|
| On May 27, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb" So you don't know either?
|
| Why do cranks invent meaningless terms?
| I don't think the phrase "speed of force" is really meaningless.
| However, a single force can't literally have a speed. I think they are
| referring to the delay between the action and the reaction.
| General rule for all mechanics: For every action, there is a
| reaction. In other words, if body 1 exerts a force on body 2, then
| body 2 exerts a force on body 1 that is equal in magnitude but
| opposite in direction. However, what varies with the mechanics is the
| delay between these two forces.
| 1) According to Newton's Laws of mechanics, there is no delay between
| the action and the reaction. Both forces are simultaneously equal in
| magnitude and opposite in direction.
| 2) According to Maxwell's equations, there is a finite time delay
| between the action and the reaction when electromagnetic fields are
| involved. The forces at different times are equal in magnitude and
| opposite in direction.
| 3) According to SR, there is a finite time delay between the action
| and the reaction always. The forces at different times are equal in
| magnitude and opposite in direction.
|
| When people are talking about the "speed of a force", they are
| generally talking about the distance between the two bodies and the
| time delay between action and reaction. In GR, the "speed" both
| electromagnetic force and gravity is "c".
| According to
|
| The speed of gravity

Suppose I place two bar magnets on my desk just far enough apart
so that they do not move, and any lesser distance will result in them
snapping together. Let us call this distance D.
I now tap the desk lightly and the vibration varies the friction between
the desk surface and the magnets. SNAP! The magnets fly together.
It takes a finite time for the magnets to move a distance D to a
distance zero, so we'll call that t.
When they were D apart, resting for an hour before I tapped, what
was the speed of force between them?
i) Everybody knows it was c
ii) it was the speed of magnetism
iii) it was infinite
iv) obviously it is D/t
v) obviously it is D per hour.
vi) force is instantaneous, it doesn't have a speed.
vii) Blind Judas Rosen doesn't think.
viii) Duckfoot hasn't got a ****ing clue either.
ix) Henry Wilsone hasn't got a ****ing clue either.

Silly old pommie engineer type question...

Probably the best indicator of the speed of gravity is the anomalous
precession of the perihelion of Mercury...



SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

You repeat this often. Do you have any evidence of SR claiming rubber bands
contract?
Skies are cloudy, I can spend some time fooling around.

"Sky.Watcher" wrote in message
...
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| ...
| On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:11:36 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| . ..
| | On Sat, 28 May 2011 14:46:52 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123
|
| | wrote:
| |
| | On May 27, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb" So you don't know either?
| |
| | Why do cranks invent meaningless terms?
| | I don't think the phrase "speed of force" is really meaningless.
| | However, a single force can't literally have a speed. I think they
are
| | referring to the delay between the action and the reaction.
| | General rule for all mechanics: For every action, there is a
| | reaction. In other words, if body 1 exerts a force on body 2, then
| | body 2 exerts a force on body 1 that is equal in magnitude but
| | opposite in direction. However, what varies with the mechanics is the
| | delay between these two forces.
| | 1) According to Newton's Laws of mechanics, there is no delay between
| | the action and the reaction. Both forces are simultaneously equal in
| | magnitude and opposite in direction.
| | 2) According to Maxwell's equations, there is a finite time delay
| | between the action and the reaction when electromagnetic fields are
| | involved. The forces at different times are equal in magnitude and
| | opposite in direction.
| | 3) According to SR, there is a finite time delay between the action
| | and the reaction always. The forces at different times are equal in
| | magnitude and opposite in direction.
| |
| | When people are talking about the "speed of a force", they are
| | generally talking about the distance between the two bodies and the
| | time delay between action and reaction. In GR, the "speed" both
| | electromagnetic force and gravity is "c".
| | According to
| |
| | The speed of gravity
|
| Suppose I place two bar magnets on my desk just far enough apart
| so that they do not move, and any lesser distance will result in them
| snapping together. Let us call this distance D.
| I now tap the desk lightly and the vibration varies the friction between
| the desk surface and the magnets. SNAP! The magnets fly together.
| It takes a finite time for the magnets to move a distance D to a
| distance zero, so we'll call that t.
| When they were D apart, resting for an hour before I tapped, what
| was the speed of force between them?
| i) Everybody knows it was c
| ii) it was the speed of magnetism
| iii) it was infinite
| iv) obviously it is D/t
| v) obviously it is D per hour.
| vi) force is instantaneous, it doesn't have a speed.
| vii) Blind Judas Rosen doesn't think.
| viii) Duckfoot hasn't got a ****ing clue either.
| ix) Henry Wilsone hasn't got a ****ing clue either.
|
| Silly old pommie engineer type question...
|
| Probably the best indicator of the speed of gravity is the anomalous
| precession of the perihelion of Mercury...
|
|
|
| SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
| http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg
|
| You repeat this often. Do you have any evidence of SR claiming rubber
bands
| contract?
| Skies are cloudy, I can spend some time fooling around.
|
Of course he doesn't. Wilson accepts what the fools say.

On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:06:28 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 5/28/11 5:42 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:


The speed of gravity is the cause of Mercury's anomalous precession.


Cite evidence or articulate a credible calculation, Henry! Did you
forget that general relativity accurately models the gravitational
precession of the planets?

Pure coincidence..and only after Einstein belatedly added the famous factor
of 2 to make it look right....



SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:11:42 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:11:36 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

|
| The speed of gravity

Suppose I place two bar magnets on my desk just far enough apart
so that they do not move, and any lesser distance will result in them
snapping together. Let us call this distance D.
I now tap the desk lightly and the vibration varies the friction between
the desk surface and the magnets. SNAP! The magnets fly together.
It takes a finite time for the magnets to move a distance D to a
distance zero, so we'll call that t.
When they were D apart, resting for an hour before I tapped, what
was the speed of force between them?
i) Everybody knows it was c
ii) it was the speed of magnetism
iii) it was infinite
iv) obviously it is D/t
v) obviously it is D per hour.
vi) force is instantaneous, it doesn't have a speed.
vii) Blind Judas Rosen doesn't think.
viii) Duckfoot hasn't got a ****ing clue either.
ix) Henry Wilsone hasn't got a ****ing clue either.

Silly old pommie engineer type question...

Probably the best indicator of the speed of gravity is the anomalous
precession of the perihelion of Mercury...



SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

You repeat this often. Do you have any evidence of SR claiming rubber bands
contract?

Freeze it if you like...
SR claims all moving matter contracts...and you should know it.

Skies are cloudy, I can spend some time fooling around.


SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

On 5/28/11 8:30 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:06:28 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 5/28/11 5:42 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:


The speed of gravity is the cause of Mercury's anomalous precession.


Cite evidence or articulate a credible calculation, Henry! Did you
forget that general relativity accurately models the gravitational
precession of the planets?

Pure coincidence..and only after Einstein belatedly added the famous factor
of 2 to make it look right....

Bzzzt! Wrong again Ralph! Einstein did not introduce the cosmological
constant to make the orbits of the planets agree with observation.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:11:42 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:11:36 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

|
| The speed of gravity

Suppose I place two bar magnets on my desk just far enough apart
so that they do not move, and any lesser distance will result in them
snapping together. Let us call this distance D.
I now tap the desk lightly and the vibration varies the friction between
the desk surface and the magnets. SNAP! The magnets fly together.
It takes a finite time for the magnets to move a distance D to a
distance zero, so we'll call that t.
When they were D apart, resting for an hour before I tapped, what
was the speed of force between them?
i) Everybody knows it was c
ii) it was the speed of magnetism
iii) it was infinite
iv) obviously it is D/t
v) obviously it is D per hour.
vi) force is instantaneous, it doesn't have a speed.
vii) Blind Judas Rosen doesn't think.
viii) Duckfoot hasn't got a ****ing clue either.
ix) Henry Wilsone hasn't got a ****ing clue either.

Silly old pommie engineer type question...

Probably the best indicator of the speed of gravity is the anomalous
precession of the perihelion of Mercury...



SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

You repeat this often. Do you have any evidence of SR claiming rubber
bands
contract?

Freeze it if you like...
SR claims all moving matter contracts...and you should know it.

Actually I don't know it. I'd be interested if you could show me where SR
claims all moving matter contracts, but I suspect you don't know it either.
-- Sky.Watcher