What's up with gravity wave detection?

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:31:09 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote:

Intuition is a dangerous tool. I don't recommend it. Better to prove a
theorem mathematically and then see if intuition agrees. Thunder and
lightning arrive at different times, and a child's intuition is that
they are seperate events.

One is a visual event. One is an aural. Thus relative to the child's
spacetime frame of reference, they are two different events.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:16:21 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote:

So, how does a supersonic aircraft manage to outfly its own engine noise?

By exceeding the speed of sound.

On 25 Aug 2004 16:59:06 -0700, (Jim
Greenfield) wrote:

Intuition is a dangerous tool

One of the most useful and dependable tools in human brain.

On 25 Aug 2004 16:59:06 -0700, (Jim
Greenfield) wrote:

[snip]

Thats nice.

**cough** Idiot. **cough**

How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physi.../velocity.html

Read it Greenfield... it's right and you're wrong.

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
| Eric Gisse wrote in message
. ..
| On 24 Aug 2004 16:55:37 -0700, (Jim
| Greenfield) wrote:
|
| "Dave" wrote in message
...
|
| Intuition is a dangerous tool. I don't recommend it. Better to
prove a
| theorem mathematically and then see if intuition agrees. Thunder
and
| lightning arrive at different times, and a child's intuition is
that
| they are seperate events. An adult sees it differently. Until
| Copernicus, intuition told us the Earth is at the centre if the
| universe. After all, we see the sun cross the sky daily, it MUST be
| going around us. With greater knowledge we revise our view that we
| are turning toward and away from the sun. Never trust intuition, it
| is bane of science and the boon of religion.

No, Dave did not write that. Those are the words of Androcles. Some people
cant even attribute the words to the correct author.



|
| But aren't you using intuition to discard relativistic addition of
| velocities in your c'=c+v (or is that c=c'+v?).
|
| Car is parked by road, another passes. At the instant both are
| alongside, each emits a photon (vaccum condition). I say each emits
| the photon at c from source, and therefore magic is required for each
| photon to travel "with" the other. This is NOT intuition- try it with
| throwing stones off the back of a ute! c DOESN"T = c+v (car).
| As for relativistic addition of velocities, this totally disregards
| conservation of energy/momentum, so I "intuitively" reject that
| nonesense to.
|
| Momentum is still conserved in relativity, but not if you use
| classical mechanics...
|
| Why are you mixing classical mechanics and relativity?


"½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the
stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." - Einstein.
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Ask Gisse why Einstein is mixing classical mechanics with relativity and
watch him splutter. I've given up with the crackpot.
Androcles

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
| On 25 Aug 2004 16:59:06 -0700, (Jim
| Greenfield) wrote:
|
| Intuition is a dangerous tool
|
| One of the most useful and dependable tools in human brain.

vonroach is another useless and unreliable individual that relied on
intuition and did not attribute the words to the correct author, thereby
demonstrating the truth of the words *I* wrote. Obviously nobody could
depend on vonroach's intuition, not even vonroach.
Androcles.

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:31:09 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
| wrote:
|
| Intuition is a dangerous tool. I don't recommend it. Better to prove a
| theorem mathematically and then see if intuition agrees. Thunder
and
| lightning arrive at different times, and a child's intuition is
that
| they are seperate events.

It seems that vonroach is prepared to say Volker Hetzer wrote my words AND
Jim Greenfield wrote them also.
Androcles

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:16:21 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
| wrote:
|
| So, how does a supersonic aircraft manage to outfly its own engine noise?
|
| By exceeding the speed of sound.

An incomplete statement. it should be :

By exceeding the speed of sound, relative to the air.

I tried to point out Volker's fallacy by indicating that Doppler's equation
is
f ' = f (v +/- u)/( v +/- w)
at http://www.place.dawsoncollege.qc.ca...ph/Chap18B.htm
but he was too stupid to even read it.
Mind you, dawsoncollege teaching methods suck, but Iwas looking for a web
site that contained Doppler's equation and this was the first I came across.
Androcles

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:45:53 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
| On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:16:21 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
| wrote:
|
| So, how does a supersonic aircraft manage to outfly its own engine noise?
|
| By exceeding the speed of sound.

An incomplete statement. it should be :

By exceeding the speed of sound, relative to the air.

I iterate: by exceeding the speed of sound. (I assume you are aware
that some medium must be present to transmit sound waves - `air'
(atmosphere), water, stone, earth, bone, metal, wood,...........
I further assume you know that some materials conduct sound waves
better than others. This is not a short course in sound waves. An
aircraft will exceed the speed of sound only in `air'. It will not be
able to do it in water, soil, stone,.............