Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 17, 9:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:40�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
On Mar 17, 2:01�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

Well, you college graduates think you are pretty smart. This type of
falsifying runs through all of what is called higher education today,
and comes from Europe. �For instance we can take another profession
which takes about the same amount of schooling as you claim you have,
the study of law, and show the same kind of reasoning. �The sixth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the
right to trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions, but in all most
all criminal prosecutions today, the defendent is denied trial by jury
because lawyers have found that defendants will not contest their
interpretation. �Scientists are no different.
� � Since you say that the mathematics for special relativity are
internally consistent, explain the orbit of a satellite and how the
distance contraction results in a value of 3.14 for pi.

See? This is what I'm talking about.

SPECIAL RELATIVITY CANNOT DESCRIBE THE ORBIT OF A SATELLITE.

Special relativity cannot describe the orbit of a satellite?  Now
Eric, that is just not true.  Didn't you pay attention in calculus
where a curve was broken down into little segments of straight lines?
Then as you increase the number of little straight lines, you approach
more closely the actual curve.  I thought you said that you had all of
this education.  Don't you ever use it?

Do not describe what you do not understand.

Special relativity does not and can not describe a satellite's orbit,
regardless of your uneducated suggestion. You want to use GR, which
you also do not understand.




You don't have a grasp of SR's domain of application despite arguing
about the theory on usenet for the past decade.

Well, scientists limit their use of Special Relativity to specific
areas which they agree are easier than the ones they cannot explain.
Anything they cannot explain, they ignore, the way you are doing right
now.

Do not presume to tell me about my field of study.

SR is only valid in limited regimes, which is WELL EXPLAINED in every
SR and GR textbook I have seen.


�Einstein
noticed the problem.

I dare you to produce the quotation that supports what you say.

You dare me?  I don't have that book any more, but since you say that
the theory of Special Relativity produces a constant value of 3.14 for
pi, just go ahead and give your explanation of it.

SR is not Euclidean geometry. Your particular definition for pi will
not hold in non-Euclidean geometries, as SR is functionally equivalent
to hyperbolic geometry.

This is a problem for nobody but you.


You say there is no problem. �Who should I
believe? �Well, let's see, I think I will believe Einstein.
� � As far as what I posted in this group up until about last year,
there was a mistake in what I posted that scientists did not even
notice until a guy who calls himself Jeckyl saw it about a year ago.
I could see that something did not fit the entire time, but could not
figure out what to do about it. �So what was being posted back when I
first started posting does not even pertain to the equations I posted
here. �I was using Einstein's two little equations back then, x=ct,
x'=ct', which are not correct.

Who cares what Einstein did? Special relativity's existence is
independent of Einstein, which you would know if you would actually
study instead of whine.

OK, Special Relativity's existence is independent of Einstein.  In
what way is Special Relativity independent of Einstein?

Learn about Minkowski's geometric reformulation. From an actual
textbook - I'm not going to teach it to you.


� � �At any rate your arguments come from the legal profession, not
from mathematics. �There is nothing to argue about in mathematics. �If
an equation is wrong, it is not mathematics. �So if you do not want to
discuss relativity, no one is going to force you to do it. �Do what
you want to do.
� � However, it does not impress me much when someone claims to be
knowledgeable about something and then refuses to discuss it.

What would be the point in going into a detailed argument with someone
who has invested years and years of his life into a viewpoint that has
been laughed at since day one which has no merit whatsoever?

Laughed at?  Scientists have an odd sense of humor.  Well, here are
some more things that they might find funny.  1+1=2, pi=3.14..., etc.
I am always gratified to be able to bring some joy into the lives of
others.  Let's not forget these:

                    x'=x-vt
                    y'=y
                    z'=z
                    t'=t

                    x=wt
                     x'=wn'
                     n'=t(1-v/w)

    So why aren't there any of these scientists who are willing to
share what they find so hilarious about these equations?  I guess they
must be laughing too hard to answer.

What could I tell you that hasn't been told to you in the last ELEVEN
YEARS?

Robert B. Winn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... � � Since you say that the mathematics for special relativity are ... SPECIAL RELATIVITY CANNOT DESCRIBE THE ORBIT OF A SATELLITE. ... scientists limit their use of Special Relativity to specific ... Who cares what Einstein did? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hobbas misconceptions
    ... So, according to you, "SR" in 1905 had nothing to do with how special relativity is understood in 2005. ... Did "SR" go through puberty in 1916 and change into a theory related to semi-riemannian geometry? ... You should get together with the poster who just told me that "SR" has nothing to do with quantum physics and that the intent of "SR" to describe a set of inertial frames. ... GR is also a theory about space-time geometry that contains SR - but when applied to QM causes physicists to weep - it is a big problem. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FAQ - (the heretics version)
    ... >Some would claim that source independence requires it to be an aether ... Since special relativity does explain what you think it does not, ... Does it other you that geometry ``causes'' the number \pi? ... >> Euclidean geometry postulates that horizontal distances have the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The facts that really matter are as follows...
    ... It may be regarded as the Mother of the Universe. ... is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. ... Einstein: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: velocity of light.
    ... >Einstein is out of date. ... for example about possibility of time dilation. ... The derivation given ... >This article will, I hope, show why physicists believe in Special Relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading