Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 15 Sep 2005 03:17:07 -0700
Like most SRists, you do have comprehension problems.
Here is the definition of weight on Earth:
"Weight, measure of the force with which a body is drawn to the
center of the Earth. It is determined by both the mass of what
is weighed and the force of gravity where weighed."
When the car moves at some velocity v wrt the SRist sitting on the
road, it undergoes a negative acceleration a = v^2/R, R being the
Earth radius. Hence, its weight becomes m(g-a), where m is of
course the mass of the car, and g the acceleration of gravity
at the Earth surface.
A simple question for you:
"What is the weight of the car when its velocity is about 7.9 km/s ?"
Remember what I said:
"It is easy to detect the origin of the SR flaw. SR is a primitive
geometrical construct (let's remember that for Einstein, it was
impossible to decide, by looking at the railroad station, if the train
or the station was moving).
Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?"
Here is such simple experiment, that you were unable to imagine:
Install a spring scale into the car, and hang a mass M on it.
1) The car doesn't move wrt the SRist sitting on the road.
Note the position of the pointer (which corresponds to
a weight Mg).
2) The car is now moving at v wrt the sitting SRist.
Note again the pointer position, you will notice a change,
because the weight of the mass M is now M(g-v^2/R)
Repeat the experiment on the road. Whether the car is moving or not,
the pointer position doesn't change.
So, just by looking at a scale pointer, one can tell that the car, not
the road, is moving.
Hence, Einstein, who claimed that it is impossible to decide, by
looking at the railroad station, if the train or the station is moving,
was plainly wrong. SR, his purely geometrical construct, is
physically untenable. Those SRists, who would still claim that SR is
right, are mere crackpots.
Marcel Luttgens
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: Kim B
- Re: The true crackpots
- References:
- The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- The true crackpots
- Prev by Date: Re: Speed Of Light Question
- Next by Date: Re: Shubert's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations
- Previous by thread: Re: The true crackpots
- Next by thread: Re: The true crackpots
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|