Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #433614
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation |
| Date | 2017-09-24 21:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f2qfg2F72bfU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <efed110d-e342-4851-bf69-12e07a3d522e@googlegroups.com> <f2l72lF1084U1@mid.individual.net> <f3526ab1-0dfa-45db-9416-292869f93d4b@googlegroups.com> <f2msvaFcbihU1@mid.individual.net> <2a741386-495b-4222-9fb8-004e69ced8ec@googlegroups.com> |
Am 23.09.2017 um 14:09 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> W dniu sobota, 23 września 2017 12:56:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>> Am 22.09.2017 um 22:30 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>> W dniu piątek, 22 września 2017 21:36:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
>>>
>>>> I was NOT talking about my 'physical sense', of course, but about the
>>>> 'meaning of the term v in SRT'.
>>>>
>>>> so: what do you think, how this 'v' should be interpreted?
>>>
>>> And angels dancing on a pinhead - will they dance
>>> tango or rather foxtrot?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Still 'dancing angels' was not the subject. So they may dance whatever
>> they like.
>>
>> But we were talking about SRT and whether or not someone with an
>> advanced spaceship could reach c.
>>
>> I said, this term 'c' requires a frame of reference, in respect to which
>> velocity should be measured.
>>
>> But SRT says this:
>
>
> Your Shit may say whatever it likes, but your tales
> of "what an observer observes" didn't match anything
> even in Galileo's time.
> Now they are not even worthy laughing.
The laws of nature are not changing in time. Only our understanding of
nature changes.
So, something wrong in times of Galileo is still wrong today.
But some concepts we take for granted, which could be actually wrong.
To find out, what is in fact true, it is necessary to question former
results and ask the question, whether or not a former insight should be
kept.
Here I asked a simple question about the physical meaning of terms used
in SRT:
what is the 'rest frame', in respect to which the 'rest mass' is at rest?
You could put the question in other words, but it is still valid.
It is also of mayor importance in relativity (what this forum is about)
to discuss, what these symbols ('v' for instance) should represent.
TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 17:23 +0200
Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 08:36 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-21 15:10 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-21 06:29 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 20:27 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 12:13 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 21:36 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-22 20:09 +0000
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:10 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 13:30 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-23 05:09 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-24 21:31 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 21:43 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:26 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 22:00 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 21:45 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-29 01:52 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 09:50 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 22:57 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 10:23 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 02:07 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:14 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 13:10 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 22:12 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-26 22:41 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-28 21:09 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-28 13:14 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-29 14:10 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-29 06:09 -0700
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-30 16:39 +0200
Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-30 08:12 -0700
csiph-web