Re: Basics series proposed
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 11/04/04
- Next message: Gnilaidz: "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What if the higgs don't exist...."
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Next in thread: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Reply: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:30:40 +0100
Jim Greenfield wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cma92o$bq2$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Jim Greenfield wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cm7u33$rrn$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jim Greenfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cm5nnt$1kv$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim Greenfield wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Measure A B
>>>>>>>Plot position of A after time t and velocity v (position C)
>>>>>>>Do same for B (position D)
>>>>>>>Measure C D
>>>>>>>..where is light involved? Not a "c" in sight :-)
>>>>>>>And no way will C D be altered from A B if both A and B are treated
>>>>>>>the same!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bjoern may consider this a reply to him also, to avoid repartition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I don't consider this to be a reply, because you have not answered
>>>>>>my crucial question if A and B are moving right from the start, or are
>>>>>>first accelerated to the velocity v.
>>>
>>>
>>>Take your pick! If you are comoving with them, how do you know if they
>>>are moving?
>>
>>Err, I did not say above that I am comoving with them. What on earth are
>>you talking about?
>
>
> Are you so out of touch with reality, that you cannot do a simple
> change of position plot for a point, without moving WITH it?
I did not say that I am moving with anything here. Again: what on earth
are you talking about?
Could you please stop attacking ridiculous straw men and try
understanding what I actually wrote?
> And then
> doing it again with another, and MEASURING the DISTANCE between them?
For the fifth time: are the points moving right from the start, or are
they accelerated first? Despite your constant denials, that makes a
difference!!!
>>>>>I'll gladly do so, WHEN you show where ACCELLERATION is a factor in
>>>>>the length contraction claimed by SR.
>>>>
>>>>Hint: SR is only true for inertial frames. Do you know what an inertial
>>>>frame is?
>>
>>I notice you do not bother to address this.
>
>
> Idiot
Good that you finally realized yourself what you are.
>- why so trivial?
Huh?
> You are the one intent on ACCELLERATING here.
Yes, because that is a crucial point.
> There was no mention of inertial (non-accellerating) frames when ONE
> point was being considered.
When and where did you consider one point?
> It has only been since a comparison of the
> "before and after" coordinates was called for, that you suddenly
> needed to co-move (sic accellerate to same speed as)
> the points under consideration.
For the third time: I never said that I want to co-move with the points.
I never said that I want to accelerare to the same speed as the points.
Say, where do you get all this stuff from? *Please* try reading what I
*actually* wrote!!!
> So, ONE point can be happily translocated without ANY reference to
> frames, but NOT TWO
I don't remember that we *ever* discussed the translocation of one
single point. What on earth are you talking about?
> because SR is crap!
No, merely your understanding of SR is crap, because you have *really*
severe reading comprehension problems. You keep attacking things
I *never* said.
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Gnilaidz: "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: What if the higgs don't exist...."
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Next in thread: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Reply: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
