|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote in
: 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.... Why don't you show us where in the calculation Einstein set the 'famous' factor of 2? Am I the only one who thinks it is cute you have to argue coincidence every time GR gets the answer correct? 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.. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:41:39 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
wrote: "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 You're obviously new here. I wont bother to explain..Just read what the Einstein supporters have been claiming for 100 years. 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.. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:34:25 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
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. Wormey, the GR prediction of Mercury's precession out by miles. 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.. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:09:06 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
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 Yep. Truly empty space doesn't have one. When anyone tries to measure it, they simply destroy the emptiness and measure the properties of the fields thay introduce. 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.. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote in
: On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:34:25 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: 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. Wormey, the GR prediction of Mercury's precession out by miles. Again, do you have some evidence for this or are you just making **** up as you go along? SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it? http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg ****ing up SR and being proud of it doesn't lend credence to your ramblings about GR. Henry Wilson DSc Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian.. Projection is an ugly thing. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:41:39 +0100, "Sky.Watcher" wrote: "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message . .. On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:11:42 +0100, "Sky.Watcher" wrote: "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message m... 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 You're obviously new here. I wont bother to explain.. All right, I won't bother to read your ridiculous nonsense. You've obviously no idea what you are talking about. Goodbye. -- Sky.Watcher |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
wrote: "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message .. . On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:41:39 +0100, "Sky.Watcher" 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 You're obviously new here. I wont bother to explain.. All right, I won't bother to read your ridiculous nonsense. You've obviously no idea what you are talking about. Goodbye. -- Sky.Watcher What's your real motive? You haven't contributed anything scientific. You aapparently don't know anything about SR...so I can only assume you are just part of the Einstein conspiracy, here to stifle any criticism of his stupid theory. 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.. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message ... | On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher" | wrote: | | | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message | .. . | On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:41:39 +0100, "Sky.Watcher" | | 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 | | You're obviously new here. I wont bother to explain.. | | All right, I won't bother to read your ridiculous nonsense. You've obviously | no idea what you are talking about. | | Goodbye. | -- Sky.Watcher | | What's your real motive? You haven't contributed anything scientific. You | aapparently don't know anything about SR...so I can only assume you are just | part of the Einstein conspiracy, here to stifle any criticism of his stupid | theory. | | Looks to me like he was asking you a question you couldn't answer. You've lost that one, Wilson, he isn't bothering with you anymore. I won't bother to explain. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
On 5/28/11 11:42 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it? "The 'Special Theory of Relativity' was constructed by Einstein to resolve the mystery of the speed of light. Einstein's solution was that the concept of simultaneity depended on the frame of reference. And the rule that relates the observations from different frames was given by the Lorentz transformation. "The predictions of Special Relativity such as time dilation and Lorentz contraction are as infamous as they are famous. The reason for the notoriety is due to the apparent paradoxical nature of the prediction: say we have two frames, A and B, moving relative to each other. According to Special Relativity, the observer in frame A will observe the clock in frame B to run slower than the clock in frame A, and the ruler in frame B to be shorter than the ruler in frame A. The observer in frame B will observe the exact opposite. Now how can both points of view be true at the some time? "Of course, the two points of view are NOT true at the same time. They are both true because they are NOT at the same time. Time dilation and Lorentz contraction were both consequences of the fact that different observers do not agree on what it is meant to be at the same time. Let us not forget this since otherwise we can be misled to all sorts of paradoxes which have nothing to do with the predictions of relativity". - Tatsu Takeuchi Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist. See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109 VII. CONCLUSION "This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that students have with the definition of the time of an event and the role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to confront the startling ideas of special relativity". |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about speed of force.
On 5/28/11 11:43 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:34:25 -0500, Sam wrote: 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. Wormey, the GR prediction of Mercury's precession out by miles. 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.. Show the data that supports for conclusion, Ralph. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 68 | May 26th 11 07:33 PM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 25th 11 12:35 AM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 24th 11 07:25 PM |
FW: Simple Question | Steve Willner | Research | 13 | July 11th 03 10:46 PM |
FW: Simple Question | Richard S. Sternberg | Research | 0 | July 7th 03 06:14 PM |