Re: PD does not understand SR

Sue... wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:35 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:34 pm, ni...@xxxxxxxxx (bjones) wrote:
I will try to keep it simple.
PD will try to think.
This pertains to the Michelson-Morley experimental
null result, and to the following related quote:
From Einstein's book:
"... and as the prime factor involved in this contraction
we find, not the motion in itself, to which we cannot
attach any meaning, but the motion with respect to the
body of reference chosen in the particular case in point."
Along with Einstein and all other special relativity theory
adherents, PD believes that the theory satisfactorily covers
the MMx null result, and that the theory is correct in saying
that we cannot attach any meaning to absolute motion or motion
through space.
But Jones is here to inform PD that the only possible way to
show the MMx null result for two or more inertial frames is
by incorporating physical length contraction and time dilation
as functions of motion through space (or absolute motion).
As proof of this, Jones proffers the following simple fact:
PD cannot show on paper observers in two inertial frames
obtaining the MMx null result without showing a physical
length contraction and physical clock slowing due to the
absolute motion of at least one of the two given frames.
MMX aside...
PD continually offers experiments claiming violation of:
<< Einstein's relativity principle which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
So there is something he is missing.
Sue...
Which reminds me..

Sue, I will ask you a yes or no question about the H&K experiment
that only an imbecile needs

[unsnip]
>>
>> Do you claim that the H&K experiment is a violation of:
>> << Einstein's relativity principle which states that:
>>
>> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
>> for the performance of all physical experiments.
>>
>> In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
>> experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
>> between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
>> laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
>> Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
>> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
>> same form in all inertial frames. >>
>> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>>
>> The last time I asked you the yes or no question about
>> the H&K experiment that only an imbecile needs to answer
>> with a diversion, you answered with this rather amusing diversion:
>> Sue wrote:
>> << When you move through a homogeneous distribution of
>> masses (such as our universe) the mass of the
>> gravito-inertial objects moving toward you is
>> equal to the mass moving away from you.
>> That is what homogeneous means.
>> So there can be no net effect on clocks, candles
>> beards, tape recorders or promiscuous rabbits. >>
>>
>> Can we have your answer now please?
>>
>> Write your diversion here:

PLONK

Some diversion, eh? :-)

The Sue entity can't answer its own questions, and never
even try to defend its own claims.


Sue...


--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PD does not understand SR
    ... but the motion with respect to the ... Along with Einstein and all other special relativity theory ... PD cannot show on paper observers in two inertial frames ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PD does not understand SR
    ... but the motion with respect to the ... show the MMx null result for two or more inertial frames is ... of relativity says, but it's been made plain that your understanding ... any introductory physics book. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PD does not understand SR
    ... but the motion with respect to the ... Along with Einstein and all other special relativity theory ... PD cannot show on paper observers in two inertial frames ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PD does not understand SR
    ... but the motion with respect to the ... the MMx null result, and that the theory is correct in saying ... PD cannot show on paper observers in two inertial frames ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... now do problem 1 question e, on this quiz given at MIT? ... Sue, previously when the twins paradox came up, you pointed me ... between different inertial frames. ... that all laws of physics take the same form in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)