|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Nov 29, 5:06*pm, PD wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:13*pm, "hanson" wrote: ... Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass and look for common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when and why you posted that *"What Einstein said about relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU mean by objective physics", as detailed in http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's crap then has retarded the development of fundamental physics for the last 100 years... ahaha.. No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps forward at all? New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially right holds anything back. Please elaborate. What was the one step taken backwards or to the side in SR? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Nov 30, 11:47*am, Edward Green wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:06*pm, PD wrote: On Nov 29, 1:13*pm, "hanson" wrote: ... Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass and look for common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when and why you posted that *"What Einstein said about relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU mean by objective physics", as detailed in http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's crap then has retarded the development of fundamental physics for the last 100 years... ahaha.. No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps forward at all? New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially right holds anything back. Please elaborate. What was the one step taken backwards or to the side in SR? I think "relativistic mass" can be considered a move to the side at best. It was done to bridge classical physics with the more correct relativistic treatment, in the manner of "this can be thought of playing the role of what you knew before...." |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Nov 30, 12:47*pm, Edward Green wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:06*pm, PD wrote: On Nov 29, 1:13*pm, "hanson" wrote: ... Now, let's get back to the fine tripe you produced in http://tinyurl.com/Paul-Drapers-Mass and look for common ground. 1st of all I can understand now when and why you posted that *"What Einstein said about relativity is irrelevant." and asked me "What do YOU mean by objective physics", as detailed in http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-irrelevant-No-obj-phy Furthermore you said along these lines that "Mass has had its meaning refined, especially over the last 100 years or so".., to which one could add that Einstein's crap then has retarded the development of fundamental physics for the last 100 years... ahaha.. No, I wouldn't put it that way at all. If someone takes four steps forward and one back, or four steps forward and one to the side, would it have been better if that person had never taken the four steps forward at all? New theories usually get some things right and some things wrong or not quite right. The wrong things get corrected and the right things represent advances. I would not say that something that is partially right holds anything back. Please elaborate. What was the one step taken backwards or to the side in SR?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear Edward: The "backwards step" in SR is that such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Also, the space-time CRAP of SR resulted from Lorentz's rubber-ruler explanation for the nil results of Michelson-Morley. The real reason for the nil results (my own contribution) is because M-M didn't have a CONTROL, or unchanging, light course. Read some of my many '+new posts' to understand more. NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre... Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/43f6f316... An Einstein Disproof for Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...hread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...b2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en# Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...29d832240f404d KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...51e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d7fbe994f569f7 There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...272072f?hl=en& PD has questions about science. Can any of you help? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3ced1ad?hl=en& Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1163422440ffd9 A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...=gravity+swing Shedding New Light on Comet Tails http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/...797453b40de4f?... What is sci.research seeking if not the truth? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...93f20?lnk=raot Busting MythBusters. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...6c137610ee3437 Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...262930c6655db1 Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...38761134ee8408 Dropping Coriolis like a feather. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c92e2427fd7e98 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Dec 6, 10:09*am, "Androcles"
wrote: r_AB/(c+v) *= r_AB/(c-v). *References given: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif Read your own references, this is only true when 2 clocks are stationary wrt one another, when v = zero. Einstein clearly wrote (in YOUR OWN stated reference paper); "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system.” ". This has been pointed out to you already, so why do you still attempt to mislead people by only telling half the story. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Dec 6, 3:58*pm, palsing wrote:
On Dec 6, 10:09*am, "Androcles" wrote: r_AB/(c+v) *= r_AB/(c-v). *References given: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif Read your own references, this is only true when 2 clocks are stationary wrt one another, when v = zero. Einstein clearly wrote (in YOUR OWN stated reference paper); "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system.” ". This has been pointed out to you already, so why do you still attempt to mislead people by only telling half the story. Because that's his objective -- to mislead, to heckle, to make useless noise. It is very much like someone who hates jazz and prefers classical music, and who goes to open jazz concerts and then tries to disrupt the shows to the point where other people no longer find the concert enjoyable and leave. He takes pride in this behavior. That, or he has no pride left whatsoever. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Dec 6, 2:58*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
tau = t* sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), *but v = 0 according to palsing. tau = t * sqrt(1-0^2/c^2) tau = t * sqrt(1-0) tau = t * sqrt(1) tau = t * 1 tau = t, big ****ing deal, you deranged cretin! quote/ I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. That is NOT the formula to which I referred, and you know it. However, when you set v = 0 in this formula, the result is trivial, as you have shown, but that does not make it incorrect, it only shows that there is no translation when v = 0, as expected. \Paul A |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
4m wide, not long
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Dec 6, 10:05*am, PD wrote:
No, you don't understand. If you use mv as the momentum, where m is the rest value, then you expect a certain value of ejection momentum by knowing the radius of the cyclotron magnets. I leave it to you to look this relationship up, because it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to do *some* of the searching yourself. But when the cyclotrons were actually built, they found that the ejected momentum was not what they thought it would be. The difference can be attributed to the relativistic mass, which you will see as soon as you look that relationship up. Can relativistic mass be metet in linear accelerators? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Dec 42, 37:47*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > Break Line < > |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
Break Line Porat" wrote:
you wrote a lot Break Line but still * didnt answer simply Break Line a single question of my above simple questions Break Line a porat brain is an astronomical agglomeration of brek lines ! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
everyone correctly witness outside Chester when the systematic youths present onto the alive rear | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 14th 07 10:19 AM |
Let's see if I understand this correctly | FB | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 20th 07 09:38 PM |
Do we really understand the Sun? | SuperCool Plasma | Misc | 0 | May 25th 05 02:48 PM |
Saturn's moons, now named correctly | Chris Taylor | UK Astronomy | 10 | November 15th 04 11:21 PM |