|
Only short hairstyle can be acknowledged this summer too "dressed hair". Remaining are qualified rather to categories "dressed", read quite liberated, mutinous. The expression of the colour, the storm of uncontrollable curls, the smoothness trippant into the total anarchy. In a word the mutiny and the revolt. |
choosing the right hair color Circular motion in SR (1 viewing) (1) Guests
Favoured: 0
|
|
|
TOPIC: choosing the right hair color Circular motion in SR
|
|
|
|
choosing the right hair color Circular motion in SR
|
|
|
Well, I can describe reality with my equations. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? x'=x-vt ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? y'=y ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? z'=z ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? t'=t Sorry, that only describes reality in *approximation*. What's the approximate relative velocity of the hadrons in the LHC, depicted in the cute http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf, you fuckin' shit-for-brains troll? I like to see you squirm with a simple question you cannot answer, Duck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
choosing the right hair color Circular motion in SR
|
|
|
[...] 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
choosing the right hair color Circular motion in SR
|
|
www.google.com how to use google http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Pick one. Well, no, Eric, I will let you pick one and then show the mathematics that proves me wrong. It isn't up to me to teach you. Pick one, and go to the library. I'm not going to spoonfeed. Well, the accurate prediction that I make is that no distance contraction exists, and my equations show that to be true. Sorry, equations show nothing. They are simply expressing in shorthand version what your prediction is. What shows something is comparison to experiment. If the numbers that come *from* the equations match what is *measured*, then the *measurements* are doing the showing, not the equations. And in your case, the measurements do NOT match the numbers that come from your equations, and so the *measurements* show (not the equations) that your equations are wrong. Wonderful, now we are getting somewhere. �Show the measurements that do not match the numbers that come from my equations. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Pick one. OK. I choose the one that shows my equations are wrong. So just go ahead and explain how the measurements do not match my equations. ALL OF THEM PROVE YOU WRONG. Every experiment that confirms SR disproves Galilean relativity and by extension your idiotic patches to it. So you say. Well, talk is cheap. Have you ever figured out what S' is doing relative to S yet? No, and neither do you. Arbitrary reference _frame_ labels mean nothing. - Ukryj cytowany tekst -- Poka? cytowany tekst - Robert B. Winn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
choosing the right hair color Circular motion in SR
|
|
|
[...] 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
choosing the right hair color Circular motion in SR
|
|
Nobody explained to you why Galilean relativity does not describe our universe even once in in the decade you have been whining on USENET? Well, Eric, everyone who has talked to me about the Galilean transformation equations has done what you are doing, claimed that they could only be used with absolute time. That's what t' = t means, idiot. No, Eric, it means that S is a preferred _frame_ of reference. You have to use a clock in S to compute distances as they relate to the motion of S'. No, idiot, it means t is the same in EVERY reference _frame_. That's what t = t' means. That's what equality means. That's what t and t' mean. Just because that was the way Isaac Newton used them does not mean they have to be used that way. �No one has attempted to do that yet. �What I said was that t' is not a certain number of transitions of a cesium isotope molecule. �I said that t'=t. Remember the relevant phrase - you do not know what you are talking about. You are good at making statements, Eric. What you are not good at is proving what you say. Not to you, but I don't lose any sleep over what cranks think. Good for you. So why do you think you are not good at proving things to me? For the same reason you have spent 20 years not understanding SR. In EVERY REFERENCE _frame_ - emphasis on all of it - what one clock reads is what every clock reads. Any modification from that is incompatible with Galilean relativity. Well, Isaac Newton was never that stupid. He was aware that clocks could run fast or slow compared to other clocks. Sure, because clocks of the time were made of pendulums which drifted due to nonlinear effects. So what about the clocks today in satellites that run slower than clocks on earth? My equations show that they would run slower. Your equations show whatever you want them to show. They are self- inconsistent. � The certain number of transitions of a cesium isotope molecule is n'=t(1-v/c). �According to the Lorentz equations, my approximation is exactly on the money. No, it isn't. It is first order in v/c and is incompatible with Galilean relativity, and you have no idea what you are talking about. So post the equations, Eric. No need to be so bashful. www.google.com Lorentz transformation Quadratic in v/c. Hey, if you want to discuss it, I can show you the mathematics. If you don't, just keep showing these references to school books. I never look at them. Of course you don't, because if you read something you might learn something. So prove that it only works for moderate precision at low speeds. According to the Lorentz equations, it would describe exactly the orbit of the planet Mercury. Hey stupid, special relativity can't describe orbits. So you have said. According to Isaac Newton, planets in orbit have velocity. v=2(pi)R/T Who cares? Special relativity cannot describe gravity. Isaac Newton cared. He had equations for gravity. I like his equations better than Einstein's. Who cares what you think? Newton was wrong. So you say. �So now would be the time to show the measurable amount. www.google.com how to use google http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Pick one. Well, no, Eric, I will let you pick one and then show the mathematics that proves me wrong. It isn't up to me to teach you. Pick one, and go to the library. I'm not going to spoonfeed. Well, the accurate prediction that I make is that no distance contraction exists, and my equations show that to be true. Sorry, equations show nothing. They are simply expressing in shorthand version what your prediction is. What shows something is comparison to experiment. If the numbers that come *from* the equations match what is *measured*, then the *measurements* are doing the showing, not the equations. And in your case, the measurements do NOT match the numbers that come from your equations, and so the *measurements* show (not the equations) that your equations are wrong. Wonderful, now we are getting somewhere. �Show the measurements that do not match the numbers that come from my equations. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Pick one. OK. I choose the one that shows my equations are wrong. So just go ahead and explain how the measurements do not match my equations. ALL OF THEM PROVE YOU WRONG. Every experiment that confirms SR disproves Galilean relativity and by extension your idiotic patches to it. So you say. Well, talk is cheap. Have you ever figured out what S' is doing relative to S yet? No, and neither do you. Arbitrary reference _frame_ labels mean nothing. Well, that is not true, Eric. They mean nothing to people who do not understand them. To people who understand _frame_s of reference, they are a useful tool. Robert B. Winn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
choosing the right hair color Circular motion in SR
|
|
|
Well, that is not true, Eric. They mean nothing to people who do not understand them. To people who understand _frame_s of reference, they are a useful tool. Robert B. Winn I understand them fine - you do not, which was my whole point. _frame_s of reference are arbitrary and must be specified carefully to be understood, which you do not do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
