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

Groups > sci.physics > #565902 > unrolled thread

Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-27 06:23 -0700
    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-27 13:51 -0700
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 23:07 +0200
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 17:13 -0500
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-31 14:51 -0700
        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 12:23 -0700
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:33 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 13:40 -0700
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:45 -0700
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:52 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:47 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:53 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 20:16 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:10 -0700
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:32 -0700
    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 17:11 -0500
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-31 15:00 -0700
        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 23:35 +0000
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 06:13 -0700
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:48 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 14:44 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:03 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:08 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:14 -0500
                  Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-02 06:23 -0700
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 08:34 -0500
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:39 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 07:50 -0500
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 18:56 +0000
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:56 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:22 -0500
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:30 +0000
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:07 -0500
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:16 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:12 -0500
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:38 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:45 -0500
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:35 -0500
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:35 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:55 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:17 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 18:31 +0000
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 14:46 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 23:30 +0000
                  Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-02 06:13 -0700
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 08:38 -0500
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 07:56 -0700
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:44 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:26 -0500
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:13 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:02 +0000
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:55 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-06 15:19 -0600
                              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 17:39 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:45 +0000
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-02 07:47 -0700
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 18:52 +0000
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:53 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:28 -0500
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:22 +0000
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:06 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:48 +0000
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:05 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#567193

On 4/1/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists
> on earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition.
> That's why SR and LET derived the same math.

   Inertial frames are just like chicken man, Seto, they're everywhere,
   they're everywhere.

   SR has equations, LET does not. You just post stuff that you makeup,
   Seto.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567320

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:48:33 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/1/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists
> > on earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition.
> > That's why SR and LET derived the same math.
> no 
>    Inertial frames are just like chicken man, Seto, they're everywhere,
>    they're everywhere.

Idiot....assertion is not a valid argument. Inertial frame means no acceleration but every location on earth (thus every object on earth) is in a state of acceleration. Gee you are stupid.
> 
>    SR has equations, LET does not. You just post stuff that you makeup,
>    Seto.

LET math came before SR math and you claimed that LET has no equation? Gee you are stupid.

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

#567326

On 4/1/16 4:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
> Inertial frame means no acceleration but every location on earth
> (thus every object on earth) is in a state of acceleration.



   Well, Seto, You *do not* understand inertial reference frames. All
   inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with
   respect to one another; an accelerometer moving with any of them
   would detect *zero acceleration* .

   Seto--Please note that an accelerometer in free fall also detects zero
   acceleration.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567327

On 4/1/16 4:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
> Idiot....assertion is not a valid argument. Inertial frame means no
> acceleration but every location on earth (thus every object on earth)
> is in a state of acceleration. Gee you are stupid.


Inertial Frame of Reference
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

> In physics, an inertial frame of reference (also inertial reference
> frame or inertial frame, Galilean reference frame or inertial space)
> is a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously,
> isotropically, and in a time-independent manner.[1]
>
> All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion
> with respect to one another; *an accelerometer moving with any of them*
> *would detect zero acceleration* . Measurements in one inertial frame
> can be converted to measurements in another by a simple
> transformation (the Galilean transformation in Newtonian physics and
> the Lorentz transformation in special relativity). In general
> relativity, in any region small enough for the curvature of spacetime
> and tidal forces[2] to be negligible, one can find a set of inertial
> frames that approximately describe that region.[3][4]
>
> Physical laws take the same form in all inertial frames.[5] By
> contrast, in a non-inertial reference frame the laws of physics vary
> depending on the acceleration of that frame with respect to an
> inertial frame, and the usual physical forces must be supplemented by
> fictitious forces.[6][7] For example, a ball dropped towards the
> ground does not go exactly straight down because the Earth is
> rotating. Someone rotating with the Earth must account for the
> Coriolis effect—in this case thought of as a force—to predict the
> horizontal motion. Another example of such a fictitious force
> associated with rotating reference frames is the centrifugal effect,
> or centrifugal force.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567328

On 4/1/16 4:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> Idiot....assertion is not a valid argument. Inertial frame means no
> acceleration but every location on earth (thus every object on earth)
> is in a state of acceleration. Gee you are stupid.


   Hey Seto -- suppose that in the everyday world, Newton's Laws of
   Motion are correct, and most particularly, that the Law of Inertia
   is correct. So, then in any frame of reference that is moving
   absolutely uniformly relative to the everyday world, the Law of
   Inertia will be correct.

   Seto -- All frames of reference, in which the Law of Inertia is
   correct, are called inertial frames.

   You see it might have been you that was being stoooopid.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567435

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/1/16 4:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > Idiot....assertion is not a valid argument. Inertial frame means no
> > acceleration but every location on earth (thus every object on earth)
> > is in a state of acceleration. Gee you are stupid.
> 
> 
>    Hey Seto -- suppose that in the everyday world, Newton's Laws of
>    Motion are correct, and most particularly, that the Law of Inertia
>    is correct. So, then in any frame of reference that is moving
>    absolutely uniformly relative to the everyday world, the Law of
>    Inertia will be correct.

There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a state of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.


> 
>    Seto -- All frames of reference, in which the Law of Inertia is
>    correct, are called inertial frames.
> 
>    You see it might have been you that was being stoooopid.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567437

On 4/2/16 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
> There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a state of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.


   Seto, I suggest you read:

   Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
   and *reference frames*
 > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail

 > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of
 > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks
 > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of
 > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate
 > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have
 > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the
 > role of observers in *inertial reference frames* .Evidence ispresented
 > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which
 > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity
 > harmoniously co-exist.

 > Conclusions

 > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
 > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
 > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
 > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
 > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
 > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
 > the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
 > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
 > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
 > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
 > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
 > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
 > confront the startling ideas of special relativity.

 > Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble
 > relating measurements made by observers in different reference
 > frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels,
 > do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the
 > speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently
 > fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed.
 > Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas
 > that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In
 > particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a
 > system of observers that determine the same time for any given event.
 > Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of
 > the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply
 > correctly the Lorentz transformations.

 > Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel
 > student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual
 > experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity
 > are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to
 > recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to
 > have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts.
 > Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an
 > event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of
 > measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given
 > reference frame, and understanding the relationship between
 > measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in
 > contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to
 > the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This
 > investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these
 > fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity
 > meaningful to students.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567825

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/2/16 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a state of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.
> 
> 
>    Seto, I suggest you read:

Wormy, I suggest that you think instead of copy and paste. There is no inertial frame exists on earth or in the universe. The inertial frame in SR is just another name for different locations in the stationary aether.
That's why SR and LET have the same math....both uses the aether frame to derive its math.

> 
>    Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
>    and *reference frames*
>  > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail
> 
>  > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of
>  > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks
>  > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of
>  > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate
>  > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have
>  > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the
>  > role of observers in *inertial reference frames* .Evidence ispresented
>  > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which
>  > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity
>  > harmoniously co-exist.
> 
>  > Conclusions
> 
>  > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
>  > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
>  > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
>  > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
>  > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
>  > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
>  > the phrase "relativity of simultaneity" as implying that the
>  > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
>  > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
>  > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
>  > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
>  > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
>  > confront the startling ideas of special relativity.
> 
>  > Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble
>  > relating measurements made by observers in different reference
>  > frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels,
>  > do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the
>  > speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently
>  > fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed.
>  > Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas
>  > that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In
>  > particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a
>  > system of observers that determine the same time for any given event.
>  > Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of
>  > the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply
>  > correctly the Lorentz transformations.
> 
>  > Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel
>  > student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual
>  > experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity
>  > are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to
>  > recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to
>  > have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts.
>  > Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an
>  > event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of
>  > measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given
>  > reference frame, and understanding the relationship between
>  > measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in
>  > contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to
>  > the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This
>  > investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these
>  > fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity
>  > meaningful to students.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567828

On 4/4/16 7:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:34:25 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>     Seto, I suggest you read: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf
>
> Wormy, I suggest that you think instead of copy and paste. There is no inertial frame exists on earth or in the universe. The inertial frame in SR is just another name for different locations in the stationary aether.
> That's why SR and LET have the same math....both uses the aether frame to derive its math.
>

   It is too bad, Seto, as the linked article addresses your denial of
   the existence of inertial frames of reference. You remind me of
   Pentcho Valev and his refusal to accept the constancy of the speed
   of light disregarding the observational evidence.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567534

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 4/1/16 4:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> >
>> > Idiot....assertion is not a valid argument. Inertial frame means no
>> > acceleration but every location on earth (thus every object on earth)
>> > is in a state of acceleration. Gee you are stupid.
>> 
>> 
>>    Hey Seto -- suppose that in the everyday world, Newton's Laws of
>>    Motion are correct, and most particularly, that the Law of Inertia
>>    is correct. So, then in any frame of reference that is moving
>>    absolutely uniformly relative to the everyday world, the Law of
>>    Inertia will be correct.

>There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a 
>state of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.

Again, obviously you don't even know what an inertial frame even is.
You need to learn that before trying to condemn SR or trying to create
a replacement IRT.  How can you create a theory to replace SR if you don't
even know WTF an inertial frame is???

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

#567831

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 4/1/16 4:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Idiot....assertion is not a valid argument. Inertial frame means no
> >> > acceleration but every location on earth (thus every object on earth)
> >> > is in a state of acceleration. Gee you are stupid.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>    Hey Seto -- suppose that in the everyday world, Newton's Laws of
> >>    Motion are correct, and most particularly, that the Law of Inertia
> >>    is correct. So, then in any frame of reference that is moving
> >>    absolutely uniformly relative to the everyday world, the Law of
> >>    Inertia will be correct.
> 
> >There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a 
> >state of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.
> 
> Again, obviously you don't even know what an inertial frame even is.
> You need to learn that before trying to condemn SR or trying to create
> a replacement IRT.  How can you create a theory to replace SR if you don't
> even know WTF an inertial frame is???

ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black.

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

#567833

On 4/4/16 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote:
> ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black.

   http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf

   It is too bad, Seto, as the linked article addresses your denial of
   the existence of inertial frames of reference. You remind me of
   Pentcho Valev and his refusal to accept the constancy of the speed
   of light disregarding the observational evidence.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#568039

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Again, obviously you don't even know what an inertial frame even is.
>> You need to learn that before trying to condemn SR or trying to create
>> a replacement IRT.  How can you create a theory to replace SR if you don't
>> even know WTF an inertial frame is???

>ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black.

As I just pointed out, you're likely using your own personal definition of
"inertial frame".  Who knows what your definition is.  Well, we know it
is something that doesn't exist on earth. Perhaps to Ken, "inertial frame"
means "pink unicorn". Pink unicorns don't exist on earth.

Ken, you should read the links Sam keeps giving you. They give the
scientific definition of "inertial frame".  You should be using that
definition, not one that means "pink unicorn" or whatever.

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

#567840

On 4/2/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
> There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a state
> of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.

The cup of applesauce the nurse brought you for breakfast and that is 
sitting on your table is accelerating toward the center of the earth?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#567842

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:07:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/2/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a state
> > of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.
> 
> The cup of applesauce the nurse brought you for breakfast and that is 
> sitting on your table is accelerating toward the center of the earth?

It's trying to....the table stops it and that's why it has weight.

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

#567861

On 4/4/2016 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:07:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/2/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a state
>>> of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.
>>
>> The cup of applesauce the nurse brought you for breakfast and that is
>> sitting on your table is accelerating toward the center of the earth?
>
> It's trying to....the table stops it and that's why it has weight.
>

That's true that it's TRYING TO. But it is not in fact accelerating 
toward the center of the earth, is it?

Trying to push a building over with your bare hands is not the same 
thing as pushing a building over with your bare hands.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#567932

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:12:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/4/2016 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:07:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 4/2/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a state
> >>> of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.
> >>
> >> The cup of applesauce the nurse brought you for breakfast and that is
> >> sitting on your table is accelerating toward the center of the earth?
> >
> > It's trying to....the table stops it and that's why it has weight.
> >
> 
> That's true that it's TRYING TO. But it is not in fact accelerating 
> toward the center of the earth, is it?

It is accelerating toward the center of the earth.....that's why it has weight.

> 
> Trying to push a building over with your bare hands is not the same 
> thing as pushing a building over with your bare hands.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#567937

On 4/4/2016 3:38 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:12:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/4/2016 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:07:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2016 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> There is no inertial frame on earth.....every object on earth is in a state
>>>>> of accelerating motion toward the center of the earth.
>>>>
>>>> The cup of applesauce the nurse brought you for breakfast and that is
>>>> sitting on your table is accelerating toward the center of the earth?
>>>
>>> It's trying to....the table stops it and that's why it has weight.
>>>
>>
>> That's true that it's TRYING TO. But it is not in fact accelerating
>> toward the center of the earth, is it?
>
> It is accelerating toward the center of the earth.....that's why it has weight.

If it is accelerating, then its position relative to the center of the 
earth must be changing. Is the applesauce doing that?

>
>>
>> Trying to push a building over with your bare hands is not the same
>> thing as pushing a building over with your bare hands.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#567911

On 4/4/16 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> It's trying to....the table stops it and that's why it has weight.

   Therefore the net force is zero and the acceleration is zero.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#567931

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/4/16 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > It's trying to....the table stops it and that's why it has weight.
> 
>    Therefore the net force is zero and the acceleration is zero.
>

No the net force is no zero....if it is zero the object wouldn't have weight.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web