Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
socratus
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: Who is who? |
 |
|
Mr. B. wrote:
If you are looking for support, at most you will find paranoid
and/or confused individuals who want to take shelter in your
us-vs.-them state of mind.
Who is who?
=================....
1.
The speed of Light quantum is constant: c=1,
no matter how the source or the observer moves.
/ Michelson’s experiment. 1881. SRT. 1905. /
2.
But .. .. in every book and textbook is written that
there isn’t absolute speed. For example in the book
“ Relative theory- actual” by Prof. Ernst Schmutzer.
Part 3.2.2.page 122. and
Part 3.2.4. page 130.
Another book “Relativity for the layman”
By James A. Coleman.
Part 3 pages 47 -48
Another book “The materialistic essence of Einstein’s
Relative theory” by Mostepanenko M. B.
Page 37.
Another book “ Einstein and development of physical/
mathematical thought.” by Science Academy of
USSR. Article “ Physics and Relative theory”
by M. Born. On the pages 74 and 81.
And article “ Relative theory and some questions
about the optic of moving bodies” by Francfurt U. I.
and Frenk A.M. Page 224: “ Relative theory
doesn’t know absolute moving”.
etc….
3.
From the school days I cannot understand how
it is possible to say that the speed of photon is
absolute constant c=1 and in the same time to say :
“ All motion is relative (hence ,the theory of relativity).
We can never speak of absolute motion as such,…..”
…etc.
Maybe somebody can explain me this paradox.
==========..
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell's mad house.
====================...
Best wishes.
Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear socratus:
"socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:9553707f-3d1b-4465-844f-cd20bdf3df16@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
....
| Quote: |
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell's mad house.
|
And also impossible, as you should know. Which is why we are
forced to disprove our theories, by making them make quantitative
predictions, and seeing what Nature thinks.
Rather than build up a "mad house", we attempt to tear it down to
its frame.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 16 jun, 09:16, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear socratus:
"socratus" <israel...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:9553707f-3d1b-4465-844f-cd20bdf3df16@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
...
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell's mad house.
And also impossible, as you should know. Which is why we are
forced to disprove our theories, by making them make quantitative
predictions, and seeing what Nature thinks.
Rather than build up a "mad house", we attempt to tear it down to
its frame.
David A. Smith
|
And what Nature thinks about socratus question? To put things simpler
I will refer to a very concrete particular case. I want to know about
the velocity of a GPS satellite, the one used to compute the Special
Relativity correction for its atomic clock. Are we free to use any
Inertial System? Or are we forced to use a single one selected by
Nature? What Nature thinks in this case?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvallshg:
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:246130dc-5d75-4192-9181-f4c8d7715e5f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 16 jun, 09:16, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear socratus:
"socratus" <israel...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:9553707f-3d1b-4465-844f-cd20bdf3df16@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
...
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell's mad house.
And also impossible, as you should know.
Which is why we are forced to disprove our
theories, by making them make quantitative
predictions, and seeing what Nature thinks.
Rather than build up a "mad house", we
attempt to tear it down to its frame.
And what Nature thinks about socratus
question?
|
What question would that be? You trimmed everything expect "his"
assertion that "he" does not understand physics because in his
opinion it is a madhouse..
| Quote: |
To put things simpler will refer to a very
concrete particular case. I want to know
about the velocity of a GPS satellite,
|
Which has *zero* correlation to socratus' question.
| Quote: |
the one used to compute the Special
Relativity correction for its atomic clock.
|
Pardon me, but _GPS_ requires the full GR correction, since it is
also at a different altitude.
| Quote: |
Are we free to use any Inertial System?
|
Sure. Keep in mind that the raw GPS second output by the
satellite is roughly set to report Earth's surface seconds. I
don't believe you get raw counts from its atomic clock.
| Quote: |
Or are we forced to use a single one
selected by Nature?
|
Use the one you are in, and adjust. That is what relativity is
about... mapping between different frames.
| Quote: |
What Nature thinks in this case?
|
Get a GPS "project" card for your computer, and find out. You
can get the raw data... since updates / corrections are applied
at the receiver.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 17 jun, 20:55, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:246130dc-5d75-4192-9181-f4c8d7715e5f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 16 jun, 09:16, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear socratus:
"socratus" <israel...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:9553707f-3d1b-4465-844f-cd20bdf3df16@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
...
It is very difficult to prove the correctness
in our Orwell's mad house.
And also impossible, as you should know.
Which is why we are forced to disprove our
theories, by making them make quantitative
predictions, and seeing what Nature thinks.
Rather than build up a "mad house", we
attempt to tear it down to its frame.
And what Nature thinks about socratus
question?
What question would that be? You trimmed everything expect "his"
assertion that "he" does not understand physics because in his
opinion it is a madhouse..
The very general question about if any velocity is absolute or |
relative.
| Quote: |
To put things simpler will refer to a very
concrete particular case. I want to know
about the velocity of a GPS satellite,
Which has *zero* correlation to socratus' question.
I don't think so. The general is included in any particular case. I |
selected the velocity of a GPS satellite because it is related to a
huge experimental evidence, the best way we have to know what Nature
thinks.
| Quote: |
the one used to compute the Special
Relativity correction for its atomic clock.
Pardon me, but _GPS_ requires the full GR correction, since it is
also at a different altitude.
Of course, but we are interested here in the velocity dependent part, |
usually associated with Special Relativity. Remember the 1971 Hafele-
Keating experiment.
| Quote: |
Are we free to use any Inertial System?
Sure. Keep in mind that the raw GPS second output by the
satellite is roughly set to report Earth's surface seconds. I
don't believe you get raw counts from its atomic clock.
I am referring to the correction done in the Earth surface before |
launching. Which Inertial System is used to make the computation?
| Quote: |
Or are we forced to use a single one
selected by Nature?
Use the one you are in, and adjust. That is what relativity is
about... mapping between different frames.
Sorry, the Earth surface where we are is not considered an inertial |
system in GPS.
| Quote: |
What Nature thinks in this case?
Get a GPS "project" card for your computer, and find out. You
can get the raw data... since updates / corrections are applied
at the receiver.
Forget about any receiver action, we are talking only about the |
Inertial System used to refer the velocity of a GPS satellite. You
don't seem informed about what Nature thinks in this case. I apologize
you in advance if I am wrong in this point.
| Quote: |
David A. Smith- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 18, 4:12 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
I am referring to the correction done in the Earth surface before
launching. Which Inertial System is used to make the computation?
|
It is called the ECI frame, old fart. It is the frame centered in the
center of the Earth , as the Earth revolves around the sun. You really
need to take another (long) break from posting antirelativistic
crackpottery. How is Raoul Castro treating you, old fart? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 18 jun, 10:04, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 18, 4:12 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
I am referring to the correction done in the Earth surface before
launching. Which Inertial System is used to make the computation?
It is called the ECI frame, old fart. It is the frame centered in the
center of the Earth , as the Earth revolves around the sun. You really
need to take another (long) break from posting antirelativistic
crackpottery. How is Raoul Castro treating you, old fart?
|
Yes, it is the ECI frame. Who selected it, men or Nature? Can you
change it for any other? Remember the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
dlzc
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvallshg:
On Jun 18, 4:12 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On 17 jun, 20:55, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:246130dc-5d75-4192-9181-f4c8d7715e5f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
On 16 jun, 09:16, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
"socratus" <israel...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:9553707f-3d1b-4465-844f-cd20bdf3df16@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com....
...
It is very difficult to prove the
correctness in our Orwell's mad
house.
And also impossible, as you should know.
Which is why we are forced to disprove our
theories, by making them make quantitative
predictions, and seeing what Nature thinks.
Rather than build up a "mad house", we
attempt to tear it down to its frame.
And what Nature thinks about socratus
question?
What question would that be? You
trimmed everything expect "his" assertion
that "he" does not understand physics
because in his opinion it is a madhouse..
The very general question about if any
velocity is absolute or relative.
|
He did not ask that question. He asked if c is always a constant, how
can *all* velocities be relative. The answer is, because c is the
average speed over a two-way path of light in vacuum. It could very
well be c+v and c-v on each leg, if "conservation of momentum" were
unimportant, or a Lorentz aether were involved.
| Quote: |
To put things simpler will refer to a very
concrete particular case. I want to know
about the velocity of a GPS satellite,
Which has *zero* correlation to socratus'
question.
I don't think so.
|
It clearly has nothing to do with socratus' question.
| Quote: |
The general is included in any particular
case.
|
The OPs question is not addressed by you hijacking the thread in a new
direction.
| Quote: |
I selected the velocity of a GPS satellite
because it is related to a huge experimental
evidence, the best way we have to know what
Nature thinks.
|
Does not apply to the OPs question.
| Quote: |
the one used to compute the Special
Relativity correction for its atomic
clock.
Pardon me, but _GPS_ requires the full
GR correction, since it is also at a
different altitude.
Of course, but we are interested here in
the velocity dependent part, usually
associated with Special Relativity.
|
No, *you* are trying to pirate the thread in that direction.
| Quote: |
Remember the 1971 Hafele-Keating
experiment.
Are we free to use any Inertial System?
Sure. Keep in mind that the raw GPS second
output by the satellite is roughly set to
report Earth's surface seconds. I don't
believe you get raw counts from its atomic
clock.
I am referring to the correction done in the
Earth surface before launching. Which Inertial
System is used to make the computation?
|
The one that provides few meter accuracy in position, year-after-year,
using stated GR corrections? That one?
| Quote: |
Or are we forced to use a single one
selected by Nature?
Use the one you are in, and adjust. That
is what relativity is about... mapping
between different frames.
Sorry, the Earth surface where we are is
not considered an inertial system in GPS.
|
This point is not worth arguing. And again, it is pirating someone
else's thread.
| Quote: |
What Nature thinks in this case?
Get a GPS "project" card for your
computer, and find out. You can get the
raw data... since updates / corrections
are applied at the receiver.
Forget about any receiver action, we are
talking only about the Inertial System
used to refer the velocity of a GPS
satellite. You don't seem informed about
what Nature thinks in this case.
|
No, "we" are talking about the OP's question, not the direction you
intend to sail off in.
| Quote: |
I apologize you in advance if I am wrong
in this point.
|
Does it matter? I have already proposed (in an appropriate thread) a
means of seeing if the frame at which the CMBR anomaly (the one that
indicates our proper motion wrt the Universe at large) is zero,
provides maximal aging, using the GPS satellite network. Other than
that, I fail to see what you think you are accomplishing here.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:14 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 18 jun, 14:30, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvallshg:
On Jun 18, 4:12 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 jun, 20:55, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:246130dc-5d75-4192-9181-f4c8d7715e5f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
On 16 jun, 09:16, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
"socratus" <israel...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:9553707f-3d1b-4465-844f-cd20bdf3df16@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
...
It is very difficult to prove the
correctness in our Orwell's mad
house.
And also impossible, as you should know.
Which is why we are forced to disprove our
theories, by making them make quantitative
predictions, and seeing what Nature thinks.
Rather than build up a "mad house", we
attempt to tear it down to its frame.
And what Nature thinks about socratus
question?
What question would that be? You
trimmed everything expect "his" assertion
that "he" does not understand physics
because in his opinion it is a madhouse..
The very general question about if any
velocity is absolute or relative.
He did not ask that question. He asked if c is always a constant, how
can *all* velocities be relative. The answer is, because c is the
average speed over a two-way path of light in vacuum. It could very
well be c+v and c-v on each leg, if "conservation of momentum" were
unimportant, or a Lorentz aether were involved.
We have disagreement about which is the essential point in this |
thread. I consider it is the dilemma about the “absolute” or
“relative” character of any velocity (socratus refers some books
supporting the “relative” thesis, the Einsteinean one), but you
consider the essential point is the different character of vacuum
light speed as compared with other ones. As you reject to consider my
“other one” GPS satellite simple case, I will skip all related with it
(maybe we can talk about it in other place and time). Anyway, I will
make here some comments about your treatment of vacuum light speed. In
the following , words within { } will be literal Einstein’s ones from
his June30 1905 first paper on Relativity, paragraph 1.
{Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good}
{If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-
ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the
employment of rigid standards of measurements and the method of
Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates}
{We have not defines a common “time” for A and B, for the latter
cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the
“time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
requires to travel from B to A.}
Taking into account that in Euclidean geometry the distance from A to
B is the same distance from B to A, and that by definition light
spends the same time to travel in both directions, then c is the same
in both directions, nothing in common with your “average speed over a
two-way path of light in vacuum”. I am not saying that you are wrong
or not in that, I am only saying that this is not what Einstein says.
About the (c+v) and (c-v) expressions that you refer, I remember you
that in the same Einstein’s paper (paragraph 3, derivation of Lorentz
transform) we have about 8 expressions of this type. The important
point here is to know that you can add vectorially any velocities
(even with one or the two being light ones) if both refer to the same
frame, and not confuse this with the relativistic composition of
velocities derived by Einstein in paragraph 5 that refer to velocities
that belong to different frames.
[rest skipped]
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 18, 12:20 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On 18 jun, 10:04, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:12 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
I am referring to the correction done in the Earth surface before
launching. Which Inertial System is used to make the computation?
It is called the ECI frame, old fart. It is the frame centered in the
center of the Earth , as the Earth revolves around the sun. You really
need to take another (long) break from posting antirelativistic
crackpottery. How is Raoul Castro treating you, old fart?
Yes, it is the ECI frame.
|
good, you are learning
| Quote: |
Who selected it, men or Nature?
|
Why do you ask irrelevant questions? Is the Alzheimer?
| Quote: |
Can you
change it for any other?
|
Why do you ask....
| Quote: |
Remember the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment.
|
Yes, I remember it , what does it have to do with your ignorance old
fart?
How come the the Securidad is letting you converse on the internet? Is
this because you are trying to bash the "capitalistic
science" (relativity)? Is that because you are a colonel in the
Securidad ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:28 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvallshg:
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:83049ebb-a632-4529-8089-9601f9b22804@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
....
| Quote: |
We have disagreement about which is the
essential point in this thread.
|
Right, what the OP asked, versus the direction you want to go.
I'm getting off at this port, Mr. Pirate.
Really easy for you to start your own thread, appropriately
titled, which will attract the attention of those qualified to
argue with you about how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 18 jun, 21:30, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 18, 12:20 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 jun, 10:04, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:12 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
I am referring to the correction done in the Earth surface before
launching. Which Inertial System is used to make the computation?
It is called the ECI frame, old fart. It is the frame centered in the
center of the Earth , as the Earth revolves around the sun. You really
need to take another (long) break from posting antirelativistic
crackpottery. How is Raoul Castro treating you, old fart?
Yes, it is the ECI frame.
good, you are learning
Who selected it, men or Nature?
Why do you ask irrelevant questions? Is the Alzheimer?
Irrelevant? I want to know if men can select any inertial frame (or at |
least among a family of them). If there exist a unique possible frame,
I denoted it as selected by Nature. Have you some opinion about this?
| Quote: |
Can you
change it for any other?
Why do you ask....
Already explained before. I want to know if the frame is unique or |
not.
| Quote: |
Remember the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment.
Yes, I remember it , what does it have to do with your ignorance old
fart?
In the 1971 H&K experiment Nature gives us a unique specific reading |
in the involved atomic clocks, what suggest a unique inertial frame.
The clocks had different readings, and the experimentally observed
delay among them was computed using Special Relativity formula (and we
know that the delay depends on clock speeds that are strongly frame
dependent). But what inertial system was selected to make
computations? The centre of mass one of the involved bodies, closely
approximated by the dominant body centre of mass, the Earth. Yes, the
same ECI of today GPS. I suspect that the centre of mass inertial
system of the involved bodies is a UNIQUE Nature decision, universally
valid, relating inertial systems with specific body sets (the ones
that determine the centre of mass). Can I wait from you some answers
(opinions) instead of new questions?
| Quote: |
How come the the Securidad is letting you converse on the internet? Is
this because you are trying to bash the "capitalistic
science" (relativity)? Is that because you are a colonel in the
Securidad ?
Please, Physics is sufficiently complex already. Why to mix it with |
political topics?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 19, 8:31 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On 18 jun, 21:30, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:20 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 jun, 10:04, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:12 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
I am referring to the correction done in the Earth surface before
launching. Which Inertial System is used to make the computation?
It is called the ECI frame, old fart. It is the frame centered in the
center of the Earth , as the Earth revolves around the sun. You really
need to take another (long) break from posting antirelativistic
crackpottery. How is Raoul Castro treating you, old fart?
Yes, it is the ECI frame.
good, you are learning
Who selected it, men or Nature?
Why do you ask irrelevant questions? Is the Alzheimer?
Irrelevant? I want to know if men can select any inertial frame (or at
least among a family of them). If there exist a unique possible frame,
I denoted it as selected by Nature. Have you some opinion about this?> > Can you
change it for any other?
Why do you ask....
Already explained before. I want to know if the frame is unique or
not.
|
It's just a convenient frame for calculating things. Something that
you are unable to do, old fart.
| Quote: |
Remember the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment.
Yes, I remember it , what does it have to do with your ignorance old
fart?
In the 1971 H&K experiment Nature gives us a unique specific reading
in the involved atomic clocks, what suggest a unique inertial frame.
|
No, it doesn't. I see that you follow the same exact line of thinking
as the other old fart, Marcel Luttgens.
| Quote: |
The clocks had different readings, and the experimentally observed
delay among them was computed using Special Relativity formula (and we
know that the delay depends on clock speeds that are strongly frame
dependent).
|
No , old fart. The computation used BOTH SR AND GR. For the westward
plane, the GR effect dominates the SR effect by a factor of 2.
| Quote: |
But what inertial system was selected to make
computations?
|
ECI as well. You didn't know that?
| Quote: |
The centre of mass one of the involved bodies, closely
approximated by the dominant body centre of mass, the Earth. Yes, the
same ECI of today GPS. I suspect that the centre of mass inertial
system of the involved bodies is a UNIQUE Nature decision, universally
valid, relating inertial systems with specific body sets (the ones
that determine the centre of mass). Can I wait from you some answers
(opinions) instead of new questions?
|
You are rambling idiocies. How advanced is your Alzheimer?
| Quote: |
How come the the Securidad is letting you converse on the internet? Is
this because you are trying to bash the "capitalistic
science" (relativity)? Is that because you are a colonel in the
Securidad ?
Please, Physics is sufficiently complex already. Why to mix it with
political topics?
|
But I want to know. What is you rank in the Securidad? Colonel? Major?
Do you also have a KGB rank? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 19 jun, 10:44, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 19, 8:31 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 jun, 21:30, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:20 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 jun, 10:04, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:12 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
I am referring to the correction done in the Earth surface before
launching. Which Inertial System is used to make the computation?
It is called the ECI frame, old fart. It is the frame centered in the
center of the Earth , as the Earth revolves around the sun. You really
need to take another (long) break from posting antirelativistic
crackpottery. How is Raoul Castro treating you, old fart?
Yes, it is the ECI frame.
good, you are learning
Who selected it, men or Nature?
Why do you ask irrelevant questions? Is the Alzheimer?
Irrelevant? I want to know if men can select any inertial frame (or at
least among a family of them). If there exist a unique possible frame,
I denoted it as selected by Nature. Have you some opinion about this?> > Can you
change it for any other?
Why do you ask....
Already explained before. I want to know if the frame is unique or
not.
It's just a convenient frame for calculating things. Something that
you are unable to do, old fart.
The readings of the clocks and the corresponding delays among them are |
unique. This is the answer of Nature to our question (as in any other
real experiment). You say that the ECI is a “convenient” frame and I
am suspecting that it is unique. Try to find another (different from
ECI) inertial frame than can predict with similar accuracy the
measured clock time delays. Soon you will be convinced that this “less
convenient” inertial system can’t exist at all. See the following
paragraph (between “ ”) taken from the link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
“The problem encountered with measuring the difference between a
surface clock and one on an aircraft is that neither location is
really an inertial frame. If we take the center of the earth as an
approximation to an inertial frame, then we can compute the difference
between a surface clock and the aircraft clock.”
The centre of mass inertial system corresponding to any body set is
unique, and the motion of this centre of mass is totally independent
of any interactions among that bodies. This was known long before
Relativity and continue being valid after it. By the way, Einstein
wrote a paper in this topic (“The principle of conservation of the
centre of gravity movement and the inertia of energy”, Annalen der
Physik 20( :627-633, 1906).
| Quote: |
Remember the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment.
Yes, I remember it , what does it have to do with your ignorance old
fart?
In the 1971 H&K experiment Nature gives us a unique specific reading
in the involved atomic clocks, what suggest a unique inertial frame.
No, it doesn't. I see that you follow the same exact line of thinking
as the other old fart, Marcel Luttgens.
I don’t know that person. Present an inertial system different from |
ECI making similar predictions for the H&K experiment to support your
assertion (I suggest you to refer the Solar System one, or the Galaxy
one). Perhaps you prefer an imaginary one moving at any constant
velocity respect the ECI (it has the advantage that no body can
suggest a real measurement in it).
| Quote: |
The clocks had different readings, and the experimentally observed
delay among them was computed using Special Relativity formula (and we
know that the delay depends on clock speeds that are strongly frame
dependent).
No , old fart. The computation used BOTH SR AND GR. For the westward
plane, the GR effect dominates the SR effect by a factor of 2.
Of course that GR computations are included (is a real experiment, |
gravitation can’t be put off). In the link I gave you above we can
find sufficient details. Comparing GR and SR effects is totally
irrelevant for our point, the kinematic SR effect strongly dependent
on the inertial frame used.
| Quote: |
But what inertial system was selected to make
computations?
ECI as well. You didn't know that?
Of course that I know it. Can you mention any other inertial system |
“less convenient” than ECI that can be used?
| Quote: |
The centre of mass one of the involved bodies, closely
approximated by the dominant body centre of mass, the Earth. Yes, the
same ECI of today GPS. I suspect that the centre of mass inertial
system of the involved bodies is a UNIQUE Nature decision, universally
valid, relating inertial systems with specific body sets (the ones
that determine the centre of mass). Can I wait from you some answers
(opinions) instead of new questions?
You are rambling idiocies. How advanced is your Alzheimer?
I am only referring to the historical facts. I don’t know about the |
use of any real inertial system different from the centre of mass
ones. You know about something? (Remember that insults can never
substitute the lack of scientific arguments).
| Quote: |
How come the the Securidad is letting you converse on the internet? Is
this because you are trying to bash the "capitalistic
science" (relativity)? Is that because you are a colonel in the
Securidad ?
Please, Physics is sufficiently complex already. Why to mix it with
political topics?
But I want to know. What is you rank in the Securidad? Colonel? Major?
Do you also have a KGB rank?- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 19, 2:04 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
The readings of the clocks and the corresponding delays among them are
unique. This is the answer of Nature to our question (as in any other
real experiment). You say that the ECI is a “convenient” frame and I
am suspecting that it is unique.
|
...because you are an old crackpot. Nothing can be done, your
Alzheimer is too advanced.
| Quote: |
ry to find another (different from
ECI) inertial frame than can predict with similar accuracy the
measured clock time delays.
|
Easy, use the CMBR. Many mainstream physicists use it. You didn't know
that, did you?
| Quote: |
Soon you will be convinced that this “less
convenient” inertial system can’t exist at all. See the following
paragraph (between “ ”) taken from the link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
“The problem encountered with measuring the difference between a
surface clock and one on an aircraft is that neither location is
really an inertial frame. If we take the center of the earth as an
approximation to an inertial frame, then we can compute the difference
between a surface clock and the aircraft clock.”
The centre of mass inertial system corresponding to any body set is
unique, and the motion of this centre of mass is totally independent
of any interactions among that bodies. This was known long before
Relativity and continue being valid after it. By the way, Einstein
wrote a paper in this topic (“The principle of conservation of the
centre of gravity movement and the inertia of energy”, Annalen der
Physik 20(:627-633, 1906).
|
good, you sometimes read mainstream physics.
| Quote: |
Remember the 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment.
Yes, I remember it , what does it have to do with your ignorance old
fart?
In the 1971 H&K experiment Nature gives us a unique specific reading
in the involved atomic clocks, what suggest a unique inertial frame.
No, it doesn't. I see that you follow the same exact line of thinking
as the other old fart, Marcel Luttgens.
I don’t know that person.
|
He's an old fart, very much like you.
| Quote: |
Present an inertial system different from
ECI making similar predictions for the H&K experiment to support your
assertion (I suggest you to refer the Solar System one, or the Galaxy
one).
|
See above , old fart.
| Quote: |
No , old fart. The computation used BOTH SR AND GR. For the westward
plane, the GR effect dominates the SR effect by a factor of 2.
Of course that GR computations are included (is a real experiment,
gravitation can’t be put off).
|
..but you just denied it in your previous post, this is why I
corrected you. How quickly you forget. Oh, it is a manifestation of
your Alzheimer, I see.
| Quote: |
In the link I gave you above we can
find sufficient details. Comparing GR and SR effects is totally
irrelevant for our point, the kinematic SR effect strongly dependent
on the inertial frame used.
|
How stooopid are you? really.....this one doesn't even deserve an
answer.
| Quote: |
But what inertial system was selected to make
computations?
ECI as well. You didn't know that?
Of course that I know it.
|
You are not only stoopid, you are also lying. Until yesterday you
didn't even know what ECI was, I just showed you.
| Quote: |
Can you mention any other inertial system
“less convenient” than ECI that can be used?
|
Few ideas but fixed. CMBR, old fart.
| Quote: |
You are rambling idiocies. How advanced is your Alzheimer?
I am only referring to the historical facts. I don’t know about the
use of any real inertial system different from the centre of mass
ones. You know about something?
|
Yes, you are an ignorant fart. No question about it.
| Quote: |
How come the the Securidad is letting you converse on the internet? Is
this because you are trying to bash the "capitalistic
science" (relativity)? Is that because you are a colonel in the
Securidad ?
Please, Physics is sufficiently complex already. Why to mix it with
political topics?
But I want to know. What is you rank in the Securidad? Colonel? Major?
Do you also have a KGB rank?- Ocultar texto de la cita -
|
So, what is your KGB rank? Polkovnik? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
