Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 20, 6:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 4:10 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 20, 1:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 2:24 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 10:23 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 10:50 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 8:47 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 6:57�am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 3:46�am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

I am not arguing about anything. �If you want to believe that a
distance contraction exists, go ahead and believe it. �I am the same
way with people who believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. �It is
not up to me to correct people who have beliefs that are different
than mine.
Robert B. Winn

Since you are _sure_ distance contraction does not exist, you are
encouraged to explain atmospheric muon decay, and the concept of the
storage ring in accelerator designs.

Well, it is entirely possible that these are just more fables that
scientists have invented to persuade the government to give them money
for research.  Or it could be that scientists have mis-interpreted
results from experiments, etc.

But you don't know since you haven't studied the subject. That should
stop you from discussing it.

In any event, at higher velocities approaching the velocity of light,
the time dilation in my equations is greater than in the Lorentz
equations.

Then not only is it incompatible with the Galilean transformations,
but it is experimentally wrong since particle accelerators work to
spec.

 As far as I know, my equations might give identical

"As far as I know", my balls. You have no idea.

answers to the ones you are getting for muon decay, since you have to
combine the effects of time dilation and distance contraction together
to get your answer.  My equations show time dilation, which could
account for the entire thing, since my time dilation is greater than
yours.
     Well, thanks for the encouragement, but I was going to study
Maxwell's equations first, remember.  You scientists always want me to
study everything at one time in about a day.  Why is it that you want
me to do all of this research?

Because if you aren't familiar with the field, you cannot critically
discuss it. And didn't you want to actually understand how light
propagates?

     Don't you think that the government is paying you enough?

The government isn't paying me at all.

Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I already know how light propagates.

You have not studied Maxwell's equations. Your claim is DOA.

It expands in S as a sphere with

You throw S and S' around all the time yet you never bother explaining
what they mean or how they are relevant. Do you not know, or just not
care?

a radius of ct.

What you describe is a spherical wave - there are other types.

 It expands in S' as a sphere with a radius of cn'.

Where S' is wholly undefined, vague, and completely meaningless.

If you are calculating a time dilation and a distance contraction both
in your equations, then a larger time dilation without a distance
contraction could account for the same distance.  I suppose we will
never know how equations being used by science would compare with
reality.  So who do you work for if you do not work for the
government?

I'm a student, dip***.

Oh, so you will work for the government.  That must be where you get
your attitude from.

Yes, because all students work for the government. I repeat: dip***.

S and S' are frames of reference. Einstein used K and K', but modern
scientists prefer S' and S'.  S is not moving.  S' is moving with a
velocity of v relative to S.  In Einstein's descriptions S was a
railway embankment, and S' was a moving train.

So all you know is that they are different frames of reference. You
have no idea that it is important to explain how one frame is moving
with respect to the other, which is why you keep repeating your
idiotic comparison mistake with Mercury and some imagined reference
frame you cannot specify.

The equations show how one frame of reference is moving with respect
to the other.
                      x'=x-vt
                      y'=y
                      z'=z
                      t'=t

    Frame of reference S' is moving along the x axis of S with a
velocity of v, such that the origins of S and S' coincide when
t'=t=0.  This subject is not really as difficult as you think it is.

I know /exactly/ how difficult this subject is because I have studied
it extensively.

Simple linear motion in classical mechanics - big *** deal.


    Light makes a sphere. There is only one kind of sphere.

Wrong. Light does NOT "makes a sphere". Google plane waves and
cylindrical waves, then open up a textbook on electromagnetism and
study it without posting stupidities.

Well, I agree with Einstein about this one.  He said that light
propagates as a sphere.

You haven't studied optics or classical electrodynamics in any detail
and you argue with me about this? Ballsy.


Robert B. Winn

.

Quantcast