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
  #51  
Old May 30th 11, 12:02 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 23:41:24 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:47:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
| | wrote:
|
| | 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.
|
| He's obviously turned up here one day, read some of your crap and then
| accused me of being wrong.
|
| I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts by
| 1/gamma in his 1905 paper.

You haven't given me one single citation for gamma, and 2 is shorter than 1.
I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
|
| I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
| corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his own
| personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.

According to the dyscalculiac Alf "Daisy" Baggage, 1/2 is identical to 2/1.
I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.


Look it's quite simple really.

When Einstein wrote "it becomes shorter in the ratio of 1: sqrt(...)..."
he obviously meant it was initially '1' and 1/gamma when moving.

Germans probably use a few tnorf-ot-kcab expressions like the hcnerF.



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..
  #52  
Old May 30th 11, 12:05 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 17:41:45 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 5/29/11 5:37 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 17:24:10 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 5/29/11 5:13 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts by
1/gamma in his 1905 paper.

I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his own
personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.

SR contradicts itself.


"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".


My paradox uses only one frame, dopey.


So you keep saying...


and so you keep ignoring...

It is really unfortunate for you to take such a hardened stance on
a theory that has such copious experimental verification, Henry.


There is none.

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html


HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!
....and they are still as desperate as they were in 1905 to find just ONE
piece of CONVINCING evidence....


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..
  #53  
Old May 30th 11, 12:33 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 23:41:24 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:47:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"

| | | wrote:
| |
| | | 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.
| |
| | He's obviously turned up here one day, read some of your crap and then
| | accused me of being wrong.
| |
| | I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts
by
| | 1/gamma in his 1905 paper.
|
| You haven't given me one single citation for gamma, and 2 is shorter than
1.
| I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
| |
| | I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
| | corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his
own
| | personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.
|
| According to the dyscalculiac Alf "Daisy" Baggage, 1/2 is identical to
2/1.
| I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
|
| Look it's quite simple really.
|
| When Einstein wrote "it becomes shorter in the ratio of 1: sqrt(...)..."
| he obviously meant it was initially '1' and 1/gamma when moving.

Look, it's quite simple really.
When the Greeks wrote their alpha, beta:
http://www.keyway.ca/gif/greek2.gif
we English speaking people didn't call it an alphagamm, we
called it an alphabet.
Only pet chimps and Einstein Dingleberries talk about gamma,
Einstein used beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid you are, but you
are not only dyslexic, you suffer from dyscalculia also. This
is a sure indication of very low intelligence, matching little eric
and Phuckwit Duck.


  #54  
Old May 30th 11, 12:40 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Steve Thompson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Simple question about speed of force.


On Sat, 28 May 2011, Peter Webb wrote:

When they were D apart, resting for an hour before I tapped, what
was the speed of force between them?


"Speed of force", huh?

What units would that have, exactly?


And are we talking African Force or European Force?

-s
  #55  
Old May 30th 11, 12:53 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.


"Steve Thompson" wrote in message
ersoft.com...
|
| On Sat, 28 May 2011, Peter Webb wrote:
|
| When they were D apart, resting for an hour before I tapped, what
| was the speed of force between them?
|
| "Speed of force", huh?
|
| What units would that have, exactly?
|
| And are we talking African Force or European Force?
|
Wot!.. is ur name?
Lafalot.
Wot!.. is ure kwest?
To seek the holy speed of gravity.



  #56  
Old May 30th 11, 02:07 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 Mon, 30 May 2011 00:33:33 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Sun, 29 May 2011 23:41:24 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:47:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"

| | | wrote:
| |
| | | 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.
| |
| | He's obviously turned up here one day, read some of your crap and then
| | accused me of being wrong.
| |
| | I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts
by
| | 1/gamma in his 1905 paper.
|
| You haven't given me one single citation for gamma, and 2 is shorter than
1.
| I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
| |
| | I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
| | corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his
own
| | personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.
|
| According to the dyscalculiac Alf "Daisy" Baggage, 1/2 is identical to
2/1.
| I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
|
| Look it's quite simple really.
|
| When Einstein wrote "it becomes shorter in the ratio of 1: sqrt(...)..."
| he obviously meant it was initially '1' and 1/gamma when moving.

Look, it's quite simple really.
When the Greeks wrote their alpha, beta:
http://www.keyway.ca/gif/greek2.gif
we English speaking people didn't call it an alphagamm, we
called it an alphabet.
Only pet chimps and Einstein Dingleberries talk about gamma,
Einstein used beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid you are, but you
are not only dyslexic, you suffer from dyscalculia also. This
is a sure indication of very low intelligence, matching little eric
and Phuckwit Duck.


I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice for
answering the more accomplished dickheads here.

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..
  #57  
Old May 30th 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
:

[...]

I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good
practice for answering the more accomplished dickheads here.


So your goal isn't to convince anyone, but rather just to argue with
people?
  #58  
Old May 30th 11, 06:06 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 Mon, 30 May 2011 00:33:33 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 29 May 2011 23:41:24 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:47:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| | | wrote:
| | |
| | |
| | | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | | .. .
| | | | On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
|
| | | | wrote:
| | |
| | | | 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.
| | |
| | | He's obviously turned up here one day, read some of your crap and
then
| | | accused me of being wrong.
| | |
| | | I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter
contracts
| by
| | | 1/gamma in his 1905 paper.
| |
| | You haven't given me one single citation for gamma, and 2 is shorter
than
| 1.
| | I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
| | |
| | | I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than
a
| | | corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in
his
| own
| | | personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.
| |
| | According to the dyscalculiac Alf "Daisy" Baggage, 1/2 is identical to
| 2/1.
| | I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
| |
| | Look it's quite simple really.
| |
| | When Einstein wrote "it becomes shorter in the ratio of 1:
sqrt(...)..."
| | he obviously meant it was initially '1' and 1/gamma when moving.
|
| Look, it's quite simple really.
| When the Greeks wrote their alpha, beta:
| http://www.keyway.ca/gif/greek2.gif
| we English speaking people didn't call it an alphagamm, we
| called it an alphabet.
| Only pet chimps and Einstein Dingleberries talk about gamma,
| Einstein used beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
| I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid you are, but you
| are not only dyslexic, you suffer from dyscalculia also. This
| is a sure indication of very low intelligence, matching little eric
| and Phuckwit Duck.
|
| I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice
for
| answering the more accomplished dickheads here.
|
I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.
I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
means you cannot appreciate it.
Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1
and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1-(v/c)^2)^-0.5, since
that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.






  #59  
Old May 30th 11, 11:12 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 Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 30 May 2011 00:33:33 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:


|
| Look, it's quite simple really.
| When the Greeks wrote their alpha, beta:
| http://www.keyway.ca/gif/greek2.gif
| we English speaking people didn't call it an alphagamm, we
| called it an alphabet.
| Only pet chimps and Einstein Dingleberries talk about gamma,
| Einstein used beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
| I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid you are, but you
| are not only dyslexic, you suffer from dyscalculia also. This
| is a sure indication of very low intelligence, matching little eric
| and Phuckwit Duck.
|
| I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice
for
| answering the more accomplished dickheads here.
|
I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.
I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
means you cannot appreciate it.
Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1
and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1-(v/c)^2)^-0.5, since
that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.


Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible habit
of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for your
image...
Try to avoid such errors in future will you.


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..
  #60  
Old May 30th 11, 11:44 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 Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Mon, 30 May 2011 00:33:33 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
|
| |
| | Look, it's quite simple really.
| | When the Greeks wrote their alpha, beta:
| | http://www.keyway.ca/gif/greek2.gif
| | we English speaking people didn't call it an alphagamm, we
| | called it an alphabet.
| | Only pet chimps and Einstein Dingleberries talk about gamma,
| | Einstein used beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
| | I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid you are, but you
| | are not only dyslexic, you suffer from dyscalculia also. This
| | is a sure indication of very low intelligence, matching little eric
| | and Phuckwit Duck.
| |
| | I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice
| for
| | answering the more accomplished dickheads here.
| |
| I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.
| I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
| means you cannot appreciate it.
| Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1
| and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1-(v/c)^2)^-0.5, since
| that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.
|
| Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible habit
| of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for
your
| image...
| Try to avoid such errors in future will you.
|

You want to get serious?
All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said anything
about any gamma.
He did write
"Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every
rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the
X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), i.e. the
greater the value of v, the greater the shortening."
but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is xi =
(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is lengthening.
Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real
Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you?







 




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 03:04 PM.


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.