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
  #11  
Old February 10th 07, 08:20 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote:
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~~


A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy
(kinetic) which vanishes
or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place
the particle(s) in.
............mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't
UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!!
Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I
love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy.

Jim G
c'=c+v

  #12  
Old February 10th 07, 01:05 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR


wrote in message
oups.com...

Hi Jim, long time no see.

A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic)
which vanishes
or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the
particle(s) in.


The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.

...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't
UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!!


Well that is certainly indisputable.

Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I
love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy.


A fine example, energy is of course conserved in SR.

George


  #13  
Old February 10th 07, 04:43 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Dirk Van de moortel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR


wrote in message oups.com...
On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote:


[snip excr.]

~v~~


A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy
(kinetic) which vanishes
or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place
the particle(s) in.
...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't
UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!!


Not only do you fail to understand special relativity,
There's a lot more that you just don't understand,
and we don't need capitals to say it.

Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I
love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy.


If you don't understand the definition of energy, surely
you can't possibly understand conservation of energy.
That's just about the only thing about you that remotely
makes sense.

Dirk Vdm
  #14  
Old February 10th 07, 06:37 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 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:58:59 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

wrote:
On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote:
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~~


A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy
(kinetic) which vanishes
or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place
the particle(s) in.
...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't
UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!!
Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I
love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy.

Jim G
c'=c+v


At one time, Jim, I thought you had come to sci.physics to learn
physics concepts. Why do you post here?


Maybe to learn to spell instead. Certainly can't learn any physics
here.

~v~~
  #15  
Old February 10th 07, 06:50 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 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:43:48 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


wrote in message oups.com...
On Feb 10, 8:42 am, Lester Zick wrote:


[snip excr.]

~v~~


A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy
(kinetic) which vanishes
or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place
the particle(s) in.
...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't
UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!!


Not only do you fail to understand special relativity,
There's a lot more that you just don't understand,
and we don't need capitals to say it.


Oh boo hoo. So you understand everything there is to say about SR,
Dutch? We can get the party line from any of thousands of hacks. We
don't need you to spell it out for us. Why don't you light up a
Hav-a-tampa for a change. Or smoke a White Owl. Lighten up a little.
You're not even funny any more.

Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I
love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy.


If you don't understand the definition of energy, surely
you can't possibly understand conservation of energy.
That's just about the only thing about you that remotely
makes sense.


Whereas there's nothing about you that makes any sense.

~v~~
  #16  
Old February 10th 07, 06:59 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Hi Jim, long time no see.

A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic)
which vanishes
or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the
particle(s) in.


The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.


Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian
frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties
remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric
properties of reference frames in SR. And that one universal frame of
reference is the reference frame against which all dynamic properties
such as momentum and energy are judged whether at rest or in motion.

...........mostly in the form of the pathetic wail "You just don't
UNDERSTAND SR!!!!!!!!!!


Well that is certainly indisputable.

Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I
love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy.


A fine example, energy is of course conserved in SR.

George


~v~~
  #17  
Old February 10th 07, 07:22 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
hagman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

On 10 Feb., 18:59, Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman"



wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...


Hi Jim, long time no see.


A great enrager of Srians are mild questions about the energy (kinetic)
which vanishes
or miraculously appears depending on which "frame" they chose to place the
particle(s) in.


The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.


Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian
frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties
remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric
properties of reference frames in SR. And that one universal frame of
reference is the reference frame against which all dynamic properties
such as momentum and energy are judged whether at rest or in motion.


Newton had the idea of absolute space and time.
However, even in Newtonian physics, the meaning of "here", "now" and
"motionless"
may differ from observer to observer, hence there /are/ different
frames of reference.
Recall e.g. how the description of a collision is simplified by
*choosing* *the*
*frame* *of* *reference* where the centre of gravity is at rest.
The impossibility to decide which frames rest relative to the absolute
space-time frame
(not to mention finding the origin of that frame) leads very naturally
to
the idea of abandoning absolute space-time and developing SR.


  #18  
Old February 10th 07, 08:15 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Daryl McCullough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR

Lester Zick says...
"George Dishman" wrote:


The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.


Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian
frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties
remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric
properties of reference frames in SR.


What in the world are you talking about, Lester? Newtonian physics
certainly has a notion of different frames of reference. That's what
the Galilean transformations are about:

x' = x - vt

Velocity, momentum, kinetic energy are all frame-dependent quantities
in Newtonian physics. The Newtonian notion of "frame of reference" is
pretty much the same as in Special Relativity. I usually prefer not
to mention frames of reference, and just talk about coordinate systems,
but as it is usually used, a frame of reference is a standard for which
objects are "at rest" and which are not. It's sometimes called a "rest
frame" for that reason. A frame of reference usually also provides a
standard for measuring the distances between events (whether or not
they take place at the same time). It's not exactly the same thing
as a coordinate system, however, because a frame of reference doesn't
specify what is the origin, or what the coordinate axes are.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

  #19  
Old February 10th 07, 08:37 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Androcles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 260
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR


"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Lester Zick says...
"George Dishman" wrote:


The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.


Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, a universal isometric Euclidean-Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian
frame of reference whose origin can change but whose metric properties
remain constant unlike second order velocitiy dependent anisometric
properties of reference frames in SR.


What in the world are you talking about, Lester? Newtonian physics
certainly has a notion of different frames of reference. That's what
the Galilean transformations are about:

x' = x - vt


But xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), so that's two transformations.
What's the velocity v between x' and xi?

What in the ****in' world are you babbling about, McCullough?






  #20  
Old February 10th 07, 09:52 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Some troubling assumptions of SR


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:05:22 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

....
The same is true in Newtonian physics, the kinetic
energy of an object is zero in its rest frame
and the value diffes from frame to frame regardless
of what theory you use.


Nonsense, George. There is only one frame of reference in Newtonian
physics, ...


You really need to find out what a frame is, Lester.

George


 




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 10:38 AM.


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.