![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Androcles" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote in message u... | | "Speed of force", huh? | | What units would that have, exactly? | Ummm ask any of ummm your fellow ummm cranks talking about the ummm "speed of ummm gravity, huh", ummm ****wit. So you don't know either? Why do cranks invent meaningless terms? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Webb" wrote in message u... | | "Androcles" wrote in message | ... | | "Peter Webb" wrote in message | u... | | | | "Speed of force", huh? | | | | What units would that have, exactly? | | | | Ummm ask any of ummm your fellow ummm cranks talking about the ummm "speed | of ummm gravity, huh", ummm ****wit. | | | So you don't know either? | Nope. | Why do cranks invent meaningless terms? Ummm like "Let's say there are ummm like two ummm like twins", do you ummm mean? You tell me, crank. How much time does it take for light to travel the length of one of these two twin rods and back again ... the red one, crank: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.gif |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 27, 9:35*pm, "Androcles"
Ummm like "Let's say there are ummm like two ummm like twins", do you ummm mean? You tell me, crank. How much time does it take for light to travel the length of one of these two twin rods and back again ... the red one, crank: *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.gif Time in the red frame or time in the blue frame? They are different. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 5/28/11 10:03 AM, Darwin123 wrote:
On May 27, 9:35 pm, "Androcles" Ummm like "Let's say there are ummm like two ummm like twins", do you ummm mean? You tell me, crank. How much time does it take for light to travel the length of one of these two twin rods and back again ... the red one, crank: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/x'=x-vt.gif Time in the red frame or time in the blue frame? They are different. http://esc.kelder.ee/mulonigav/sys/h...7b6d9defeb 73 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 28, 1:28*pm, "Androcles"
So you believe in Maxwell's magical aether, Judas. Maxwell's equations **** off, Blind Judas, come back when you can see pictures like NORMAL people. I didn't say that I believed in an aether. You said that I believed in an aether. I simply said that I believe in Maxwell's equations. You are the one who equated Maxwell's equations with an aether. I also never said that Einstein was wrong. I claimed that he never said the speed of light was either c+v or c-v. You are the one who claimed that Einstein said that the speed of light was c+v and c-v. You still haven't been able to cite a quote from Einstein where he said that the speed of light was c+v or the speed of light was c-v. You just keep deflecting. You never will admit that Einstein never said those things. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 is the cause of Mercury's anomalous precession. M M' \ \ \ S P The force exerted by the sun on M doesn't act till the planet is at M'. Therefore, the direction of that force is always forward of the sun, towards P, causing an increase in precession of the ellipse. 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.. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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) Ralph Rabbidge hasn't got a ****ing clue either. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote in
: 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 is the cause of Mercury's anomalous precession. M M' \ \ \ S P Since you are so sure, let us see the calculation. The force exerted by the sun on M doesn't act till the planet is at M'. Therefore, the direction of that force is always forward of the sun, towards P, causing an increase in precession of the ellipse. It would also make the orbit unstable, as detailed in any decent classical mechanics textbook, eg Goldstein. Why don't you show us the calculation? 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.. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 Henry Wilson DSc Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |