Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: schoenfeld1@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 8 Oct 2005 23:19:21 -0700
Daryl McCullough wrote:
> schoenfeld1@xxxxxxxxx says...
>
> >Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> >> You started with saying that SR can't handle accelerated frames.
> >> You got amply corrected on that.
> >
> >The fact that you think I was corrected demonstrates how little you
> >understand of this subject. Darryl and some other joker both claimed
> >that the proper units of noninertial frames CHANGED.
>
> I did no such thing. What I claimed was that *if* you accelerate
> both ends of a rod in such a way that the accelerations are
> equal *as* measured in the original inertial reference frame,
> *then* the length of the rod will change, as measured in its
> own reference frame.
>
> That's a simple consequence of SR.
No, it's not. This doesn't happen in SR. That none of the 'experts' on
these NG's has pointed this out by now just goes to show what a bunch
of hacks those guys really are.
> >Now answer the question, Dork, from SR's founding postulates
> >why do proper lengths remain preserved in noninertial frames?
>
> Who said anything about proper lengths? Why do you think
> that is relevant to the issue of whether SR can be used
> from within a noninertial frame?
Because SR can't decide whether noninertial frames should preserve or
not preserve proper lengths from first principles. This is why, from
first principles, it's insufficient describe kinematics from
noninertial frames.
Even the mental patient Dirk posted a link to an article, which he
obviously didn't read, that dances around a similar point in the
commentary. You need the strong EP to properly describe noninertial
frames in Relativity.
What a bunch of hacks.
[...]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- References:
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: schoenfeld1
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- Prev by Date: Re: Simple Experiment To Prove the Ether
- Next by Date: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- Next by thread: Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|