Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #410326 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-22 05:19 +1100 |
| Last post | 2017-02-23 19:41 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 76 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-22 05:19 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-22 12:58 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 13:47 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-22 17:33 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 12:25 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 13:46 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-23 08:53 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 14:04 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-23 09:51 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-23 12:36 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-23 19:32 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-23 19:37 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-23 00:55 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-24 08:39 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-24 12:37 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-25 09:16 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 15:07 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-25 19:47 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-25 02:18 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-26 05:58 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:32 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> - 2017-02-25 19:43 +0000
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-25 20:21 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-26 22:04 +0100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-27 08:22 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-25 21:23 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-26 05:52 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 13:01 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-28 10:08 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-28 13:40 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-03-01 04:02 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 15:33 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-27 01:23 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 09:04 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-27 08:30 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 15:30 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 03:45 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 07:20 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 07:20 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:38 +0100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 07:47 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-28 10:16 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 16:27 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 11:41 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 11:51 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 11:25 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 13:32 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:28 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-28 10:12 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 18:44 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 18:24 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 18:26 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-27 18:39 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-03-01 04:11 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 11:57 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-03-02 04:56 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 13:04 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-26 23:23 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-27 19:46 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-27 01:03 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-28 13:41 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-27 23:16 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-28 10:18 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-28 15:37 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-03-01 04:15 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 08:05 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-25 09:18 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 13:36 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-26 07:09 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-22 15:00 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 10:12 -0600
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 12:25 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-25 09:20 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-25 09:26 +1100
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 18:20 -0800
Re: Physics Lesson for Dingleberrries: How to Measure a Moving Rod. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-23 19:41 +1100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 13:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8sm3t$1nls$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410846 |
On 2/25/2017 12:58 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: >>> There is no such thing as an 'extrinsic property'., you nymshifting >>> idiot! > >> Wow. I guess everyone's right about you. > > They are! They see me as a genuine threat to the 110yo Einstein > conspiracy...because I'm always right. Coffee everywhere. On my desk, on my keyboard, up my nose. Everywhere. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bret Noss <osotr@rwtropsws.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8smpo$1p26$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410857 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> They are! They see me as a genuine threat to the 110yo Einstein >> conspiracy...because I'm always right. > > Coffee everywhere. On my desk, on my keyboard, up my nose. Everywhere. You must be drinking it through your ass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 20:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5e2d5583-df06-4380-9f3b-d64a0486f17a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410857 |
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:32:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/25/2017 12:58 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > >>> There is no such thing as an 'extrinsic property'., you nymshifting > >>> idiot! > > > >> Wow. I guess everyone's right about you. > > > > They are! They see me as a genuine threat to the 110yo Einstein > > conspiracy...because I'm always right. > > Coffee everywhere. On my desk, on my keyboard, up my nose. Everywhere. Oh great, now I'VE got coffee everywhere! When will it ever end?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 22:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8vft7$r23$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #410846 |
On 25.02.2017 19:58, HGW... DSc. wrote: > On 25/02/17 21:18, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: > >> Wow. I guess everyone's right about you. > > They are! They see me as a genuine threat to the 110yo Einstein > conspiracy...because I'm always right. .. and Ralph is dead serious! :-D http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BestSeller.html A few wise words from the best seller, authored by one of the enlightened few who is always right: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeInterval.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NumericValue.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRbasedNM.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WilsonSimultaneity.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FiddleFluke.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Wilgebra.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Respectibility.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Conspiracy.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Belief.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogicVengeance.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedUni.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CantHelp.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Rapidly.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Downunder.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SuicideBomber.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ForgedDegree.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotAntiSemeticBut.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowEasy.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotTrickQuestion.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 08:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o8vgv4$e1o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410942 |
On 27/02/17 08:04, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 25.02.2017 19:58, HGW... DSc. wrote: >> On 25/02/17 21:18, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Wow. I guess everyone's right about you. >> >> They are! They see me as a genuine threat to the 110yo Einstein >> conspiracy...because I'm always right. > > .. and Henry is dead serious! :-D ..and so are you guys judging by the desperation shown in your inane messages. > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BestSeller.html > > A few wise words from the best seller, authored by one of > the enlightened few who is always right: > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeInterval.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NumericValue.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRbasedNM.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WilsonSimultaneity.html What good are references from somebody who is always wrong? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-25 21:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehd48pFckouU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #410810 |
On 25/02/2017 7:47 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > On 25/02/17 10:07, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:16:53 PM UTC-10, HGW... DSc. wrote: >>> On 24/02/17 12:37, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 24/02/2017 8:39 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Crap! A rod is a rod. It defines an absolute spatial interval. It >>>>>>> does >>>>>>> not get 'projected' anywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can project a three dimensional object onto a two dimensional >>>>>> plane. >>>>>> It doesn't do anything to the object. What's the objection to >>>>>> projecting >>>>>> a rod in a four-dimensional space-time onto a different >>>>>> four-dimensional >>>>>> space-time? Again, it doesn't do anything to the rod. >>>>> >>>>> Are you raving mad?. Time has nothing to do with the rod's absolute >>>>> length. >>>> >>>> It doesn't affect the proper length of the rod, that's true. >>>> >>>> It does impact on the length measured in other frames. >>> >>> What the hell are you raving about now? Nothing happens to the rod no >>> matter who looks at it. >>> >>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> >> Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, velocity, >> length, etc. >> are vary depending on the frame from which it is observed. > > There is no such thing as an 'extrinsic property'., you nymshifting idiot! > > You think it makes no difference whether that 1kg mass hits you at 0.1m/s or 100m/s? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 05:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o8sjpg$1j2k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410815 |
On 25/02/17 21:23, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 25/02/2017 7:47 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: >>>>> It doesn't affect the proper length of the rod, that's true. >>>>> >>>>> It does impact on the length measured in other frames. >>>> >>>> What the hell are you raving about now? Nothing happens to the rod no >>>> matter who looks at it. >>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> >>> Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, velocity, >>> length, etc. >>> are vary depending on the frame from which it is observed. >> >> There is no such thing as an 'extrinsic property'., you nymshifting >> idiot! >> >> > > You think it makes no difference whether that 1kg mass hits you at > 0.1m/s or 100m/s? Of course it makes a difference, you idiot! But that is due to its relative speed, which is NOT a 'property' of the object, intrinsic or 'extrinsic'. > Sylvia. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 13:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehhfk2F90enU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #410845 |
On 26/02/2017 5:52 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > On 25/02/17 21:23, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 25/02/2017 7:47 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > >>>>>> It doesn't affect the proper length of the rod, that's true. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does impact on the length measured in other frames. >>>>> >>>>> What the hell are you raving about now? Nothing happens to the rod no >>>>> matter who looks at it. >>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> >>>> Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, velocity, >>>> length, etc. >>>> are vary depending on the frame from which it is observed. >>> >>> There is no such thing as an 'extrinsic property'., you nymshifting >>> idiot! >>> >>> >> >> You think it makes no difference whether that 1kg mass hits you at >> 0.1m/s or 100m/s? > > Of course it makes a difference, you idiot! But that is due to its > relative speed, which is NOT a 'property' of the object, intrinsic or > 'extrinsic'. > >> Sylvia. >> > > https://www.google.com.au/#q=extrinsic&* Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 10:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o92bgk$16n7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410968 |
On 27/02/17 13:01, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/02/2017 5:52 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, >>>>> velocity, length, etc. are vary depending on the frame from >>>>> which it is observed. >>>> >>>> There is no such thing as an 'extrinsic property'., you >>>> nymshifting idiot! >>>> >>>> >>> >>> You think it makes no difference whether that 1kg mass hits you >>> at 0.1m/s or 100m/s? >> >> Of course it makes a difference, you idiot! But that is due to its >> relative speed, which is NOT a 'property' of the object, intrinsic >> or 'extrinsic'. >> >>> Sylvia. >>> >> >> > > https://www.google.com.au/#q=extrinsic&* An intrinsic property of one object is NOT an Extrinsic property of all others. Extrinsic properties DO NOT exist. > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 13:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehk69gFpm2uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #411070 |
On 28/02/2017 10:08 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > On 27/02/17 13:01, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/02/2017 5:52 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, >>>>>> velocity, length, etc. are vary depending on the frame from >>>>>> which it is observed. >>>>> >>>>> There is no such thing as an 'extrinsic property'., you >>>>> nymshifting idiot! >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You think it makes no difference whether that 1kg mass hits you >>>> at 0.1m/s or 100m/s? >>> >>> Of course it makes a difference, you idiot! But that is due to its >>> relative speed, which is NOT a 'property' of the object, intrinsic >>> or 'extrinsic'. >>> >>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> https://www.google.com.au/#q=extrinsic&* > > An intrinsic property of one object is NOT an Extrinsic property of all > others. > Extrinsic properties DO NOT exist. > >> Sylvia. > > Well, forget the words used, then if you don't like them. We can still measure the distance between the ends of a moving rod at the same time, and get a distance that is not the same as the proper length of the rod. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 04:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o94aci$be4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411090 |
On 28/02/17 13:40, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/02/2017 10:08 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote: >> >> An intrinsic property of one object is NOT an Extrinsic property of all >> others. >> Extrinsic properties DO NOT exist. >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> > > Well, forget the words used, then if you don't like them. We can still > measure the distance between the ends of a moving rod at the same time, > and get a distance that is not the same as the proper length of the rod. OK... you get the wrong answer when you use light signals and Einstein's P2.... What does that tell any sane person? > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-24 15:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1bed4397-a751-467e-84bc-d8b850e6fa9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410775 |
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:16:53 PM UTC-10, HGW... DSc. wrote: > On 24/02/17 12:37, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 24/02/2017 8:39 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > > >>>> > >>>> Crap! A rod is a rod. It defines an absolute spatial interval. It does > >>>> not get 'projected' anywhere. > >>> > >>> I can project a three dimensional object onto a two dimensional plane. > >>> It doesn't do anything to the object. What's the objection to projecting > >>> a rod in a four-dimensional space-time onto a different four-dimensional > >>> space-time? Again, it doesn't do anything to the rod. > >> > >> Are you raving mad?. Time has nothing to do with the rod's absolute > >> length. > > > > It doesn't affect the proper length of the rod, that's true. > > > > It does impact on the length measured in other frames. > > What the hell are you raving about now? Nothing happens to the rod no > matter who looks at it. Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, velocity, length, etc. vary depending on the frame from which it is observed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 01:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o8uoai$121n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410787 |
On 25/02/17 10:33, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:16:53 PM UTC-10, HGW... DSc. wrote: > >>>> Are you raving mad?. Time has nothing to do with the rod's absolute >>>> length. >>> >>> It doesn't affect the proper length of the rod, that's true. >>> >>> It does impact on the length measured in other frames. >> >> What the hell are you raving about now? Nothing happens to the rod no >> matter who looks at it. > > Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, velocity, length, etc. > vary depending on the frame from which it is observed. Neither kinetic energy nor velocity are properties of the rod. An absolute length is DEFINED by the rod, the same in all frames. 'Extrinsic' properties don't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 09:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c7a5cde-527c-4ea5-8da2-04249dd53d3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410909 |
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 8:22:13 AM UTC-6, HGW, DSc. wrote: > On 25/02/17 10:33, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: > > Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, velocity, length, etc. > > vary depending on the frame from which it is observed. > > Neither kinetic energy nor velocity are properties of the rod. An > absolute length is DEFINED by the rod, the same in all frames. > > 'Extrinsic' properties don't exist. Let us introduce some neologisms that, for normal people, should not be necessary, but which represent concepts that spr crackpots are incapable of understanding. The "proper kinetic energy" of a rod is zero. The "measured kinetic energy" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. The "proper velocity" of a rod is zero. The "measured velocity" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. The "proper length" of a rod is a fixed non-zero quantity. The "measured length" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. The "proper mass" of a rod is a fixed non-zero quantity. The "measured mass" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. ... and so on and so forth. Fin de siècle scientists were going nuts because experimental measurements seemed inconsistent with fixed proper length, fixed proper mass, etc. Lorentz invented a "theory of the electron" (the meaning of the word "electron" used then is VERY different from the current understanding of the term) that assumed actual physical changes to a rod's properties as a result of the interactions of the rod's electrons with the flowing aether. His theory fit experimental observation, but at considerable cost of abandoning fixed proper length, introducing mathematical tricks like "local time", etc. (Contrary to Lorentz, Poincaré saw more to local time than a mathematical trick, but did not quite achieve a full understanding of Lorentz's equations.) Einstein introduced a theory that paid special attention to the act of measurement. His theory restored fixed proper length, fixed proper mass etc. but showed that measurements of these quantities were frame dependent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 08:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o8vhdj$ejq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410921 |
On 27/02/17 04:04, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 8:22:13 AM UTC-6, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> On 25/02/17 10:33, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, velocity, length, etc. >>> vary depending on the frame from which it is observed. >> >> Neither kinetic energy nor velocity are properties of the rod. An >> absolute length is DEFINED by the rod, the same in all frames. >> >> 'Extrinsic' properties don't exist. > > Let us introduce some neologisms that, for normal people, should not be > necessary, but which represent concepts that spr crackpots are incapable of > understanding. > > The "proper kinetic energy" of a rod is zero. > The "measured kinetic energy" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. Energy is not a property of anything. > The "proper velocity" of a rod is zero. > The "measured velocity" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. Velocity is not a property of anything. > The "proper length" of a rod is a fixed non-zero quantity. > The "measured length" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. An absolute Length is defined by an object such as a rod. > The "proper mass" of a rod is a fixed non-zero quantity. > The "measured mass" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. Mass is an intrinsic and absolute property of matter. > ... and so on and so forth. Why do you bother posting such crap? > Fin de siècle scientists were going nuts because experimental measurements > seemed inconsistent with fixed proper length, fixed proper mass, etc. There were no such measurements....and any such effects are due to entirely different factors. > Lorentz invented a "theory of the electron" (the meaning of the word "electron" > used then is VERY different from the current understanding of the term) that > assumed actual physical changes to a rod's properties as a result of the > interactions of the rod's electrons with the flowing aether. > > His theory fit experimental observation, There are no such observations....except in dingleberry posts to each other. > but at considerable cost of > abandoning fixed proper length, introducing mathematical tricks like "local > time", etc. (Contrary to Lorentz, Poincaré saw more to local time than a > mathematical trick, but did not quite achieve a full understanding of > Lorentz's equations.) Poincare wrote Einstein's SR. Einstein merely translated it into German. > Einstein introduced a theory that paid special attention to the act of > measurement. Einstein never measured anything. > His theory restored fixed proper length, fixed proper mass etc. > but showed that measurements of these quantities were frame dependent. No experiment has shown length to be frame dependent. A rod is unchanged no matter who looks at it. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 15:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a620364-a664-45eb-a1ad-477117ce8908@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410921 |
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 7:04:49 AM UTC-10, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 8:22:13 AM UTC-6, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > On 25/02/17 10:33, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Exactly! But extrinsic properties such as kinetic energy, velocity, length, etc. > > > vary depending on the frame from which it is observed. > > > > Neither kinetic energy nor velocity are properties of the rod. An > > absolute length is DEFINED by the rod, the same in all frames. > > > > 'Extrinsic' properties don't exist. > > Let us introduce some neologisms that, for normal people, should not be > necessary, but which represent concepts that spr crackpots are incapable of > understanding. > > The "proper kinetic energy" of a rod is zero. > The "measured kinetic energy" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. > > The "proper velocity" of a rod is zero. > The "measured velocity" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. > > The "proper length" of a rod is a fixed non-zero quantity. > The "measured length" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. > > The "proper mass" of a rod is a fixed non-zero quantity. > The "measured mass" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. In the modern formulation mass is frame independent; no proper vs measured mass
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 03:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52133dab-9369-43c7-ad91-579371b45fc6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410961 |
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 5:30:17 PM UTC-6, sdru.p...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 7:04:49 AM UTC-10, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > The "proper mass" of a rod is a fixed non-zero quantity. > > The "measured mass" of a rod is a frame dependent quantity. > > In the modern formulation mass is frame independent; no proper vs measured mass Yes, of course. Remember, I am inventing neologisms for Henry's benefit. My "measured mass" is equivalent to the term "relativistic mass" which is a deprecated term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 07:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o91920$11c3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410961 |
On 2/26/2017 5:30 PM, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: > In the modern formulation mass is frame independent; no proper vs measured mass I'm not sure this is an accurate statement. Particle physicists tend to speak of invariant mass a lot; synonymous with proper mass. If anything, "relativistic mass" or frame-dependent mass seems to be less used these days. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 07:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o9193k$11c3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410992 |
On 2/27/2017 7:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/26/2017 5:30 PM, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: >> In the modern formulation mass is frame independent; no proper vs >> measured mass > > I'm not sure this is an accurate statement. Particle physicists tend to > speak of invariant mass a lot; synonymous with proper mass. If anything, > "relativistic mass" or frame-dependent mass seems to be less used these > days. > My apologies, I COMPLETELY misread your statement. I agree with what you said, obviously. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 14:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o91a08$ofc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #410992 |
On 02/27/2017 02:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/26/2017 5:30 PM, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: >> In the modern formulation mass is frame independent; no proper vs >> measured mass > > I'm not sure this is an accurate statement. Particle physicists tend to > speak of invariant mass a lot; synonymous with proper mass. If anything, > "relativistic mass" or frame-dependent mass seems to be less used these > days. > As "relativistic mass" / frame-dependent mass is not only frame dependent, but also direction-dependent, so it neither an intrinsic object property, neither a frame-dependent constant. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web