Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #550874 > unrolled thread

Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-06 12:59 +0000
    Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 09:51 +1100
      Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-06 23:17 +0000
        Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-07 10:46 +1100
          Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Éibhear <eibhear@no-email.net> - 2016-02-07 00:46 +0000
        Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-06 21:57 -0600
          Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Καλυψώ <calipso214@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 15:33 +0000
            Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-08 17:24 +0000

#550874 — Re: Einstein's Length Contraction Absurdity

Użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:

>> next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate
>> that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
>> calculated using general relativity.
> 
> As Sylvia but not Maciej know: 
> GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by a factor
> 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground.
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf quote (page 16-17):

And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of mistakes, 
and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and two 
MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#550984

On 6/02/2016 11:59 PM, shan wrote:
> Użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:
>
>>> next to them. They do this so that they count seconds at the same rate
>>> that a clock sitting on Earth counts them. The required adjustment was
>>> calculated using general relativity.
>>
>> As Sylvia but not Maciej know:
>> GR predicts that a clock in GPS orbit will run fast by a factor
>> 4.4546E-10 as observed from the ground.
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf quote (page 16-17):
>
> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of mistakes,
> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and two
> MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points.
>

SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of 
gravity.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550987

Sylvia Else wrote:
>> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of
>> mistakes,
>> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and
>> two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points.
>>
> SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
> gravity. Sylvia.

Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young 
lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this 
context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic 
interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't 
understand physics, young lady.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550988

On 7/02/2016 10:17 AM, Éibhear wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> And Paul, in your single statement you already did a couple of
>>> mistakes,
>>> and certainly also you have them in your hompage. SR predicts ZERO and
>>> two MAXIMA, let's see whether you know the location of these points.
>>>
>> SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
>> gravity. Sylvia.
>
> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young
> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this
> context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic
> interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't
> understand physics, young lady.
>

What's that nonsense? GR is a generalisation of SR to include the 
effects of gravity. It is not a distinct theory.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550997

Sylvia Else wrote:

>>> SR is known not to apply in this situation because of the effects of
>>> gravity. Sylvia.
>>
>> Which reveals you are not aware of what is going on in physics, young
>> lady. Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR. In this
>> context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic
>> interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion. You don't
>> understand physics, young lady.
>
> What's that nonsense? GR is a generalisation of SR to include the
> effects of gravity. It is not a distinct theory. Sylvia.

You're a petrodollar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551017

On 2/6/16 2/6/16   5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote:
> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.

And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the effects of 
gravity. Indeed, in the Minkowski spacetime of SR, GR is identical to SR. But GR 
applies in many other manifolds as well, including those with gravity. In the 
context of this sub-discussion, the GPS, SR simply does not apply, as Ms. Else said.


> In this
> context SR is stronger than GR. Since GR may have various stochastic
> interpretations, SR is, and will persist being about motion.

This is all nonsense.


> You don't
> understand physics, young lady.

What she said is correct. It is YOU who doesn't understand physics. Or common 
courtesy.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551249

Tom Roberts :

> On 2/6/16 2/6/16   5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote:
>> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.
> 
> And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the
> effects of gravity. 

Talk is cheap. Show.

> Indeed, in the Minkowski spacetime of SR, GR is
> identical to SR. But GR applies in many other manifolds as well,
> including those with gravity. In the context of this sub-discussion, the
> GPS, SR simply does not apply, as Ms. Else said.

You contradict yourself. First you say is INCLUDED. Than that "simply does 
not apply", as it is not included. Choose an statement and stay with it. 
Contradicting statements are counter-productive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551287

Il giorno JanPB ha scritto

> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 7:33:13 AM UTC-8, Καλυψώ wrote:
>> Tom Roberts :
>> 
>> > On 2/6/16 2/6/16   5:17 PM, Éibhear wrote:
>> >> Nothing in the entire world may cancel the effects of SR.
>> > 
>> > And GR doesn't. GR includes all effects of SR, and also includes the
>> > effects of gravity.
>> 
>> Talk is cheap. Show.
> 
> There is nothing to show, this is a basic fact about the structure and
> relationship of both theories. It's analogous to saying the law of
> cosines includes the Pythagorean theorem.

Those things are not even related in any way. Once you have a theory 
including two distinct things, basic mathematics and super-positioning 
says that nullifying a one will exteriorize the other. Similar to partial 
differential equations, something I pretend you know.

Apollo Lunar Lander Exhaust? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksh8qyszLL8

LRO, Laser Retroreflector Oddity 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz09H_qwQ-U

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web