Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Jul 2006 17:53:21 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Jul 2006 11:36:51 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



N ticks PER ORBIT.

N is a number.
Are numbers observer dependent smartarse Draper?

Sure. Beta is a number too. It is observer dependent. Gamma is a number
too. It is observer dependent.

Fucking moron! Beta is an algebraic expression. Don't you know the difference?

Nonsense. Beta is a *number*. When I drove to work this morning, my
car's beta was about 7.5E-8, as measured in the reference frame of the
road.


So what you *explain* you don't really mean, apparently.

I've explained all that too Draper. If the dimensions of the property contain
L/T then that property is naturally observer dependent.

Beta is dimensionless. It has no dimensions to contain L/T.

Magnetic field does not have dimensions that contain L/T.


I'm not going to repeat that again.

I'm glad. It's wrong.
Moreover, it's unjustified. You simply say "Well, these quantities are
observer dependent, and these are not, period," and you do that without
consulting nature whether they are observer-dependent or not.


If nothing is currently happening to something, can that ever imply that the
'something' is in a state if change?

I don't know what you mean by "currently happening to something" or
"state of change".
If one observer measures the speed of a car to be 60 mph, and another
observer measures the speed of the *same* car at the *same* time to be
85 mph, does this mean that:
a) the car is in a state of change?
b) something is happening to the car?
c) one of the observers is obviously wrong?

Well, which of these is it?

Speed has dimension L/T. It is relative.

So? Is the car in a "state of change" or not? Is something "currently
happening" to the car that accounts for two different values of speed
at the same time?

Idiot. This is basic stuff. Work it out youself.

No, I'm asking you, since you don't seem to be able to answer two
yes-or-no questions.



d) Dreaper is a moron?

That doesn't address the "state of change" of the car or what's
"currently happening to" the car, does it?

Idiot. Concentrate on the basket weaving Draper.

Try answering the question, Henri. When you have no answer, you resort
to nonsense like that. It's ... well, unscientific.

I see you still can't answer a simple question, Henri. What good is
having a "scientific mind" if you can't use it to answer simple
questions?





I KNOW THAT idiot.
Where is your evidence that its mass increases with relative speed?

I didn't say its mass increases with speed. I didn't say the mass of
anything increases with speed.

However, the measured lifetime of the neutral kaon certainly increases
with relative speed. You may want to consult the measurements done by
Cronin and Fitch. Lederman also did independent experiments about this.

All staunch relativists no doubt.

Not at all. Experimenters, yes. Excellent ones to boot.


So this garbage about there being no experimental evidence that SR
applies to neutral particles is just that: garbage.

....Like everything you utter..

In this case, it was you that uttered it, no?

PD


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

.

Quantcast