fr.sci.physique
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
fr.sci.physique only
 
Advanced search
July 2008
motuwethfrsasuw
 123456 27
78910111213 28
14151617181920 29
21222324252627 30
28293031    31
2008
 Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr 
 May   Jun   Jul   Aug 
 Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec 
2008 2007 2006  
total
fr.sci.physique Profile…
RELATED GROUPS

POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
  Re: Relativistic Mass Expansion and Length Contraction         


Author: Autymn D. C.
Date: Jul 13, 2008 17:04

On Jun 7, 12:30 pm, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:00 am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> musada wrote:
>>> If an observer combines mass expansion with length contraction of the
>>> theory of special relativity to a moving body,[...]
>
>> Special relativity actually has neither of those, except length
>> contraction applies as a observational effect. Your inplicit assumption
>> that they affect the moving body itself is just plain wrong.
>
> Length contraction is a an absurd corollary of Einsteins 1905 false
> light postulate Roberts Roberts. In a world different from Einstein
> zombie world the deduction leading from the false postulate to the
> absurd conclusions would be called "reductio ad absurdum":
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors ...
Show full article (1.56Kb)
no comments
  Re: Light has mass; That's smart         


Author: Pentcho Valev
Date: Jul 13, 2008 11:29

On Jul 13, 8:00 pm, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Pmb wrote in sci.physics:
>> There is only one meaning to the term "mass" and that's m = p/v.
>
>         [Be careful to define division of 3-vectors; say rather
>          that "mass" is the m in p=mv.]
>
> In Newtonian mechanics this is one of the many meanings of "mass", and
> perhaps it is the defining one, perhaps not. The problem is that there
> are many different aspects of "mass" that are all the same in Newtonian
> mechanics, but are different in relativity.

Newtonian mechanics is so dull and relativity is so exciting, aren't
they Honest Roberts:
Show full article (1.11Kb)
1 Comment
  EINSTEINIANA: THE SIRIUS B FRAUD         


Author: Pentcho Valev
Date: Jul 13, 2008 08:11

http://www.answers.com/topic/arthur-stanley-eddington?cat=technology
"Further support came in 1924 when Einstein's prediction of the
reddening of starlight by the gravitational field of the star was
tested: at Eddington's request Walter Adams detected and measured the
shift in wavelength of the spectral lines of Sirius B, the dense white-
dwarf companion of the star Sirius. Eddington thus did much to
establish Einstein's theory..."

In fact, Eddington fooled Walter Adams into measuring the wrong
gravitational redshift. Details here:

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des-sciences-les...

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
8 Comments
  Re: massless or massive photon?         


Author: Pentcho Valev
Date: Jul 13, 2008 07:04

On Jul 11, 3:54 am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> The REAL argument for massless photons is that when one treats the mass
> of the photon as a free parameter and fits the theory to experimental
> observations, one finds that the mass must be an INCREDIBLY small value,
> and is consistent with zero. The PDG lists the current upper bound on
> the photon mass as 6*10^-17 eV/c^2.
>
>         To put that in perspective, the lightest other particle
>         known (except neutrinos whose masses are not known) is the
>         electron. If an electron were scaled up to have the mass
>         of the earth, then the upper bound on the photon mass would
>         be scaled up to the mass of a half cubic meter of water.

But, Honest Roberts, no matter how small the mass of the photon is,
the dependence of its speed on the speed of the light source, v,
remains the same, c'=c+v:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how...
Show full article (3.61Kb)
14 Comments
  Re: BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY?         


Author: Pentcho Valev
Date: Jul 13, 2008 05:05

On Jul 13, 7:58 am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The experimental support of SR in essentially all non-gravitational
> contexts is solid and unassailable (except in certain ways by experts
> blazing a trail toward quantum gravity -- look up "doubly special
> relativity", but be prepared for advanced math). SR is one of the
> best-tested theories we have, and within its domain of applicability
> there is not a single reliable and reproducible experiment which
> contradicts its predictions. SR and GR are also inflexible
> theoretically: attempting to modify SR and/or GR is like being "a little
> bit pregnant" -- there are no simple modifications possible (the experts
> know this, and take it into account in pursuing QG). Cranks like Baird
> (and many others around here) simply...
Show full article (1.65Kb)
no comments
  Michael Youn :: Michaël Youn :: YOUN :: FatalBazooka :: Club 55 ::         


Author: mchy
Date: Jul 13, 2008 02:41

Michaël Youn Biography

see: http://michaelyounmichaelyoun.bleublog.lematin.ch/

After his education as an announcer and theater actor, Youn joined the
Paris radio station Skyrock in 1998. There, he made sketches and
further entertainment during the morning show.

His popularity and success at the most important French private
broadcast station brought Youn to the attention of French TV
executives. In July 2000 he was hired for the new morning show
"Morning Live" shown on Métropole 6. With Vincent Desagnat and
Benjamin Morgaine, Youn did the entertainment part of the show. Like
their sketches and public events.(e.g. foam bath in a Paris fountain),
their parodies were particularly successful. In particular, they
parodied the music scene of Jean-Michel Jarre, casting-popstars, the
Grand Prix and French rappers.

The success of "Morning Live" was mainly due to Youn and his
colleagues – when they left the show, it remained on the air for just
one more year.
Show full article (1.82Kb)
2 Comments