PD
Posts:
2,970
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
Posted:
Jul 2, 2010 2:29 PM
|
|
On Jul 2, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 12:17 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > There are many different ways to do so. Langevin?s resolution is
> > > drastically different from that of Einstein the nitwit, the
> > > plagiarist, and the liar. The self-styled physicists cannot even
> > > unanimously agree on one resolution. Each one believes in his own
> > > resolution, but all these contradict with each other. What a fvcked
> > > up bunch. That is a trait of Einstein Dingleberrism. <shrug>
>
> > Why do you think they all contradict each other?
> > There is a simple machine that is taught in 9th grade science called
> > the Atwood machine. You can look that up.
> > In freshman physics classes, one learns that you can find the final
> > velocity of the hanging masses by using:
> > * Newton's 2nd law
> > * Conservation of momentum, including external impulse
> > * Conservation of energy
> > Later, one finds that you can do the same thing using
> > * Lagrangian mechanics
> > * Hamiltonian mechanics
>
> To go from Los Angeles to Chicago, I can choose to:
>
> ** Walk
> ** Drive a car
> ** Fly an airplane
> ** Ride a train
>
> <shrug>
>
> > Now, let's see. I suppose you will now say that classical Newtonian
> > physics cannot agree on one way to solve this problem, and that all
> > the ways available to skin the cat all contradict each other.
>
> In the meantime, we are talking about the twins? paradox. The
> mechanics of the following two proposed resolutions are drastically
> different and contradict each other:
No, they don't. Nor do the drastically different mechanical
explanations of the Atwood machine contradict each other. They are
just different perspectives or ways of analyzing the very same
phenomenon.
I do, however, accept that you do not at all see the connection
between any two explanations of what's going on in the twin puzzle.
This is probably because you do not understand any one of the
explanations of what's going on in the twin puzzle, which is perhaps
why you call each and every one of them "mysterious" and "mathemagic".
>
> ** Lagevin?s mathemagic of using Larmor?s transform instead of the
> Lorentz transform
>
> ** GR as suggested by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> liar
>
> <shrug>
>
> > KW, you are an idiot.
>
> <shrug>
>
> PD, after losing your proud professorship, please don?t take it out on
> anyone. <shrug>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
|
