Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372835 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-28 02:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 02:08 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 05:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-29 15:45 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 07:43 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 06:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-28 18:13 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 15:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-29 18:50 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:06 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-12-30 11:06 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-12-31 10:02 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:18 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-02 14:25 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 21:39 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-03 15:22 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 09:27 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-04 20:43 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:50 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-05 20:47 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-05 19:31 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 20:01 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-05 20:28 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-09 11:44 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 22:18 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:41 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 23:10 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 16:45 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-30 13:48 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 07:17 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-12-30 18:02 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 11:22 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 11:48 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 22:40 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 01:21 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-31 14:34 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:47 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 00:03 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 21:15 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:40 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 13:14 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 14:32 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:32 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:23 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 19:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 23:20 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 23:24 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 05:49 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 16:59 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 08:02 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-04 08:45 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-03 23:14 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:36 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:30 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 00:35 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 22:05 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 19:11 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:16 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 14:03 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 13:07 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 09:20 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2015-12-31 16:08 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 08:41 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 10:57 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 19:33 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:50 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 11:08 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:14 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 15:30 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:56 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 16:30 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 07:54 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:24 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-02 10:46 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2015-12-31 18:59 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 12:08 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-01 08:34 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:42 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 11:07 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 15:58 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 14:10 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:11 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 20:06 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 15:22 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 02:34 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 19:28 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 22:22 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:23 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:21 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 07:15 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-28 16:07 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-28 21:43 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 11:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 21:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 22:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:38 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:31 -0800
Re: Is Pentcho's Brain Sane? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 05:07 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 15:00 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-30 09:06 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 11:02 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 19:44 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-30 13:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 22:12 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 15:16 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20151231151601.afc224422b374bc526bb55a9@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #372959 |
[to analyse the twins paradox,] > Koobee Wublee has introduced two frames of refer- > ence regardless if inertial or non-inertial. > <shrug> But I do not see how the traveller's acceleration affects the outcome in your calculations. > > in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the > > other frame. There is no contradiction in that > > as long as the two clocks are spatially separat- > > ed. > > This is nonsense. SR never said so. It does. See the definition of event, and read about time dilation and the relativity of simultane- ity. There is one objective reality, which is de- termined by events, which may be described in any intertial frame of reference. The events taking place at one point of space always have a definite sequence, and only the time between spatially sepa- rated ones may vary, and even that within a well-de- fined limit, so as not to violate casuality! > [rest of lack of understanding in SR snipped] How cowardly of you. Yet my lack of understanding is less than yours, for it let me explain the twins paradox. > SR never said non-inertial frames of reference > bare different laws of physics. SR never said the > Lorentz symmetry only applies to the inertial > frames of reference but not non-inertial ones. Of course, it said nothing whatsoever about non-in- tertial frames of reference. They are out of its scope. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 14:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n63942$8l8$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373002 |
Użytkownik "Anton Shepelev" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:20151231151601.afc224422b374bc526bb55a9@gmail.com... > > in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the > > other frame. There is no contradiction in that > > as long as the two clocks are spatially separat- > > ed. > > This is nonsense. SR never said so. |It does. See the definition of event, and read |about time dilation and the relativity of simultane- |ity. Oh, yes, The Shit does. Poor idiot Einstein never understood, what clocks are made for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 13:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6399o$qf4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373002 |
Anton Shepelev wrote: >> [rest of lack of understanding in SR snipped] > > How cowardly of you. Yet my lack of understanding is less than yours, > for it let me explain the twins paradox. Hmm, you may explain it all you want. It will remain a paradox, once it is a paradox.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 09:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ybidnfO71LUr2hjLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #373002 |
On 12/31/15 12/31/15 6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > [SR] said nothing whatsoever about non-intertial frames of reference. > They are out of its scope. This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that. [#] I put "frame" in quotes, because in normal usage a coordinate frame consists of a rectangular array of rulers and mutually-synchronized clocks. It is not possible to construct such a frame unless it is moving inertially. Note in particular that the transform from inertial coordinates to non-inertial coordinates is necessarily non-linear. Moreover, in general there is no single set of non-inertial coordinates that covers the manifold [@] (inertial coordinates do cover the manifold). For example, look up "Rindler Coordinates" in Wikipedia for an explicit transform from inertial coordinates to coordinates whose origin has constant proper acceleration; the transform is explicitly nonlinear, a horizon appears so they do not cover the manifold, and the metric components are not the usual Minkowski components. [@] Minkowski spacetime, because this is SR. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n63juj$goi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373016 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/31/15 12/31/15 6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: >> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about non-intertial frames of >> reference. They are out of its scope. > > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But > if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the > coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial > coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate > systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that. That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. There is nothing about electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had been having another theory and misspelled the titles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 08:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8ee2243a-4532-4fa8-9302-607b26cad013@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373020 |
El jueves, 31 de diciembre de 2015, 13:08:57 (UTC-3), Kathleen Winder escribió: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > On 12/31/15 12/31/15 6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > >> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about non-intertial frames of > >> reference. They are out of its scope. > > > > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But > > if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the > > coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial > > coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate > > systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that. > > That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. There is nothing about > electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had > been having another theory and misspelled the titles. You should read the paper first nym-shifting troll, since as usual what you say is total nonsense. Coming from a total idiot it is understandable. In fact in the paper there is a whole chapter (with several sections) entitled: "II. ELECTRODYNAMICAL PART"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 10:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k7Wdnd358e_4wxjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #373020 |
On 12/31/15 12/31/15 10:08 AM, Kathleen Winder wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But >> if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the >> coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial >> coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate >> systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that. > > That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. Nonsense! SR is not "controversial" at all, except among idiots and fools who have not bothered to actually STUDY the theory and the relevant experiments. > There is nothing about > electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had > been having another theory and misspelled the titles. You OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper with that title. It is ALL about electrodynamics. SR and its Lorentz transform are merely techniques to understand and display the underlying symmetries of the electrodynamics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 19:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n63seu$gda$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373025 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:k7Wdnd358e_4wxjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... On 12/31/15 12/31/15 10:08 AM, Kathleen Winder wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But >> if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the >> coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial >> coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate >> systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that. > > That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. |Nonsense! SR is not "controversial" at all, except among idiots and fools who Of course it is not! It's not believed only by idiot and fools who don't believe!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 18:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d652fe22-8969-498e-9e4e-2611f79ee6d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373029 |
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:34:07 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:k7Wdnd358e_4wxjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > On 12/31/15 12/31/15 10:08 AM, Kathleen Winder wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But > >> if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the > >> coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial > >> coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate > >> systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that. > > > > That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. > > |Nonsense! SR is not "controversial" at all, except among idiots and fools > who > > Of course it is not! It's not believed only by idiot and fools > who don't believe!! It's not a question of "belief". You simply don't know enough physics to understand that what you are doing is pure cherrypicking. By using this "method" one can prove anything. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 11:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n65j7v$ja6$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373054 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d652fe22-8969-498e-9e4e-2611f79ee6d1@googlegroups.com... |It's not a question of "belief". Wrong, poor idiot, it is. |You simply don't know enough physics to understand Wrong, poor idiot, I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 06:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d8567277-3249-4a71-9767-998ab98e2443@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373071 |
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:09:04 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d652fe22-8969-498e-9e4e-2611f79ee6d1@googlegroups.com... > > > > You simply don't know enough physics to understand > > Wrong, poor idiot, I do. If that is so, then you are lying when you write. Either you are an ignoramus or you are a liar. Either way, you are a disgrace to the human race.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n662i2$j3o$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373074 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d8567277-3249-4a71-9767-998ab98e2443@googlegroups.com... |If that is so, then you are lying when you write. Either you are an |ignoramus or you are a liar. Either way, you are a disgrace to the |human race. Raving and spitting without any arguments, sense or content. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 06:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a855442d-9472-4911-aacb-3ef0eee6f7b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373076 |
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 7:30:28 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d8567277-3249-4a71-9767-998ab98e2443@googlegroups.com... > > > > If that is so, then you are lying when you write. Either you are an > > ignoramus or you are a liar. Either way, you are a disgrace to the > > human race. > > Raving and spitting without any arguments, sense or content. As > expected from a relativistic moron. As I explained to you, you are either an ignoramus or a liar. That IS an argument, bobo-brain, and supported by your disgusting behavior here. So, if you are an ignoramus, then you exemplify "Poor Richard's" assertion: “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin Either way, you are a disgrace to the human race, and all of your yelling, spitting, denigrating lies cannot change that one iota. Everybody who reads your drivel knows this, so crawl back into your little empty cave of a mind and don't come out until you're ready to join the human race again (I can't believe you've been this despicable all your life). It would be an interesting psychological study to discover what caused you to sink so low).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 16:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6663f$ml5$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373078 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:a855442d-9472-4911-aacb-3ef0eee6f7b5@googlegroups.com... > Raving and spitting without any arguments, sense or content. As > expected from a relativistic moron. |As I explained to you, you are either an ignoramus or a liar. Raving and spitting without any arguments, sense or content. As expected from a relativistic moron. |That IS an argument, bobo-brain, No, poor idiot. This is just raving and spitting without any arguments, sense or content. As expected from a relativistic moron. |Everybody who reads your drivel knows this, so crawl back into your little |empty cave of a mind and don't come out until you're ready to join the |human race again (I can't believe you've been this despicable all your |life). It would be an interesting psychological study to discover what |caused you to sink so low). Raving and spitting without any arguments, sense or content. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 07:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20362c8d-81d6-493a-90d2-83521ce9cc47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373079 |
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 8:30:57 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > [Regurgitated baloney, idiocy, lies and denigrations] So the ignoramus believes he wins if he makes the last post? So now we all know his level of stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n66955$hh4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373080 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 8:30:57 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> [Regurgitated baloney, idiocy, lies and denigrations] > > So the ignoramus believes he wins if he makes the last post? So now we > all know his level of stupidity. Not mine. I know that I win making the last post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n66bc8$rnn$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373080 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:20362c8d-81d6-493a-90d2-83521ce9cc47@googlegroups.com... On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 8:30:57 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > [Regurgitated baloney, idiocy, lies and denigrations] |So the ignoramus believes he wins if he makes the last post? So now we |all know his level of stupidity. Raving and spitting without any arguments, sense or content. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 12:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cea99cfd-8022-41aa-8497-0f95aec6b47d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373071 |
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:09:04 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d652fe22-8969-498e-9e4e-2611f79ee6d1@googlegroups.com... > > > |It's not a question of "belief". > > Wrong, poor idiot, it is. > > |You simply don't know enough physics to understand > > Wrong, poor idiot, I do. No, you don't. That's the problem. You cannot do a simple QED calculation, for example. This ignorance is precisely what allows you to claim all sort of nonsense without ever seeing the slightest trouble. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 10:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6869h$hvi$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373095 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:cea99cfd-8022-41aa-8497-0f95aec6b47d@googlegroups.com... On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:09:04 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d652fe22-8969-498e-9e4e-2611f79ee6d1@googlegroups.com... > > > |It's not a question of "belief". > > Wrong, poor idiot, it is. > > |You simply don't know enough physics to understand > > Wrong, poor idiot, I do. |No, you don't. That's the problem. Yes, I do. Have you already consulted your "I'm a guru" problem with a doctor?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n63ttt$687$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373025 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> There is nothing about electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the >> Moving Bodies". He must had been having another theory and misspelled >> the titles. > > You OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper with that title. It is ALL > about electrodynamics. SR and its Lorentz transform are merely > techniques to understand and display the underlying symmetries of the > electrodynamics. If it is, then it must be even more controversial than it was before. When a car travels at close to speed of light I don't expect electricity to be involved in there. The domain of *electricity* is a completely other domain, I know much, much much better than Einstein and you ever did. You are not going to compete with me in electricity, will you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web