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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 07:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b4e855b-aba5-486b-aa09-ac9b1278cd5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410995 |
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:38:07 AM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: > 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. Yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 10:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o92c02$17in$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411011 |
On 28/02/17 02:47, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:38:07 AM UTC-6, Poutnik wrote: >> 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. > > Yes Rubbish. Mass is absolute and invariant. The incorrectly interpreted 'relativistic mass increase' that seems to occur in accelerators is a consequence of the build up of the WRFB (the 'Wilson Reverse Field Bubble') around the particle. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 16:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f79652d-5793-4abf-865a-b4921a7f11b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411072 |
Rubbish. Mass is absolute and invariant. The incorrectly interpreted 'relativistic mass increase' that seems to occur in accelerators is a consequence of the build up of the WRFB (the 'Wilson Reverse Field Bubble') around the particle. http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0124v1.pdf 4pi*(4pi-1/pi)*(4pi-2/pi) = 1836.15 30.299792458^2*2 = 1836.15 Mass is a result of the Architecture of Space Time & Entropy & Energy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 11:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ae0fea5-4729-42a3-a434-a8eee0c2ce40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410995 |
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 3:38:07 AM UTC-10, Poutnik wrote: > 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. If I'm not mistaken, the mass of an object is defined as the negative square-root of the magnitude of the object's momentum 4-vector, which, of course, is frame independent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 11:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ae7a88e-daf8-467e-a684-d810f952cf29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411040 |
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 9:41:09 AM UTC-10, sdru.p...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 3:38:07 AM UTC-10, Poutnik wrote: > > 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. > > If I'm not mistaken, the mass of an object is defined as the negative square-root of the magnitude of the object's momentum 4-vector, which, of course, is frame independent. That should read: ... as the square-root of the negative of the magnitude of the object's momentum 4-vector... That is, m^2 = -p.p, where m is its mass, p is its momentum 4-vector and . is a dot-product. The dot product of a vector with itself is its magnitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <39404cc3-c943-4f3c-a6cf-760718be0922@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410992 |
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 3:20:04 AM UTC-10, 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. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables If I'm not mistaken, for an object, the magnitude of its momentum 4-vector is -(m^2) where m is the object's mass. Just as the 4-vector is invariant, so is its magnitude. I believe that this is the modern (last ~75 years?) formulation for an object's mass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 13:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o91usp$eef$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411038 |
On 2/27/2017 1:25 PM, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 3:20:04 AM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/26/2017 5:30 PM, sdru.product@gmail.com wrote: >>> In the modern formulation mass is frame independent; no proper vs measured mass >> >> I'm not sure this is an accurate statement. Particle physicists tend to >> speak of invariant mass a lot; synonymous with proper mass. If anything, >> "relativistic mass" or frame-dependent mass seems to be less used these >> days. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > If I'm not mistaken, for an object, the magnitude of its momentum 4-vector is -(m^2) where m is the object's mass. > > Just as the 4-vector is invariant, so is its magnitude. > I believe that this is the modern (last ~75 years?) formulation for an object's mass. > Yes, you're right, I misread your post. Again, I apologize. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 15:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8vhai$deb$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410909 |
On 2/26/2017 8:23 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > 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. > > By decree, Henry the Wilson, has declared that extrinsic properties of any Thing do not exist; that kinetic energy nor velocities of Things are not extrinsic properties nor properties at all; that duration and length are hereby intrinsic properties of Things. So saith the Wilson, long live the Wilson. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 10:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o92bo8$16o5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #410948 |
On 27/02/17 08:28, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/26/2017 8:23 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> > > By decree, Henry the Wilson, has declared that extrinsic properties of > any Thing do not exist; that kinetic energy nor velocities of Things are > not extrinsic properties nor properties at all; that duration and length > are hereby intrinsic properties of Things. So saith the Wilson, long > live the Wilson. No form of Energy is frame dependent. End of story. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 18:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o92h5b$1f9t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411071 |
On 2/27/2017 5:12 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > On 27/02/17 08:28, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/26/2017 8:23 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> By decree, Henry the Wilson, has declared that extrinsic properties of >> any Thing do not exist; that kinetic energy nor velocities of Things are >> not extrinsic properties nor properties at all; that duration and length >> are hereby intrinsic properties of Things. So saith the Wilson, long >> live the Wilson. > > No form of Energy is frame dependent. End of story. > > So we're no longer talking about 19th century physics. We're talking about Wilson's Other Planet physics, where Wilson is the emperor. I hear he's in the market for new clothes. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 18:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9e9ea7a0-4b07-48bb-ae2f-4f257e61e16a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411078 |
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 2:44:33 PM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/27/2017 5:12 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > > On 27/02/17 08:28, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/26/2017 8:23 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > >>> > >>> 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. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> By decree, Henry the Wilson, has declared that extrinsic properties of > >> any Thing do not exist; that kinetic energy nor velocities of Things are > >> not extrinsic properties nor properties at all; that duration and length > >> are hereby intrinsic properties of Things. So saith the Wilson, long > >> live the Wilson. > > > > No form of Energy is frame dependent. End of story. > > > > > > So we're no longer talking about 19th century physics. We're talking > about Wilson's Other Planet physics, where Wilson is the emperor. I hear > he's in the market for new clothes. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Wilson, Seto, et al => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 18:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <703e1ae2-8148-4c06-836c-0c1a25bcce98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411078 |
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 2:44:33 PM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/27/2017 5:12 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > > On 27/02/17 08:28, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/26/2017 8:23 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > >>> > >>> 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. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> By decree, Henry the Wilson, has declared that extrinsic properties of > >> any Thing do not exist; that kinetic energy nor velocities of Things are > >> not extrinsic properties nor properties at all; that duration and length > >> are hereby intrinsic properties of Things. So saith the Wilson, long > >> live the Wilson. > > > > No form of Energy is frame dependent. End of story. > > > > > > So we're no longer talking about 19th century physics. We're talking > about Wilson's Other Planet physics, where Wilson is the emperor. I hear > he's in the market for new clothes. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 18:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8d4ac4f2-d11f-441e-b5fd-dd0901ca17db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #411086 |
On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:26:44 PM UTC-7, sdru.p...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 2:44:33 PM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 2/27/2017 5:12 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: > > > On 27/02/17 08:28, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 2/26/2017 8:23 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > > >>> > > >>> 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. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> By decree, Henry the Wilson, has declared that extrinsic properties of > > >> any Thing do not exist; that kinetic energy nor velocities of Things are > > >> not extrinsic properties nor properties at all; that duration and length > > >> are hereby intrinsic properties of Things. So saith the Wilson, long > > >> live the Wilson. > > > > > > No form of Energy is frame dependent. End of story. > > > > > > > > > > So we're no longer talking about 19th century physics. We're talking > > about Wilson's Other Planet physics, where Wilson is the emperor. I hear > > he's in the market for new clothes. > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.” —David Dunning
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 04:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o94aun$cj0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411078 |
On 28/02/17 11:44, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/27/2017 5:12 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: >> On 27/02/17 08:28, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> By decree, Henry the Wilson, has declared that extrinsic properties of >>> any Thing do not exist; that kinetic energy nor velocities of Things are >>> not extrinsic properties nor properties at all; that duration and length >>> are hereby intrinsic properties of Things. So saith the Wilson, long >>> live the Wilson. >> >> No form of Energy is frame dependent. End of story. >> >> > > So we're no longer talking about 19th century physics. We're talking > about Wilson's Other Planet physics, where Wilson is the emperor. I hear > he's in the market for new clothes. Every properly educated physicist knows that all forms of energy are frame INDEPENDENT. I have already shown you WHY that applies to KE. If energy was frame dependent, it would be possible to make a PM machine. This shows how incompetent your dingleberries are. No wonder you have all been sucked in by Einstein's neat little bit of SciFi.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 11:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o94dle$i6r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411160 |
On 2/28/2017 11:11 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > On 28/02/17 11:44, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/27/2017 5:12 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote: >>> On 27/02/17 08:28, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> By decree, Henry the Wilson, has declared that extrinsic properties of >>>> any Thing do not exist; that kinetic energy nor velocities of Things >>>> are >>>> not extrinsic properties nor properties at all; that duration and >>>> length >>>> are hereby intrinsic properties of Things. So saith the Wilson, long >>>> live the Wilson. >>> >>> No form of Energy is frame dependent. End of story. >>> >>> >> >> So we're no longer talking about 19th century physics. We're talking >> about Wilson's Other Planet physics, where Wilson is the emperor. I hear >> he's in the market for new clothes. > > Every properly educated physicist knows that all forms of energy are > frame INDEPENDENT. I have already shown you WHY that applies to KE. I don't think anyone cares what the Emperor of Wilson's Other Planet decrees a "properly educated physicist" to be. > > If energy was frame dependent, it would be possible to make a PM machine. Nonsense. > This shows how incompetent your dingleberries are. No wonder you have > all been sucked in by Einstein's neat little bit of SciFi. > Henry, your trite little noisemakers are petering out into tiny little pops, which you haven't even bothered tossing with any style any more. In general, you are becoming just .... uninteresting. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-02 04:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o971uu$11ek$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #411168 |
On 01/03/17 04:57, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/28/2017 11:11 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> >> Every properly educated physicist knows that all forms of energy are >> frame INDEPENDENT. I have already shown you WHY that applies to KE. > > I don't think anyone cares what the Emperor of Wilson's Other Planet > decrees a "properly educated physicist" to be. > >> >> If energy was frame dependent, it would be possible to make a PM machine. > > Nonsense. Bodkin, I don't have to apologize for YOUR ignorance. I can only feel pity for you. >> This shows how incompetent your dingleberries are. No wonder you have >> all been sucked in by Einstein's neat little bit of SciFi. >> > > Henry, your trite little noisemakers are petering out into tiny little > pops, which you haven't even bothered tossing with any style any more. > In general, you are becoming just .... uninteresting. Bodkin, it is plainly obvious that the movement of an object is frame dependent and that bringing a particular object to rest will release different amounts of energy in different frames. For that reason and for convenience, physicists have always used the expression 'Kinetic energy OF' an object. But the energy does not belong to that object at all. In fact the amount available due to motion depends on the mass of the object that stops the relatively moving one. Kinetic energy is a complicated issue and the factor 1/2mv^2 only really applies to the movements of infinitesimal masses relative to infinite ones. To understand KE you have to understand how it got there in the first place and how it can be converted to mechanical work and heat...and even though I showed you last year why it is NOT frame dependent, you still cannot see why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 13:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehhfomF90enU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #410909 |
On 27/02/2017 1:23 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > 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. Observers in all frames can calculate the proper length of the rod, and all will obtain the same value for it. You can call the proper length the absolute length if you insist on using different words, but it doesn't alter the fact that different observers will obtain different lengths in their respective frames, where that length is the distance between the ends of the rod taken at the same moment in time in the frame. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 23:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <582332a4-6f70-4430-a1ab-16d15e5e4372@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410969 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 27 lutego 2017 03:04:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > Observers in all frames can calculate the proper length of the rod, and > all will obtain the same value for it. And walking a street, they will obviously see trees and buildings running around them. Gurus said!! Gurus couldn't be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 19:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ehi7bjFd73fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #410978 |
On 27/02/2017 6:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 27 lutego 2017 03:04:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> Observers in all frames can calculate the proper length of the rod, and >> all will obtain the same value for it. > > And walking a street, they will obviously > see trees and buildings running around > them. > Gurus said!! Gurus couldn't be wrong. > Do you never tire of spouting that strawman? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 01:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faa90b53-17bd-40e1-851f-dff4eab621b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #410983 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 27 lutego 2017 09:46:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 27/02/2017 6:23 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 27 lutego 2017 03:04:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >> Observers in all frames can calculate the proper length of the rod, and > >> all will obtain the same value for it. > > > > And walking a street, they will obviously > > see trees and buildings running around > > them. > > Gurus said!! Gurus couldn't be wrong. > > > Do you never tire of spouting that strawman? Maybe some day I will, but it rather won't be soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web