Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Reading material on relativity...

Author Message
Inertial...
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:15 pm
 
"xxein" wrote in message
news:357d9b86-d472-45ce-866f-036e5e4f0e0f at (no spam) 30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

[snip xxein thinking he has all the answers and noone else does, and failing
to understand physics as a science]

Nothing left
 
eric gisse...
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:51 pm
 
kenseto wrote:
[...]

[quote]The problem is that you runts of the SRians have different
understanding of physics and each of you claimed to be the authority
and guardian of the truth of modern physics. For example you asserted
that length contraction in SR is "physical" and physical can mean
geometrical projection effect or material effect. Tom Roberts said
that length contraction in SR is not physical (nothing happens to the
length of a moving rod)....it is merely a geometric projection effect.
I rest my case.

Ken Seto
[/quote]
What an interesting excuse to not read books.
 
GO-HERE .NL...
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:02 pm
 
On Oct 28, 10:19†am, "hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:
[quote]
Aether deniers of course will say, like they always do,
"if I can't measure it, it is not here. Ergo it's not needed
and therefore it does not exist".... but it does...ahahaha..

It is kinda ironic that the deniers should say that, because
when it comes to †SR/GR they visciously and fanatically
take the opposite stance... ahahaha... ahahahaha....
[/quote]
Like when you ask people of different religions about the other
religion all of a sudden the other god doesn't exist. <shrug>
 
Androcles...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:44 am
 
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iaas0d$41l$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
| kenseto wrote:
| [...]
[...]
 
kenseto...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:21 am
 
On Oct 27, 11:51†pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]kenseto wrote:

[...]

The problem is that you runts of the SRians have different
understanding of physics and each of you claimed to be the authority
and guardian of the truth of modern physics. For example you asserted
that length contraction in SR is "physical" and physical can mean
geometrical projection effect or material effect. Tom Roberts said
that length contraction in SR is not physical (nothing happens to the
length of a moving rod)....it is merely a geometric projection effect.
I rest my case.

Ken Seto

What an interesting excuse to not read books.
[/quote]
Books published by the mainstream contain the same contradicting
information.
 
PD...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:32 am
 
On Oct 28, 9:21†am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 11:51†pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



kenseto wrote:

[...]

The problem is that you runts of the SRians have different
understanding of physics and each of you claimed to be the authority
and guardian of the truth of modern physics. For example you asserted
that length contraction in SR is "physical" and physical can mean
geometrical projection effect or material effect. Tom Roberts said
that length contraction in SR is not physical (nothing happens to the
length of a moving rod)....it is merely a geometric projection effect..
I rest my case.

Ken Seto

What an interesting excuse to not read books.

Books published by the mainstream contain the same contradicting
information.
[/quote]
No they do not. Citation, please. You have not read any of the books,
Ken, and so you cannot possibly make this statement with any
credibility.
 
Tony M...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:10 am
 
In a discussion a while back PD recommended me a book, Spacetime
Physics by Taylor and Wheeler. I thought Iíd give it a try and Iím now
about 3/4 through. I find it to be very educational, easy to read and
understand for any logical mind. It definitely answered many
questions, filled in a lot of gaps and refined my previous knowledge
and understanding of SR. Even though I understand the theory much
better than before Iím not any closer to deciding or knowing whether
SR is right or wrong, to being a believer or non-believer. Thatís not
the purpose of reading a book on SR; itís just a good idea to know the
subject youíre debating, especially if you have any strong opinions
about it. Once you do know and understand it, feel free to have any
opinion you want; it would be an informed opinion and your argument
will carry a lot more weight. Otherwise itís unavoidable to make a
fool of one self.
But how to convince people who think they know everything to take the
time and read a book? Letís just say that if you never read an actual
book on relativity or have not formally studied physics beyond high-
school chances are that whatever you think you know about relativity
is wrong or itís very basic at best. Granted, there may be good books
and bad books out there, and reading a book doesnít guarantee youíll
understand it, but at least youíre giving yourself a chance.
 
mpc755...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:33 am
 
On Oct 28, 3:10†pm, Tony M <marc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]In a discussion a while back PD recommended me a book, Spacetime
Physics by Taylor and Wheeler. I thought Iíd give it a try and Iím now
about 3/4 through. I find it to be very educational, easy to read and
understand for any logical mind. It definitely answered many
questions, filled in a lot of gaps and refined my previous knowledge
and understanding of SR. Even though I understand the theory much
better than before Iím not any closer to deciding or knowing whether
SR is right or wrong, to being a believer or non-believer. Thatís not
the purpose of reading a book on SR; itís just a good idea to know the
subject youíre debating, especially if you have any strong opinions
about it. Once you do know and understand it, feel free to have any
opinion you want; it would be an informed opinion and your argument
will carry a lot more weight. Otherwise itís unavoidable to make a
fool of one self.
But how to convince people who think they know everything to take the
time and read a book? Letís just say that if you never read an actual
book on relativity or have not formally studied physics beyond high-
school chances are that whatever you think you know about relativity
is wrong or itís very basic at best. Granted, there may be good books
and bad books out there, and reading a book doesnít guarantee youíll
understand it, but at least youíre giving yourself a chance.
[/quote]
What book did you read where it explains aether has mass?
 
hanson...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:48 am
 
Hey Gaby, good to hear from you. Long time no
talk. I miss your rad views. Bring'em on again.
[quote]
"GO-HERE .NL" <gdewilde at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
"hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote:

hanson wrote:[/quote]
Aether deniers of course will say, like they always do,
"if I can't measure it, it is not here. Ergo it's not needed
and therefore it does not exist".... but it does...ahahaha..
[quote]
It is kinda ironic that the deniers should say that, because[/quote]
when it comes to SR/GR they visciously and fanatically
take the opposite stance... ahahaha... ahahahaha....
[quote]
gaby dewilde wrote:[/quote]
Like when you ask people of different religions about the other
religion all of a sudden the other god doesn't exist. <shrug>
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
..... ahahahaha... right, or like the ones who feel threatened
by other opinions and quickly side step the issue and
flees into their own science of correcting typos like seen
in << http://tinyurl.com/Andros-sad-and-sorry-life>>
[quote]
Thanks fopr the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson[/quote]
 
Androcles...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:10 am
 
"Mike Cavedon" <mikecavedon at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f04b295-a8dc-449a-abdc-566c2bc0ca9f at (no spam) v16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

I realize it is more important for you to stay 'on topic' then
understanding what occurs physically in nature. If you ever want to
understand what occurs physically in nature ask yourself the
fundamental question, "Does aether have mass?".
=========================================
Weigh it and you'll know.
Now answer this fundamental question. Does the tooth fairy hand out cash?
 
PD...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:47 pm
 
On Oct 28, 2:10†pm, Tony M <marc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]In a discussion a while back PD recommended me a book, Spacetime
Physics by Taylor and Wheeler. I thought Iíd give it a try and Iím now
about 3/4 through. I find it to be very educational, easy to read and
understand for any logical mind. It definitely answered many
questions, filled in a lot of gaps and refined my previous knowledge
and understanding of SR. Even though I understand the theory much
better than before Iím not any closer to deciding or knowing whether
SR is right or wrong, to being a believer or non-believer. Thatís not
the purpose of reading a book on SR; itís just a good idea to know the
subject youíre debating, especially if you have any strong opinions
about it. Once you do know and understand it, feel free to have any
opinion you want; it would be an informed opinion and your argument
will carry a lot more weight. Otherwise itís unavoidable to make a
fool of one self.
But how to convince people who think they know everything to take the
time and read a book? Letís just say that if you never read an actual
book on relativity or have not formally studied physics beyond high-
school chances are that whatever you think you know about relativity
is wrong or itís very basic at best. Granted, there may be good books
and bad books out there, and reading a book doesnít guarantee youíll
understand it, but at least youíre giving yourself a chance.
[/quote]
Congratulations!
 
eric gisse...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:33 pm
 
kenseto wrote:

[quote]On Oct 27, 11:51 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:

[...]

The problem is that you runts of the SRians have different
understanding of physics and each of you claimed to be the authority
and guardian of the truth of modern physics. For example you asserted
that length contraction in SR is "physical" and physical can mean
geometrical projection effect or material effect. Tom Roberts said
that length contraction in SR is not physical (nothing happens to the
length of a moving rod)....it is merely a geometric projection effect.
I rest my case.

Ken Seto

What an interesting excuse to not read books.

Books published by the mainstream contain the same contradicting
information.
[/quote]
So where did you learn SR, Ken?
 
Androcles...
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:36 pm
 
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iad4oj$g3q$3 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
| kenseto wrote:
|
| > On Oct 27, 11:51 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
| >> kenseto wrote:
| >>
| >> [...]

[...]
 
mpc755...
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:51 am
 
Those who do not understand aether has mass who insist they can
explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment
where the particle interferes with itself are more incorrect than
those who insist the Earth is stationary, no matter how much they have
read.

Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether wave.
 
Dirk Van de moortel...
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:57 am
 
"mpc755" <mpc755 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message news:86c84c1d-8f2f-4c89-82b2-fd54ab7d86ee at (no spam) p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]
Those who do not understand aether has mass who insist they can
explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment
where the particle interferes with itself are more incorrect than
those who insist the Earth is stationary, no matter how much they have
read.

Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether wave.
[/quote]
Here you will find *everything* you will ever need:
http://www.thegarret.org.uk/collectionanaesthetic.htm

Dirk Vdm
 
 
Page 1 of 2    Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:19 am