- Re: The Closed Curve of Gravity
Universe has nothing that is a perfect sphere. TreBert
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
You lying, stupid, babbling and wrong idiotic bigot. Next please.
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
Wrong. Proven by experiment that that is not the case. Next please.
- Re: Tom's Other Post; Re: a relativity paradox
You are NOT talking about the twins paradox, because you are talking about
mutual time dilation.
If you ARE talking about the twins paradox, fine, but that is not caused by
mutual time dilation.
However, you can't even understand a train passing a station, so there is no
point in going into the more complicated twins paradox.
- Re: Are orbiting objects at rest for light?
For the Doppler of light fast flowing matter could absorb light
sideways
and would not energy shift the light. But what about inbetween angles
of light absorption for ahead and behind?
If there is maximum from directly ahead and behind one elevating
light's energy and one lowering light's energy what about the
- Re: Are orbiting objects at rest for light?
It is clearly not absolute in the relativistic Doppler formula.
This is another SR paradox, due to above cited postulates leading to
the derivation of the SR formulas.
Simply claiming that c +/- v in the relativistic Dopple formula don't
correspond to what PD calls
a SR combination of velocities looks to me like a mere opinion.
- Re: Are orbiting objects at rest for light?
You just claimed that velocities never combine to give a velocity
greater than c,
and directly afterward, that c+/-v are not a relativist sum of
velocities(what you call
a combinaison of velocities).
Then what represent c+v or c-v in the relativistic Doppler formula, if
not a "combination of velocities"?
- Re: The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 11
If its always least action shouldnt' that be defined as fundamental
action
law in the universe?
Mitch Raemsch
- Re: Light and motion through space
Electric light energy is a static radial field that oscillates with
frequency.
Light is electric but of course has no charge or strength as a force.
Mitch Raemsch
- The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 11
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
Modified June 6, 2009, October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, June 19, 2010
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 11, August 30, 2010
The Subjective Aspect of Mass (in Brief)
The mathematics describes least action stable and near stable systems
well. I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal
- Re: Electtron Microscope
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:31:29 -0700, eric gisse
wrote:
......when are you going to say something intelligent?
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
- Re: Electtron Microscope
Most 'waves' in physics are graphical conveniences.
Some, like water waves are real and physical.
The physical nature of the 'waves' associated with matter or EM is a complete
mystery....(except for my photon theory).
If YOU know the answers, let's have them.
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
- Re: Electtron Microscope
It is a mathematical approach. Where is the physics behind it?
This group deals with physics, not poetry.
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
- Re: Real experiment to test mutual time dilation
My equation includes that as a possibility.
If it is correct then 'u' = zero
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
- Re: An experiment that was never done !!...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 03:53:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Higgins
...and you
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
- Re: An experiment that was never done !!...
You're talking absolute bullshit as usual. ...but what's new?
I said ist is not inconceivable that the speed of light wrt its source might be
slightly dependent on its (intrinsic) wavelength.
The 'frequency' of light is just 'the number of wavecrests arriving per
second'.
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
- Re: a relativity paradox
May be you should actually read those pages.
If inertia has external causes, then we should make a
difference between mass, as in count the atoms, and
inertial mass, as in difficulty to de- or accelerate.
The number of atoms of a test mass does not vary, but
the ease or difficulty of de/accelerating it, varies.
- Re: Tom's Other Post; Re: a relativity paradox
Have you forgot why Einstein called it the twin paradox?
Have you forgot that Einstein pointed out their different aging?
Mitch Raemsch
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
No. It is all relative to YOU.
The object moving toward you at 1000 miles per second
will emit light directly toward YOU at 186K per second. It
will also emit light away from YOU at 186K per second.
YOU always observe light traveling at a constant speed
if you bother to look. YOU are the center of the universe.
- Re: a relativity paradox
Here is where Daryl's equations differs with mine:
"To find t_2, the time at which the light signal reaches the front
clock, we set y_front(t) equal to y_light(t):
Daryl's: L + 1/2 a t^2 = 1/2 a T^2 + c (t-T)"
Mine: c (t_2-T) + .5 a T^2 = L + .5 a (t_2-L/c)^2
Okay; In Daryl's analysis he DOES have the front and back comoving.
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
The speed of light relative to matter is relative by how matter moves
in space.
Mitch Raemsch
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
For you, yes, I'm refusing to respond to simple physics. I thought I
said that already.
============================== ===============
You are incapable and incompetent, Duck. Naturally you have to find
an excuse for not answering, but saying the questioner is uninteresting
is the lamest excuse anyone could possibly come up with.
- Re: Is SR pointing to a preferred frame?
This confuses Ken.
He imagines that A has his clock over HERE and B has his clock over
THERE, and B can't use his clock to time something over HERE, nor can
A use his clock to time something over THERE.
Or maybe the problem is that the events in A are whizzing by too fast
for B to time them in his frame. The high speed makes it seem like an
- Re: a relativity paradox
I couldn't imagine a spaceship,
in which the front accelerates differently
from tthe back for significant times, that is,
beyond the elasticity of the ship, or what ever.
about redshift, I just want to note that
the "light ray" is the same thing as the "photon,"
being the "geometrical optics" treatment
- Re: Is SR pointing to a preferred frame?
B also has his own clock. Everybody has their own clocks.
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
For you, yes, I'm refusing to respond to simple physics. I thought I
said that already.
I'll bet you say that to everybody. (Why sure enough, you do!)
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
On Sep 2, 10:47 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
Not for you, no. For someone more interesting, yes.
============================== ======
dh@ made it quite plain that you are uninteresting, Duck.
And you are, since you are refusing to respond to simple physics.
Fuck off, pathetic troll.
- Re: Real experiment to test mutual time dilation
But you are assuming the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity.
This concept violates the SR postulate...the isotropy of the speed of
light in all inertial frames.
- Re: Real experiment to test mutual time dilation
So you don't understand how a grating works (ever used one in your
whole life?), and you don't know that you don't understand. That makes
two of you.
- Re: Real experiment to test mutual time dilation
The incoming light becomes a new light source in the grating's frame
and the Grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source.
Ken Seto
- Re: Real experiment to test mutual time dilation
No hope for Seto.
That's ok. Most of the rest of us understand SR perfectly well.
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
On Sep 2, 10:47 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
Not for you, no. For someone more interesting, yes.
- Re: Real experiment to test mutual time dilation
I said no such thing. I said that betwwen two clocks in relative
motion the following twopossibilities exists:
1. A runs faster than B then B run slower than A.
2. B runs faster than A then A run slower than B.
Also I said that at no time A sees B run slower than A and at the same
time B sees A run slower than B.....this is the SR concept of
- Re: An experiment that was never done !!...
(:-)
that is youranmd your close friends new inversion
ldt me giveyou an example how it looks like
(btw ahd it been the other way
ie in a dispute between us
it mas me who would bring such an argument
you would jsutly crussh me to pieces
and expalin to me 'waht is science all about !!)
so here is your logic with your
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
Dear Inertial:
Agreed.
But never c.
I disagree. v = c is expressly forbidden in relativity, so c is *not*
a relativistic speed, but a super-relativistic one. Not that I think
I can convey the difference to Porat in finite time...
Its constant in metrology and by law too. But it was constant with
Maxwell... c is a constant, but this is not a speed in the sense that
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:11:43 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Desertphile
:
I suggest for the sake of your sanity that you don't get
involved. Androcles, Porat et al are convinced that
velocity, time, length and mass all obey Newtonian formulae,
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
[link]
I did, and I quoted a statement of Einstein's.
Too bad you can't read algebra, you fucking cretin.
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
ignore,
Nothing I wrote was in error. Fuck off, you are an error.
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 22:18:20 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
:
I repeat for your benefit:
Do yourself a favor and study some relativity theory; it's
all been confirmed by observation and experiment. And no, it
doesn't follow "common sense", which is just too bad for
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:17:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by PD
:
True, although for calculations at "normal" velocities the
Newtonian formulae work fine.
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 22:15:52 +0100, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
:
I only needed to restore the part that was in error. Given
that error the rest was irrelevant.
You're welcome.
- Re: The mystery between Time and Quantum of light.
Light has the fastest clock.
Mitch Raemsch
- Re: a relativity paradox
LOL.
And with these corrections, the answer is:
(drumroll please?)
t2 - t1 = T
Exactly the same clock rate as we have below.
So... what did I do wrong?
- Re: Electtron Microscope
Dear Henry Wilson DSc:
AFMs resolve the orbitals of the electrons on crystal structures, with
crisper resolution... only resolution of a 2D surface.
The wavelength gets "resolution", not really accuracy or specularity.
It is very successful, in its domain of applicability. And this *is*
the domain you are trying to broach.
- Re: a relativity paradox
y_front should account for the delay somehow.
Suggested correction: y_front= L + .5 a (t-L/c)^2
y_sig2 must start higher than y_sig1 because the rocket moved.
Suggested correction: y_sig2 = c(t-T)+.5 aT^2
Correction with above changes:
c t_1 = L + .5 a(t_1 -L/c)^2
c (t_2-T) + .5 a T^2 = L + .5 a (t_2-L/c)^2
- Cheap GUCCI T-Shirt POLO T-Shirt ED Hardy T-Shirt Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/) (PayPal Payment)
Are you searching for good quality and low price products?our company
want to be you reliable supplier in china,we offer brand
shoes,bags,jeans,clothes,we accept a variety of payment
methods .Convenient for you the more you order the better price for
you! if you interested in our goods,pls don't hestate to contact me
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
On Sep 2, 10:37 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Now that I have your attention, let's see if I can keep you busy just
for the hell of it."
No thanks. Nice trolling though.
============================== ==
So you have no answer.
"I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want.
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
On Sep 2, 10:37 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Now that I have your attention, let's see if I can keep you busy just
for the hell of it."
No thanks. Nice trolling though.
- Re: Real experiment to test mutual time dilation
So Ken's response to DIRECT experimental measurement validating mutual
time dilation is (reading down his tick marks):
1. Ken doesn't understand how time dilation of any kind can happen, so
mutual time dilation can't. (How can a clock's rate be changed just by
moving by it?)
2. Ken doesn't have any idea how to measure the rate of clocks from a
- Re: Speed of light relative to what?
Boondoggle alert.
=================
Bad guess, "Boondoggle alert" is not a velocity. Try again, only this time
read the quite simple physics question a 14-year-old can answer easily.
Maybe you can answer this instead:
What is the velocity of a piston shown here:
[link]
|
Newsgroups