If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#61




Simple question about speed of force.
On Mon, 30 May 2011 11:44:31 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote: "Henry Wilson DSc." [email protected] wrote in message .. .  On Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"  wrote:    I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice  for   answering the more accomplished dickheads here.    I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.  I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia  means you cannot appreciate it.  Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1  and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1(v/c)^2)^0.5, since  that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.   Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible habit  of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for your  image...  Try to avoid such errors in future will you.  You want to get serious? All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said anything about any gamma. He did write "Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1v^2/c^2), i.e. the greater the value of v, the greater the shortening." but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is xi = (xvt)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2) which is lengthening. Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you? Lok A, it is a well known and accepted fact that according to SR, moving clocks run slow and moving rods are shortened. Even little eric knows that. So it must be true. SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it? http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg Henry Wilson DSc Selfdelusion is the Scourge of the SRian.. 
Ads 
#62




Simple question about speed of force.
"Henry Wilson DSc." [email protected] wrote in message ...  On Mon, 30 May 2011 11:44:31 +0100, "Androcles"  wrote:    "Henry Wilson DSc." [email protected] wrote in message  .. .   On Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"   wrote:       I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice   for    answering the more accomplished dickheads here.      I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.   I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia   means you cannot appreciate it.   Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1   and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1(v/c)^2)^0.5, since   that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.     Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible habit   of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for  your   image...   Try to avoid such errors in future will you.     You want to get serious?  All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said anything  about any gamma.  He did write  "Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every  rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the  X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1v^2/c^2), i.e. the  greater the value of v, the greater the shortening."  but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is xi =  (xvt)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2) which is lengthening.  Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real  Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you?   Lok A, it is a well known and accepted fact that according to SR, moving  clocks run slow Yes, that is well known and is Einstein's claim, tau = t * sqrt(1v^2/c^2)  and moving rods are shortened. Lok ******, I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia means you cannot understand it. You mistake "well known" for "wrongly believed by Einstein Dingleberries everywhere".  Even little eric knows that.   So it must be true. Lok ******, I'm only discussing Einstein's SR, not little eric's SR. Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real Wilson, try not to be such an obvious moron, will you? 
#63




Simple question about speed of force.
On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:47:32 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote: "Henry Wilson DSc." [email protected] wrote in message .. .  On Mon, 30 May 2011 11:44:31 +0100, "Androcles"  wrote:    "Henry Wilson DSc." [email protected] wrote in message  .. .   On Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"   wrote:       I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice   for    answering the more accomplished dickheads here.      I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.   I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia   means you cannot appreciate it.   Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1   and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1(v/c)^2)^0.5, since   that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.     Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible habit   of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for  your   image...   Try to avoid such errors in future will you.     You want to get serious?  All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said anything  about any gamma.  He did write  "Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every  rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the  X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1v^2/c^2), i.e. the  greater the value of v, the greater the shortening."  but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is xi =  (xvt)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2) which is lengthening.  Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real  Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you?   Lok A, it is a well known and accepted fact that according to SR, moving  clocks run slow Yes, that is well known and is Einstein's claim, tau = t * sqrt(1v^2/c^2)  and moving rods are shortened. Lok ******, I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia means you cannot understand it. You mistake "well known" for "wrongly believed by Einstein Dingleberries everywhere".  Even little eric knows that.   So it must be true. Lok ******, I'm only discussing Einstein's SR, not little eric's SR. Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real Wilson, try not to be such an obvious moron, will you? It's well past your plonk time.... SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it? http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg Henry Wilson DSc Selfdelusion is the Scourge of the SRian.. 
#64




Simple question about speed of force.
"Henry Wilson DSc." [email protected] wrote in message ...  On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:47:32 +0100, "Androcles"  wrote:    "Henry Wilson DSc." [email protected] wrote in message  .. .   On Mon, 30 May 2011 11:44:31 +0100, "Androcles"   wrote:       "Henry Wilson DSc." [email protected] wrote in message   .. .    On Mon, 30 May 2011 06:06:14 +0100, "Androcles"    wrote:          I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good  practice    for     answering the more accomplished dickheads here.        I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.    I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia    means you cannot appreciate it.    Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1    and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1(v/c)^2)^0.5, since    that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.       Seriously Andro, take some advice from a friend, you have a terrible  habit    of getting things back to front... upside down even...It isn't good for   your    image...    Try to avoid such errors in future will you.        You want to get serious?   All you need do is prove your case, cite where Einstein ever said  anything   about any gamma.   He did write   "Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of  every   rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion,  the   X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1: sqrt(1v^2/c^2), i.e. the   greater the value of v, the greater the shortening."   but that's because was a ****ing moron like you, his own derivation is xi  =   (xvt)/sqrt(1v^2/c^2) which is lengthening.   Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real   Wilson, try not to be such an obvious ****, will you?     Lok A, it is a well known and accepted fact that according to SR, moving   clocks run slow   Yes, that is well known and is Einstein's claim, tau = t * sqrt(1v^2/c^2)    and moving rods are shortened.   Lok ******, I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia  means you cannot understand it. You mistake "well known" for  "wrongly believed by Einstein Dingleberries everywhere".    Even little eric knows that.     So it must be true.   Lok ******, I'm only discussing Einstein's SR, not little eric's SR.  Seriously, you ****ing imbecile, if you are going to imitate the real  Wilson, try not to be such an obvious moron, will you?   It's well past your plonk time....   SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?  http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg   Henry Wilson DSc  Selfdelusion is the Scourge of the SRian.. You need to fix that chronic form of psychosis, selfdeluded SRian Wilson. SR claims 2 is shorter than 1 in the ratio 1: 0.5 Wilson contradicts himself. Why try to defend him? 
#65




Simple question about speed of force.
On 5/29/11 6:05 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA! ...and they are still as desperate as they were in 1905 to find just ONE piece of CONVINCING evidence.... Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html Special Relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré[citation needed] and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1] It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and welldefined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.[2] Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.[3] This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[4] including counterintuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers. (On the other hand, it introduces the spacetime interval, which is invariant.) Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of matter and energy, as expressed in the mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum.[5][6] The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared with the speed of light. Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light. Physics FAQ: Bell's Spaceship Paradox http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ip_puzzle.html "John Bell described this Special Relativity paradox in the essay, "How to teach special relativity", in his collection "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics." He did not originate the puzzle, but we'll call it Bell's Spaceship Paradox. "To begin, a statement of the paradox—and if you notice some ambiguities in my formulation, that's the point! (That's always the point in SR paradoxes.) Bell asks us to consider two rocket ships, each accelerating at the same constant rate, one chasing the other. The ships start out at rest in some coordinate system (the "lab frame"). Since they have the same acceleration, their speeds should be equal at all times (relative to the lab frame) and so they should stay a constant distance apart (in the lab frame). But after a time they will acquire a large velocity, and so the distance between them should suffer Lorentz contraction. Which is it"? See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ip_puzzle.html Lorentz Contraction http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section13.html Bell's spaceship paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox Paul B. Anderson's analysis of Ralph Rabbidge's thought experiment at: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/ralph2.pdf SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it? http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg Henry Wilson DSc Selfdelusion is the Scourge of the SRian.. 
#66




Simple question about speed of force.
On 5/28/11 11:45 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 20:09:06 0500, Sam wrote: On 5/28/11 5:25 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: Empty space has no permeability of permittivity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permitt...m_permittivity Yep. Truly empty space doesn't have one. When anyone tries to measure it, they simply destroy the emptiness and measure the properties of the fields thay introduce. See" http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/20110603/ 
#67




Simple question about speed of force.
these toy problems, universally deployed
"on the xaxis, because we can setup the coordinates in any way we like," always omit acceleration, which is a bit of a problem in getting beyond "gedanken" to any actual physical test ... of which plenty have been made, of course. anyway, why is it so hard to see that the internal (angular) momenta of atoms has to be considered, in accelerating them  that these subatomic entities are also limited by the speed (not velocity) of lightwaves (not 0d rocks o'light, as in Newton's untheory, where corpuscles go faster in a denser medium) ?? why do we need an aether, when all of the major properties of interstellat plasma have been workedout in the lab by the school of Alfven? http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
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 