Einstein's Time

On 6/2/15 10:53 PM, Toshio Suzuki wrote:
Dear Mr. Sam Wormley,

Thank you for a comment. I am very happy. You gave me a same comment in another group. As for relativity of velocity, it is easily understood from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec

I do not think I am definitely correct. I know some people do not like my posing. But I must write my opinion because I am very serious. Please carefully read a passage around the figure 9.

Yours Sincerely
Toshio Suzuki




Energy is not a vector quantity!

I sincerely hope you learn something by reading "Student
understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
reference frames"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf

Your paper is full of misconception of basic physics.

Take care,
Bye

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:50:27 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote this crap:

Energy is not a vector quantity!

Of course it is. A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and
direction. Energy has quantity and as for direction, it can go up or
down.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On 6/3/15 8:04 AM, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:50:27 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote this crap:

Energy is not a vector quantity!

Of course it is. A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and
direction. Energy has quantity and as for direction, it can go up or
down.



Energy is a scalar quantity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...ical_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...ment_and_units

Energy, like mass, is a scalar physical quantity. The joule is the
International System of Units (SI) unit of measurement for energy. It
is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat. It is equal to
the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton
through a distance of one metre. However energy is also expressed in
many other units such as ergs, calories, British Thermal Units,
kilowatt-hours and kilocalories for instance. There is always a
conversion factor for these to the SI unit; for instance; one kWh is
equivalent to 3.6 million joules.

On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 2:29:12 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 6/3/15 8:04 AM, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:50:27 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote this crap:

Energy is not a vector quantity!

Of course it is. A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and
direction. Energy has quantity and as for direction, it can go up or
down.



Energy is a scalar quantity

That is quite lucrative hocus pocus there Sam and may influence people who know no better but it comes from a community which has managed to believe that the fall of an apple (experimental hypothesis) equates directly to the motion of the moon and planets without having the slightest idea what was involved in such a drastic correlation.

The early 20th century dummies called it 'classical mechanics' but is really the clockwork solar system which attempts to borrow the predictive elements of the calendar framework and transfer it to experimental analogies and then back into the celestial arena as 'universal gravitation'.

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler


None of you come within the remotest distance of what Newton attempted at several different levels and although you can swindle the wider population with jargon ,the fact is that you are uncomfortable and lack confidence to actually make sense of the technical details which Newton tried to impose on astronomy.

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:29:09 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote this crap:

On 6/3/15 8:04 AM, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:50:27 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote this crap:

Energy is not a vector quantity!

Of course it is. A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and
direction. Energy has quantity and as for direction, it can go up or
down.



Energy is a scalar quantity

I'm not saying it's not. All scalars are vectors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...ical_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...ment_and_units

Energy, like mass, is a scalar physical quantity. The joule is the
International System of Units (SI) unit of measurement for energy. It
is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat. It is equal to
the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton
through a distance of one metre. However energy is also expressed in
many other units such as ergs, calories, British Thermal Units,
kilowatt-hours and kilocalories for instance. There is always a
conversion factor for these to the SI unit; for instance; one kWh is
equivalent to 3.6 million joules.

You've done your homework.

Here is a link to explain why energy is both a scalar and an vector.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/que...calar-quantity



This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

It is quite an experience in knowing what Newton's absolute/relative space represents as a botched attempt to apply an alternative resolution to retrogrades -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

Of course the more succinct version is this one -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,..." Newton

It is,of course, all bluffing and voodoo and even if they dumped 'aether' on Newton as 'absolute space', Sir Isaac is formatting these absolute/relative space and motion terms in his own idiosyncratic way in contrast to what the original heliocentric astronomers did.

It is particularly dismaying that we see planetary motions move directly around the Sun with emphasis on the division between inner and outer planetary retrogrades and separate inputs supplied by the Earth's motion and those of the planets themselves -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Energy is not a vector quantity!

I sincerely hope you learn something by reading "Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf

Your paper is full of misconception of basic physics.

Take care,
Bye


Dear Mr. Sam Wormley,

Thank you for a comment. Again, you gave me a same comment in another group. I think you do not understand the meaning of the Figure 9. I am not thinking of physics. I am thinking of the truth of this world. Physics can explain a limited part of the truth. For example, physics cannot explain the essence of the gravitational force. Einstein explained the gravity as a result of the curvature of time and space. But also this explanation is imperfect. If we want to approach the truth, we must try to approach it through various ways. Physics is not the only way possible.
Incidentally, I downloaded

"Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames"

and read it. It is basically: A major purpose is to identify and characterize the conceptual and reasoning difficulties that students at all levels encounter in their study of special relativity.

Yours Sincerely
Toshio Suzuki