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

Some troubling assumptions of SR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 7th 07, 06:50 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default 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  
Old February 8th 07, 02:26 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Ben Newsam[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default 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  
Old February 8th 07, 07:24 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default 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  
Old February 8th 07, 08:26 PM posted to sci.astro
Igor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default 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  
Old February 8th 07, 09:36 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Bob Cain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default 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  
Old February 8th 07, 11:47 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Ben Newsam[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default 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  
Old February 9th 07, 12:01 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default 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  
Old February 9th 07, 01:00 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default 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  
Old February 9th 07, 01:05 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default 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  
Old February 9th 07, 11:42 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default 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

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
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 04:15 PM
Some Troubling Assumptions of SRT brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 5 November 29th 05 04:15 PM
Incorrect assumptions about the speed of light Arobinson319 Amateur Astronomy 16 September 29th 03 05:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 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.