|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: MikeMike Date: Nov 21, 2006 10:10
Some time before the 60's. mechanics books refered to centrifugal force
as a reaction to the centripetal force, in the inertial frame. In the
non-inertial frame the same books had a note that the force is just
needed to explain the state of motion not because it is not real but
because the choice of a non-inertial frame to apply Newton's laws is a
wrong one, i.e. these forces arise in the non-inertial frame because of
the wrong choice of frame. As Newton asserted with his bucket
experiment, these forces can act only wrt to an inertial frame.
Then sometimes in the late 60's relativists came along and to enforce
their covariance notions that have their source in the PoR claimed the
centrifugal force does not exist in the inertial frame and is
ficticious in the non-inertial frame.
For starters, force is a definition, just the product of amss and
acceleration for cosnatnt mass and any refrence to 'real" or
"ficticious" forces is plain metaphysics and not Mechanics. Centrifugal
forces have measurable effects in non-inertial reference frames and
they are real just to that extend. Nothing more, nothing less:
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/d4ac...#doc_4b0e747970147b7b
|
| Show full article (3.99Kb) |
|
| | 201 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sam WormleySam Wormley Date: Nov 21, 2006 10:19
Depends on the coordinate system in use.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Sue...Sue... Date: Nov 21, 2006 10:35
Mike wrote:
-
>
> (D) Relativists are cranks because they deny the immediately given.
> they are also ad hominen animals, just watch how many of them will turn
> ad hominen because of this post. they are so ad hominen, they do not
> even get a job at MacDonalds and lurk in the usenet 24/7.
>
> Mike
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Phineas T PuddleduckPhineas T Puddleduck Date: Nov 21, 2006 10:43
> (D) Relativists are cranks because they deny the immediately given.
> they are also ad hominen animals, just watch how many of them will turn
> ad hominen because of this post. they are so ad hominen, they do not
> even get a job at MacDonalds and lurk in the usenet 24/7.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
There isn't a smiley big enough to express my hilarity at this.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: oriel36oriel36 Date: Nov 21, 2006 10:49
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Depends on the coordinate system in use.
This bait will no doubt work for those who know no better but the guy
is still stuck in a very Newtonian structure and rather than make an
attempt to escape Newton's swinging buckets he will use it as a point
of departure for trying to attack the cartoon relativistic
concept,something akin to the coyote and the roadrunner type thing.
Start from scratch,start right at the beginning and set out with the
barest possible set of principles and the broadest possible view and do
it with planetary motion and add a 21st century perspective to
planetary motion that is Not strictly based on the solar system and the
central Sun as the sole reponsibility for orbital geometries.
If the solar system moves in one direction through space in its long
term motion about the galactic axis,it means that 6 months of the year
the Earth's and the other planets motion moves in the direction of the
solar system's galactic orbital motion and 6 months in the opposite
direction.The point is to get away from the ad hoc solution for orbital
geometries based strictly on the Sun or an isolated solar system as
they believed since the 17th century.
|
| Show full article (1.49Kb) |
| 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: salsal Date: Nov 21, 2006 11:49
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:49:57 -0800, oriel36 wrote:
>
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Depends on the coordinate system in use.
>
> This bait will no doubt work for those who know no better but the guy is
> still stuck in a very Newtonian structure
Gerald, I've been seeing your posts now for several years (since I started
following this newsgroup) and I still have no idea what you think is wrong
with Newtonian mechanics (aside from the obvious objection that it breaks
down at relativistic velocities).
Newton said a lot of stuff about light and gravity which has pretty
much entirely been superseded, since it was wrong. The parts of his
work we still stick with are calculus and the three laws of "Newtonian
mechanics", which can all be summarized very, very loosely as:
> The limit of a small change in B divided by a small change
> in A as the size of the change becomes smaller is a
> derivative, and derivatives are good for lots of stuff.
|
| Show full article (1.53Kb) |
| 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: Andy ResnickAndy Resnick Date: Nov 21, 2006 11:57
> Andy, realize that truly coherent light was not available to science
> until the advent of the laser.
Not true.
>
> Sodium vapor bulbs do no produce coherent light. This is pretty basic.
> There is simply no wave coherency between one photon produced by a
> sodium vapor lamp and the next. This is something that distinguishes
> the physical properties of light produced by a laser.
Also not true.
>
> Evidently your PhD is not in physics, (No insult intended, simply a
> statement of fact.) It's an easily made mistake for those not
> intimately famiar with the principles of physical optics/optical
> electronics.
And once again, not true. My CV is available on the web.
|
| Show full article (0.82Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Andy ResnickAndy Resnick Date: Nov 21, 2006 12:03
> Andy, in this case your post suggests that you really don't know what
> coherent light is.
I admit that I could understand coherence better, so what?
>
> The first time that I was seen on Earth was with the discovery of the
> laser. Up to that time, the closest thing availalbe was the incoherent
> photon bursts from sources like those that have been mentioned in this
> thread.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>
> This is why sources like sodium vapor lamps cannot be used to
> demonstrate interferrence effects over significantly large distances,
> while lasers can. What you appear to be missing is that sodium or
> mercury vapor lamps emit photons that are both discrete and randomly
> phased, while with a coherent source such as a laser, the photons are
> in continuous phase. This is a large, in fact very large difference.
And you are missing the relationshp between frequency spread and phase
coherence in a polychromatic beam.
|
| Show full article (1.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sam WormleySam Wormley Date: Nov 21, 2006 12:14
Tom Potter wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:xHw8h.288988$1i1.138120@attbi_s72...>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Tom Potter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> General Relativity is a Tower of Babel
>>>>> that wastes time, money and minds on such
>>>>> pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravity waves,
>>>>> rubber scales and clocks, God gravity machines, etc.
>>>>>
>>>> Quoting from
>>>> http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html
>>>>
>>>> Where Do the Laws of Physics Come from?
>>>>
>>>> In a series of remarkable developments in the twentieth century,
>>>> elementary particle physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists have
>>>> removed much of the mystery that surrounds our understanding of the ...
|
| Show full article (9.72Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: hansonhanson Date: Nov 21, 2006 12:30
"Tom Potter" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4562f05f$0$21217$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...> "hanson" quick.net> wrote in message
> news:jOu8h.5378$Uz.5186@trnddc05...[Eric]
What does a former salesman and fulltime holocaust
denier know about physics?
>>>>
[Tom]
"Eric Gisse" raises a good point
when he questions:
"What does a former Patent Clerk, fulltime Zionist,
and Communist sympathizer, know about physics?"
>>>
[Eric]
Einstein had a Ph.D in physics, crank.
>>>
hanson] ...
|
| Show full article (5.66Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
