|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:53:22 +0000, Ben Newsam
wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:08:33 -0700, Lester Zick wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:00:55 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: On 5 Feb 2007 11:25:15 -0800, "Randy Poe" wrote: And I won't begin to guess what "overlapping frames of reference" might mean. It's a lovely concept though, isn't it? All those frames crashing into each other, rattling about and getting tangled up, like so many four-poster beds. What makes you think frames of reference move around space? It can move if you want it to move. So frames of reference are subject to your will? Another word for "frame of reference" might be "point of view". In other words SR is psychology instead of physics? What makes you dream up a concept like frames of reference that "overlap". What makes anyone dream up a concept that bodies with the same v's are in a common frame of reference and are strewn all over space and intermingle with bodies of different common v's? Maybe it's called physics. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Just what it says. Maybe you need to revisit the subject of whizzing and zooming stars and check out their frames of reference. ~v~~ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:50:03 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:53:22 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:08:33 -0700, Lester Zick wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:00:55 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: On 5 Feb 2007 11:25:15 -0800, "Randy Poe" wrote: And I won't begin to guess what "overlapping frames of reference" might mean. It's a lovely concept though, isn't it? All those frames crashing into each other, rattling about and getting tangled up, like so many four-poster beds. What makes you think frames of reference move around space? It can move if you want it to move. So frames of reference are subject to your will? Clearly you have no idea what a reference frame is. If ou want them all to remain still, that is entirely up to you. What you say appears to be all fantasy anyway. Another word for "frame of reference" might be "point of view". In other words SR is psychology instead of physics? Hardly, no. Nobody said it was. Do you understand what "point of view" means? It means a point from which you might view something. If you add coordinates, you get a reference frame. What makes you dream up a concept like frames of reference that "overlap". What makes anyone dream up a concept that bodies with the same v's are in a common frame of reference and are strewn all over space and intermingle with bodies of different common v's? Maybe it's called physics. You are beginning to rave a bit. Par for the course. I expect the ad hominems will start soon. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Just what it says. Maybe you need to revisit the subject of whizzing and zooming stars and check out their frames of reference. Ah yes, I remember that. It was a term used by someone who actually knew a great deal about the subject under siscussion (unlike you). He tried to explain to you in words of one syllable about the motions of stars in globular clusters, a concept that you spectacularly failed to understand, and merely mocked his valiant attempt to explain things in kindergarten terms to you. If I recall correctly, you claimed that globular clusters were the most recent objects in galaxies (they are in fact among the oldest) because you claimed (incorrectly) that the overall lack of angular momentum in the cluster as a whole would cause a gravitational collapse (it doesn't). One wonders on what subject you are going to be characteristically and argumentatively wrong this time. It will be good entertainment whatever. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:26:46 +0000, Ben Newsam
wrote: On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:50:03 -0700, Lester Zick wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:53:22 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:08:33 -0700, Lester Zick wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:00:55 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: On 5 Feb 2007 11:25:15 -0800, "Randy Poe" wrote: And I won't begin to guess what "overlapping frames of reference" might mean. It's a lovely concept though, isn't it? All those frames crashing into each other, rattling about and getting tangled up, like so many four-poster beds. What makes you think frames of reference move around space? It can move if you want it to move. So frames of reference are subject to your will? Clearly you have no idea what a reference frame is. Clearly. But you do. We know this because you say so. Very scientific. If ou want them all to remain still, that is entirely up to you. Volitional reference frames? Yes, yes, I can see it all now. No evidence but I'm sure we can take your word for it. What you say appears to be all fantasy anyway. One good fantasy deserves another. Another word for "frame of reference" might be "point of view". In other words SR is psychology instead of physics? Hardly, no. Nobody said it was. Do you understand what "point of view" means? It means a point from which you might view something. So "point of view" means "a point from which you might view something"? I wonder if you could dumb it down a little more. I mean following your same simplistic logic one might conclude that a "frame of reference" was a "reference which you could frame". Or is it that you're just too stupid or lazy to explain what your terms mean? If you add coordinates, you get a reference frame. And if you add crass stupidity we get you. What makes you dream up a concept like frames of reference that "overlap". What makes anyone dream up a concept that bodies with the same v's are in a common frame of reference and are strewn all over space and intermingle with bodies of different common v's? Maybe it's called physics. You are beginning to rave a bit. Par for the course. I expect the ad hominems will start soon. So you mean bodies with the same v's are not in a common frame of reference? Or is that a little too ad hominem to suit your tastes? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Just what it says. Maybe you need to revisit the subject of whizzing and zooming stars and check out their frames of reference. Ah yes, I remember that. It was a term used by someone who actually knew a great deal about the subject under siscussion (unlike you). And who could spell unlike you. He tried to explain to you in words of one syllable about the motions of stars in globular clusters, a concept that you spectacularly failed to understand, and merely mocked his valiant attempt to explain things in kindergarten terms to you. Yes, yes a truly valiant attempt for a kindergartener. If I recall correctly, you claimed that globular clusters were the most recent objects in galaxies (they are in fact among the oldest) because you claimed (incorrectly) that the overall lack of angular momentum in the cluster as a whole would cause a gravitational collapse (it doesn't). Oh thank god. And here I thought gravitation still worked. One wonders on what subject you are going to be characteristically and argumentatively wrong this time. It will be good entertainment whatever. I am indeed known for my wit. Whereas you are known for being witless. ~v~~ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Feb 7, 12:50 pm, Lester Zick wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:53:22 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:08:33 -0700, Lester Zick wrote: On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:00:55 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: On 5 Feb 2007 11:25:15 -0800, "Randy Poe" wrote: And I won't begin to guess what "overlapping frames of reference" might mean. It's a lovely concept though, isn't it? All those frames crashing into each other, rattling about and getting tangled up, like so many four-poster beds. What makes you think frames of reference move around space? It can move if you want it to move. So frames of reference are subject to your will? Another word for "frame of reference" might be "point of view". In other words SR is psychology instead of physics? What makes you dream up a concept like frames of reference that "overlap". What makes anyone dream up a concept that bodies with the same v's are in a common frame of reference and are strewn all over space and intermingle with bodies of different common v's? Maybe it's called physics. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Just what it says. Maybe you need to revisit the subject of whizzing and zooming stars and check out their frames of reference. If you don't understand SR, just come right out and say so, instead of beating around the bush. Insisting that it can't be that way is a symptom of problems on your part. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
Lester Zick wrote:
I am indeed known for my wit. If doubletalk, obfuscation, evasion, and pugnacity are primary components of wit then yes; indeed you are. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:24:12 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote: On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:26:46 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: Clearly you have no idea what a reference frame is. Clearly. But you do. We know this because you say so. Very scientific. If ou want them all to remain still, that is entirely up to you. Volitional reference frames? Yes, yes, I can see it all now. No evidence but I'm sure we can take your word for it. This is your "mocking" stage. The nastiness will start later, I am sure. Now get this, it will blow your tiny mind: you can create a reference frame wherever you want. For convenience's sake, you will probably want to create one in which a particular object is stationary, but that too is entirely up to you. In your case, of course, you will have to be careful not to let them overlap. Falls on floor laughing Another word for "frame of reference" might be "point of view". In other words SR is psychology instead of physics? Hardly, no. Nobody said it was. Do you understand what "point of view" means? It means a point from which you might view something. So "point of view" means "a point from which you might view something"? I wonder if you could dumb it down a little more. No, I can't. That was as simplistic as I could get it for your benefit. The dictionary definition will have to do. See below. I mean following your same simplistic logic one might conclude that a "frame of reference" was a "reference which you could frame". Or is it that you're just too stupid or lazy to explain what your terms mean? No, and I find it hard to believe that a conclusion lile that could be called "logic" even by you, but I do think that *you* are definitely too stupid *and* lazy to look them up yourself. Here goes, then. From the NSOED: A point of view (chiefly fig.); any of the ways in which something may be looked at or considered. If you add coordinates, you get a reference frame. Also from NSOED: frame of reference (a) a system of coordinate axes in relation to which position may be defined and motion conceived of as taking place; And if you add crass stupidity we get you. Ah, it begins. I was waiting for this stage. You are a classic case; once you are shown something that you either did not know or disagreed with, you begin to get nasty. We've seen it a few times before, of course. What makes you dream up a concept like frames of reference that "overlap". What makes anyone dream up a concept that bodies with the same v's are in a common frame of reference and are strewn all over space and intermingle with bodies of different common v's? Maybe it's called physics. You are beginning to rave a bit. Par for the course. I expect the ad hominems will start soon. So you mean bodies with the same v's are not in a common frame of reference? Or is that a little too ad hominem to suit your tastes? Since a frame of reference is merely a set of coordinates to describe objects and motions, a point of view from which measurements may be made and mathematics done, then all objects, with or without what you describe as "v's" (in any one frame of reference) are thus (and obviously) common to *all* frames of reference, wherever they might be, and whether (or not, ho ho) they "overlap". You just don't get it, do you? Was the sentence above too long for you, with too many complicated subordinate clauses? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:36:56 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote: Lester Zick wrote: I am indeed known for my wit. If doubletalk, obfuscation, evasion, and pugnacity are primary components of wit then yes; indeed you are. And if they aren't I still am. ~v~~ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:47:13 +0000, Ben Newsam
wrote: On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:24:12 -0700, Lester Zick wrote: On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:26:46 +0000, Ben Newsam wrote: Clearly you have no idea what a reference frame is. Clearly. But you do. We know this because you say so. Very scientific. If ou want them all to remain still, that is entirely up to you. Volitional reference frames? Yes, yes, I can see it all now. No evidence but I'm sure we can take your word for it. This is your "mocking" stage. The nastiness will start later, I am sure. My "mocking" stage? And here I thought I'd entered into my ad hominem nastiness stage already. Now get this, it will blow your tiny mind: And I also have something else you can blow. you can create a reference frame wherever you want. Sure you can. You can create Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian isometric reference frames wherever you want. Not a big deal. You just can't create a velocity dependent anisometric reference frames in SR under any circumstances you want. There you have to employ elements at rest with respect to one another or you won't have the necessary velocity dependent anisometry Einstein used to explain isotropically constant c and null results of relative motion experiments like MM. But I mean it's your choice. If you want to create Euclidean-Galilean- Cartesian-Newtonian frames of reference all over the universe by all means do so. They just won't have any bearing on velocity dependent anisometric frames of reference Einstein uses in SR. But then it won't matter because you're too lazy or stupid to comprehend the difference. For convenience's sake, you will probably want to create one in which a particular object is stationary, but that too is entirely up to you. In your case, of course, you will have to be careful not to let them overlap. Falls on floor laughing So do hyenas. Another word for "frame of reference" might be "point of view". In other words SR is psychology instead of physics? Hardly, no. Nobody said it was. Do you understand what "point of view" means? It means a point from which you might view something. So "point of view" means "a point from which you might view something"? I wonder if you could dumb it down a little more. No, I can't. That was as simplistic as I could get it for your benefit. The dictionary definition will have to do. See below. A dictionary definition for frames of reference in SR? I mean following your same simplistic logic one might conclude that a "frame of reference" was a "reference which you could frame". Or is it that you're just too stupid or lazy to explain what your terms mean? No, and I find it hard to believe that a conclusion lile that could be called "logic" even by you, but I do think that *you* are definitely too stupid *and* lazy to look them up yourself. Here goes, then. From the NSOED: A point of view (chiefly fig.); any of the ways in which something may be looked at or considered. Well that's really brilliant. Is that taken verbatim from your summa cum jackoff address? If you add coordinates, you get a reference frame. Also from NSOED: frame of reference (a) a system of coordinate axes in relation to which position may be defined and motion conceived of as taking place; Which unfortunately is not quite the same Einstein needs to explain isotropically constant relative c which also requires a velocity dependent anisometry. But what the hell, you're just making all this up as you go along. And if you add crass stupidity we get you. Ah, it begins. I was waiting for this stage. You are a classic case; once you are shown something that you either did not know or disagreed with, you begin to get nasty. We've seen it a few times before, of course. Begins??? It never stopped ever since the zooming and whizzing stars. What makes you dream up a concept like frames of reference that "overlap". What makes anyone dream up a concept that bodies with the same v's are in a common frame of reference and are strewn all over space and intermingle with bodies of different common v's? Maybe it's called physics. You are beginning to rave a bit. Par for the course. I expect the ad hominems will start soon. So you mean bodies with the same v's are not in a common frame of reference? Or is that a little too ad hominem to suit your tastes? Since a frame of reference is merely a set of coordinates to describe objects and motions, a point of view from which measurements may be made and mathematics done, then all objects, with or without what you describe as "v's" (in any one frame of reference) are thus (and obviously) common to *all* frames of reference, wherever they might be, and whether (or not, ho ho) they "overlap". Ho ho indeed. Unfortunately you don't understand enough of Einstein's use of velocity dependent anisometric physics to grasp the fundamental nature of frames of reference in SR. You just run on and on assuming frames of reference in SR are the usual Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian- Newtonian isometric frames of reference you use in grade school since you're too lazy or stupid to grasp Einstein's alternative approach. You just don't get it, do you? Was the sentence above too long for you, with too many complicated subordinate clauses? 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. ~v~~ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
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. -- -Coffee Boy- = Preferably white, with two sugars Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Some troubling assumptions of SR
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~~ |
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 |