SR Issue Split

Status
Not open for further replies.
chinglu said:
I did not agree to any universal meaning independent of frames, I proved when M and C' are co-located, both frames agree on the time of their respective frames. This is simple SR. Are you saying this is false? Further I never said Q=R is required under SR, since it is not.

Now, you again ran in terror from my post. The only reason you would do this is because you know you are totally wrong. Are you terrified to answer these questions? Do not forget, you pretend to be an expert to all those reading this thread.
They will understand by your fear you have no idea what you are doing.

Here it is again. Try to keep in mind all conclusions and calculations are based on M and C' being co-located.

When C' and M are co-located, event Q is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LP is correct)
When C' and M are co-located, event R is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LP is correct)

When C' and M are co-located, event LT(Q) is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LT correctly translates)
When C' and M are co-located, event LT(R) is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LT correctly translates)

However, LT(Q) != R and LT(R) != Q. (This show LP and LT do not agree when M and C' are co-located)

Hence, if C' and M are co-located, Q is valid for the frame Σ and so is LT(R).
Hence, if C' and M are co-located, R is valid for the frame Σ' and so is LT(Q).

Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at Q and LT(R) with LT(R) != Q, so 2 different places.
Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at R and LT(Q) with LT(Q) != R, so 2 different places.
Click to expand...

The only thing you've proofed in this thread is your complete ignorance of the subject matter.
 
paddoboy said:
But peer review is part of the scientific process.
You cannot ignore it just because you know they will give you an epic fail.
You have essentially nothing worthy to be called science until you submit to peer review, and your past record here and elsewhere attests to that fact.
Click to expand...

Do you have math to prove what I am saying is false or no?

If you can't why do you bother to post your nonsense?
 
Hey RPenner, Brucep and paddoboy are trying their best to help you out with ad homs. Prove you do not need their help. Show you are right, which you have not yet done.
 
chinglu said:
Hey RPenner, Brucep and paddoboy are trying their best to help you out with ad homs. Prove you do not need their help. Show you are right, which you have not yet done.
Click to expand...

Quit lying ChinGlu. Your assertions [conclusions] are nonsense. rpenner told you why. The only thing left for you is acceptance or denial. Apparently it's concluding your assertions are correct. Thread over. You should be satisfied that you're correct and nobody else gives a crap what you believe on this subject. Thread over.

*PLONK* illiterate thread.
 
brucep said:
Quit lying ChinGlu. Your assertions [conclusions] are nonsense. rpenner told you why. The only thing left for you is acceptance or denial. Apparently it's concluding your assertions are correct. Thread over. You should be satisfied that you're correct and nobody else gives a crap what you believe on this subject. Thread over.

*PLONK* illiterate thread.
Click to expand...
ChinGlu. Chin Glue. Now that sh*t is funny.

That being said, brucep, it isn't appropriate. You do that crap a lot.
 
brucep said:
Quit lying ChinGlu. Your assertions [conclusions] are nonsense. rpenner told you why. The only thing left for you is acceptance or denial. Apparently it's concluding your assertions are correct. Thread over. You should be satisfied that you're correct and nobody else gives a crap what you believe on this subject. Thread over.

*PLONK* illiterate thread.
Click to expand...



He is though cunningly not actually revealing his hand. Which most of us know is refutation of SR.
Again, I can see only one eventual end to this thread, if he persists in ignoring the evidence and corrected maths by rpenner. That is being scrubbed or moved to pseudoscience.
The past track record also speaks for itself.
 
brucep said:
Quit lying ChinGlu. Your assertions [conclusions] are nonsense. rpenner told you why. The only thing left for you is acceptance or denial. Apparently it's concluding your assertions are correct. Thread over. You should be satisfied that you're correct and nobody else gives a crap what you believe on this subject. Thread over.

*PLONK* illiterate thread.
Click to expand...

It is true Rpenner claimed something. But, I simply responded back to show him where he was wrong.

Did you say you know why the calculations are wrong? If so prove it.


Look at #68. Indicate where it is wrong.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3199693&viewfull=1#post3199693
 
paddoboy said:
He is though cunningly not actually revealing his hand. Which most of us know is refutation of SR.
Again, I can see only one eventual end to this thread, if he persists in ignoring the evidence and corrected maths by rpenner. That is being scrubbed or moved to pseudoscience.
The past track record also speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Nope, rpenner is stuck on post #68. He has been for a while. but he simply talks about other things that have nothing to do with the facts in #68.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3199693&viewfull=1#post3199693
 
chinglu said:
Nope, rpenner is stuck on post #68. He has been for a while. but he simply talks about other things that have nothing to do with the facts in #68.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3199693&viewfull=1#post3199693
Click to expand...



You do not have any facts, only misconceptions.


chinglu said:
This paper indicates how these 2 can be used to generate cytosine.
http://issuu.com/hosomichi/docs/chemistry_menor-salvan

This paper demonstrates this construction in a prebiotic earth is extremely unlikely.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full
Click to expand...


Would you care to show a scientific paper that invalidates SR?
 
paddoboy said:
This thread is about SR and its validity.
Would you care to show a scientific paper that invalidates SR?
Click to expand...

This thread is about the OP like every other thread. I note you can't do anything and you don't know what you are doing. You already agreed you do not know what you are doing.

Why don't you bother some other thread where you can understand what is going on.
 
And really chinglu. I would not keep referring to post 68, after the child like silly little outburst in it such as....

chinglu said:
Now, you again ran in terror from my post. The only reason you would do this is because you know you are totally wrong. Are you terrified to answer these questions? Do not forget, you pretend to be an expert to all those reading this thread.
They will understand by your fear you have no idea what you are doing.

.
Click to expand...

rpenner like most sensible folk here, have grown tired of those child like out bursts, and have grown tired of your continuing ignoring of facts.
Understand?
 
paddoboy said:
And really chinglu. I would not keep referring to post 68, after the child like silly little outburst in it such as....



rpenner like most sensible folk here, have grown tired of those child like out bursts, and have grown tired of your continuing ignoring of facts.
Understand?
Click to expand...

After I degraded him? Sure. He is back on his heels. Anyway, you have already confessed you don't know anything, so move along troll.
 
I came across this most remarkable post by James R: "Special Relativistic time dilation and length contraction derived"

I have two questions:

1. Shouldn't formulas 13 & 14 be reversed, i.e. distance in the Blue frame be expressed with respect to A (as shown in formula 14)? Now, I realize it doesn't matter how these are presented, as for 17 & 18, they (13 & 14) will be set up as equivalents. Just curious to know if there's any reason why the Blue frame distance is expressed with respect to B distance instead of A.

2. Also, James mentions the following in his opening: "This thread is for those who want to learn how a couple of the well-known effects from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity can be derived from first principles. ". When he says "can be derived", I'd like to know if this was the way in which it was originally proposed. I realize the thought experiment would have been different, but is this how the formula for Lorentz Transformation was first presented?
 
Sprintmiles said:
I came across this most remarkable post by James R: "Special Relativistic time dilation and length contraction derived"

I have two questions:

1. Shouldn't formulas 13 & 14 be reversed, i.e. distance in the Blue frame be expressed with respect to A (as shown in formula 14)? Now, I realize it doesn't matter how these are presented, as for 17 & 18, they (13 & 14) will be set up as equivalents. Just curious to know if there's any reason why the Blue frame distance is expressed with respect to B distance instead of A.

2. Also, James mentions the following in his opening: "This thread is for those who want to learn how a couple of the well-known effects from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity can be derived from first principles. ". When he says "can be derived", I'd like to know if this was the way in which it was originally proposed. I realize the thought experiment would have been different, but is this how the formula for Lorentz Transformation was first presented?
Click to expand...

I did know James on another forum, and I certainly know he is a qualified physicist of some reputability.
As the Administrator here, he doesn't come around that often, but when he does, I'm sure he'll clarify the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top