A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Simple question about SR paradox



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 29th 11, 05:36 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 05:42 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 05:43 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 05:45 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 06:21 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 08:35 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Sky.Watcher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 10:12 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 11:47 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Androcles[_43_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 12:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default 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  
Old May 29th 11, 12:46 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.