Re: Imagine
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Jun 2005 11:31:56 -0700
*** rD wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1117925965.059533.257450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> |
> | destiny wrote:
> | > i waste my time with you
> | >
> | > its sad for a guy having a phd trying to
> | > play smart avoiding to answer simple questions
> | >
> | > good bye
> |
> | I thought you'd say something like that...
> |
> | PD
> |
>
> Well it is to some extent true as you don't seem to have addressed except
> perhaps by mantra the fact that SS3 is in fact perhaps breaking the rules of
> SR by going at 1.5 c as far as the information passed back to SS1 is
> concerned.
I said no such thing. If you'll look again, I said the following:
>> Note that relative velocity is not a quantity that is frame-independent
>> in the "usual" way. That is, you can't sit in frame A, see S2 and S3
>> both go whizzing by and deduce that their relative velocity is
>>(0.93-0.8)c = 0.13 c. Relative velocity between a pair of objects is
>> customarily defined in a frame of reference where one of the objects is
>> at rest.
So looking in a frame where one of them is at rest (say S1), I also
said:
>> In B, S1 is traveling with speed 0, S2 is traveling with speed 0.5 c,
>> and S3 is traveling with speed 0.8 c.
That is, S3 is going at 0.8 c with respect to S1, not 1.5 c. There is
no violation of SR (because in fact, I used SR to get those numbers).
> If you could except that c was with referenced to a given
> dielectric then the problem could be addressed coherently perhaps but by
> blinding yourself to some facts you appear to be avoiding the issue.
I'm not avoiding the issue. I'm telling you that c being referenced to
a dielectric is not consistent with the predictions of SR, and the
predictions of SR are consistent with experiment.
> At the
> moment I am going though AE's E of MB to try and see how this idea that SR
> can be coherent without a dielectric referenced to the frames comes about
> etc. The problem seems that in one case you accept that c is constant in any
> inertial frame but seem unable to see that this implies unless contraction
> and dilation are introduced against a dielectric background that the sol
> will be greater than c.
You'll have to explain to me the necessity of this implication.
> So I will be back after I hope after reading and
> digestion. You should have realised by now that I.m not trolling just
> digging for facts so your refusal to answer me
I'm happy to answer you if you pose the question in a careful,
unambiguous way.
> can only be construed as
> either not having the answers or not being willing to compromise your
> mantra.
> --
> rD *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two unbound
> field effects
> http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
> Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
> ah.{:-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Imagine
- From: *** rD
- Re: Imagine
- From: pretender
- Re: Imagine
- References:
- Imagine
- From: *** rD
- Re: Imagine
- From: PD
- Re: Imagine
- From: chronos
- Re: Imagine
- From: PD
- Re: Imagine
- From: chronos
- Re: Imagine
- From: PD
- Re: Imagine
- From: I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure.
- Re: Imagine
- From: PD
- Re: Imagine
- From: I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure.
- Re: Imagine
- From: PD
- Re: Imagine
- From: destiny
- Re: Imagine
- From: PD
- Re: Imagine
- From: *** rD
- Imagine
- Prev by Date: Re: is my destiny already picture in space-time diagram?
- Next by Date: Re: Incompetent Science
- Previous by thread: Re: Imagine
- Next by thread: Re: Imagine
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
