Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
 From: Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:51:48 0700 (PDT)
Chris.
On the trip, did you have a side window or a back window?
Regards,
Jonathan
On Apr 5, 6:23 am, "Chris" <ns_cjrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not understand the special theory of relativity, electromagnetism or
the general theory of relativity.
I just recall how Hilary and I were picked up one day while we were out in
the country by a flying disk and together we travelled to a star some 10
light years away where we met some freindly intelligent black shiny skinned
dinosaurs with spears and then came back. The journey took as 3 months out
and three months back including the stopover of a few days on the alien
planet and we were away 6 months.
Hilary was easily brainwashed by the local christian gang of thugs into
forgetting the experience and I resisted a bit longer so I was shrinked.
The aliens who flew the disc did not show themselves or were not present and
they were not the aliens on the distant planet we went too.
So the prediction of time dilation is not what we observed. The length
contraction cancelles out the time dilation. Obviously if the distance you
go is contracted by the velocity you get their quicker. (The faster you go
the sooner you get there)
Time=distance/velocity so time taken contracted distance/velocity = distance
x gamma/velocity. Or time=distance/4velocity.
Momentum=mv/gamma = m * (v/gamma) this is the rule for partial fractions...
remember?
I did say I did not understand it! Do you?

Chris.
Remove ns_ to reply"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a74e2094666a4e76bfcb97d88e7b3770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 23, 8:11 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:58 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:23 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:08 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2:57 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sue... a écrit :
On Feb 23, 2:32 pm, pcardin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Think of androcrap as a fart: Unpleasant, noisy, and bringing
forth
nothing useful. Responding to him is like talking into
somebody's ass.
Even if Andro is Joe Stalin reincarnated
that doesn't excuse the original poster from
withdrawing or substantiating words he has
credited to another person. (Einstein)
No results found for
"Light always travels at a constant speed in a
vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference"
A difference between psychopaths like Sue or Androcles and
sane people is the ability to consider meanings of words
instead of litteral writings.
If K is a Galileian coordinate system, then every other
coordinate
system K' is a Galileian one, when, in relation to K, it is in a
condition of uniform motion of translation. Relative to K' the
mechanical laws of GalileiNewton hold good exactly as they do
with
respect to K.
Albert Einstein (1879–1955)
Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Chapter V.
Even if other posters can't distingush
the first from the second postulate of SR
that doesn't excuse the original poster from
withdrawing or substantiating words he has
credited to another person. (Einstein)
No results found for
"Light always travels at a constant speed in a
vacuum relative to any inertial frame of reference"
Since light has no mass to couple to a gravitoinertial
field, but the original poster persist in advancing
formula as tho it did. The issue is likely more
than just semantics or errors in translation.
I don't understand your objection, Sue.
Light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum relative to any
inertial frame of reference.
That implies observer dependence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
<<Second Postulate: Speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source and the observer
This flows directly from the Maxwell equations!>>
http://www.vicphysics.org/documents/events/stav2006/jamieson1.ppt
< A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational [inertial by equivalence] field. >>
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOADft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical
constants which can be evaluated by performing two
simple experiments which involve measuring the force
of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed
parallel current carrying wires. According to the
relativity principle, these experiments must yield
the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial
frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same
in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue... Hide quoted text 
 Show quoted text 
Interesting. Philosophically I agree with what you said, that the
speed of light is dependent on the observer. However, it is quite
possible to establish a frame of reference with no observer traveling
at that speed. Either way, there is a Coordinate system associated
with Maxwell's Laws, either x, y, and z, or r, theta and phi.
<< In physics, an inertial frame of reference is
a reference frame, tied to the state of motion
of an observer, >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
It is
with this coordinate system with a point (0,0,0) or (0,theta,phi)
which is either traveling, or not traveling with respect to the
source, or the observer, and it is this point or any other point in
the coordinate system with which the speed of light is constant.
For there to be divergence and curl and all those neato things in
electrodynamics, you have to have a coordinate system, and that's
essentially the same thing as an inertial reference frame.
Timedependent Maxwell's equationshttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
I don't know if it was your intention, but you've convinced me,
qualitatively, Uncle Ben has given an equivalent statement of this
second postulate, differing only in semantics.
Well, I guess Einstein just wrote that observer
independence in so Uncle_Ben could take it out.
Sue... Hide quoted text 
 Show quoted text 
.
 FollowUps:
 Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
 From: Androcles
 Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
 References:
 Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
 From: Chris
 Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
 Prev by Date: Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
 Next by Date: Re: Einstein elevator and the EEP
 Previous by thread: Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
 Next by thread: Re: Androcles's accusations of lying
 Index(es):
Relevant Pages
