momentum

[rbwinn]

If there are two frames of reference, S and S', with S' moving with a
velocity of v relative to S, we can showthis by the Galilean
transformation equations.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �x'=x-vt
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � y'=y
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � z'=z
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �t'=t
� � But scientists say that they have proven that a clock in S' is
running slower than a clock in S, therefore, the Galilean
transformation equations cannot be used. �However, using the equation
n'=t(1-v/c) for the time of a clock in S', we can see that an observer
in S' will calculate a faster speed for S' than an observer in S
because less time transpires on a clock in S', and the Galilean
transformation equations show that the distance is the same as
measured from either frame of reference, (there is no distance
contraction).
� � �Scientists have informed me that the velocity calculated by the
observer in S', using the S' clock, cannot be used with equations for
momentum. �If v2 is the velocity calculated by the observer in S',
then it is true that � � p=m(v2) � �is incorrect. �

That is not the problem. The problem is that m*v is not a good formula
for momentum, unless you're willing to ignore how off it is. When
speeds are small, then that's not too bad. When speeds are larger,
it's simply the wrong formula, period.

Well, tell us what the correct formula is, PD.  I was just going by
what Isaac Newton said.

And I've already told you how we know that what Newton said is not a
good formula except as an approximation. If you want an education on
what the law of conservation of momentum says and what the proper
expressions for momentum are, I'd be happy to give you a reading
reference, complete with chapter numbers. I see no reason to
transcribe those pages here to save you the effort of removing your
ass from your chair.
PD

Well, no need to get so snippy just because I do not believe that the
orbit and radius of a satellite are less when measured by a clock in
the satellite.  I think the orbit and radius of orbit stay the same.
You said that my equations would not work for momentum in this
particular problem, and I showed that they did.  If you want to talk
about particle accellerators, why don't you talk to some of the other
scientists?  I do not know a thing about particle accellerators.
Robert B. Winn

That is the point - you do not know a thing about physics.- Hide quoted text -

So what are you saying, Eric?  Your life is ruined if I post an
equation in sci.physics.relativity?  Why don't you take a few minutes
and go read the charter of the newsgroup?
Robert B. Winn

What a little coward. Why don't you write another 50 posts about a
subject you don't understand then point to the charter to defend your
stupidity?- Hide quoted text -

Well, since you are so brave, just take a few minutes and show what
you find wrong with the equations I posted since you do not like
them.  You mentioned that you disagreed about S and S', and then I
explained what frames of reference were.  What else do you see wrong?
Robert B. Winn

Arrogant stupidity is so infuriating. Go away.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Infuriating? Well, if I am that stupid, just do something else
besides reading my posts. Maybe some of these nice scientists would
talk to you.
Robert B. Winn

[Pmb]

Hey idiot-welder, you "graduated" to "writing" about
momentum. As
always, you are wrong, momentum is not frame invariant, you
old
cretinoid.
The experimental proof can be found in the devices that use
the E,B
crossfield to separate particles based on charge and mass.
Oh, and "Simon says p=mv/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)"

You seem a little unhappy, scientist.
Robert B. Winn

"Simon says you welded your brain to the door handle,
R.B.Winn"

This is not American Idol, scientist.
Robert B. Winn

Only an idiot tradesman would think scientist is a pejorative.-
Hide quoted text -

Well, from what I have seen, scientists seem to think bad
behavior is
a virtue.
Why don't you go ahead and do your scientific stuff without
tradesmen? Then we could all be happy. Werner von Braun, one of
my
father's heroes, replaced tradesmen with slave laborers in his V2
rocket factory. That way if they wanted to stay alive, they could
make rockets to bomb London, and he did not have to pay them
anything. Also if any slave laborers were classified as idiots by
scientists, they could just kill them.
Robert B. Winn

The idiot misunderstands again, small wonder. I don't look down on
tradesmen - I know that I could probably never be a master
woodcarver.
On the other hand, I do not go around telling masters of their
trade
how to do their craft, and I expect the same courtesy in return.
Now
go back to doing what you do best: welding.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well, you misunderstood the charter to the newsgroup, Eric. Anyone
is
allowed to post here. Any idea about relativity,
no matter how
unscientific it might be,

OK, but it's probably worth mentioning HOW unscientific it is in
return.
One should not expect that unscientific ideas about relativity will
be
treated on the same basis as more considered ideas about relativity.

Well, and scientists should not expect that incorrect statements by
them will be treated on the same basis as correct statements. It all
goes tit for tat.

That's absolutely right. Fortunately, there is a discerning metric by
which to tell what is correct and incorrect -- and that is agreement
with data. Note: NOT logic, NOT argument, NOT by "proof" that the
alternate is wrong. By agreement with measurements and experimental
data.

The people scientists call idiots seem to be able to go on with life
if they get corrected. Scientists should be able to do the same
thing.

Certainly, if the "correction" turns out to be in fact correct, by the
metric above.

Well, OK, I am having the following conversation with a scientist.
Two clocks are sitting side by side. One clock ticks twice, one clock
ticks once. Which clock is faster?
Robert B. Winn

You mean you're stuck on definitions even before you get to
measurement?

Well, yeah. The scientist says t'=t gamma, so the clock in S' is
running slower. Lorentz said t'=(t-vx/c^2)gamma, which Einstein
interpreted to mean that a clock in S' was running slower. As soon as
we resolve how
(t-vx/c^2)gamma= t gamma, then we will have this figured out.
Robert B. Winn

The fact that some posters hadn't met a blockheaded
uneducated trolling welder before, will not help you figure
out what you haven't been able to figure out during an
entire decade.
Let's be grateful for your willingness to yet again present
your imbecilic frunk as a punching ball.
Loading Image...
Dirk Vdm

Sometimes it makes better sense to simply ignore their posts Dirk. Why get
all worked up?

Pete

[rbwinn]

Hey idiot-welder, you "graduated" to "writing" about momentum. As
always, you are wrong, momentum is not frame invariant, you old
cretinoid.
The experimental proof can be found in the devices that use the E,B
crossfield to separate particles based on charge and mass.
Oh, and "Simon says p=mv/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)"

You seem a little unhappy, scientist.
Robert B. Winn

"Simon says you welded your brain to the door handle, R.B.Winn"

This is not American Idol, scientist.
Robert B. Winn

Only an idiot tradesman would think scientist is a pejorative.- Hide quoted text -

Well, from what I have seen, scientists seem to think bad behavior is
a virtue.
Why don't you go ahead and do your scientific stuff without
tradesmen? Then we could all be happy. Werner von Braun, one of my
father's heroes, replaced tradesmen with slave laborers in his V2
rocket factory. That way if they wanted to stay alive, they could
make rockets to bomb London, and he did not have to pay them
anything. Also if any slave laborers were classified as idiots by
scientists, they could just kill them.
Robert B. Winn

The idiot misunderstands again, small wonder. I don't look down on
tradesmen - I know that I could probably never be a master woodcarver.
On the other hand, I do not go around telling masters of their trade
how to do their craft, and I expect the same courtesy in return. Now
go back to doing what you do best: welding.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well, you misunderstood the charter to the newsgroup, Eric. Anyone is
allowed to post here. Any idea about relativity,
no matter how
unscientific it might be,

OK, but it's probably worth mentioning HOW unscientific it is in
return.
One should not expect that unscientific ideas about relativity will be
treated on the same basis as more considered ideas about relativity.

Well, and scientists should not expect that incorrect statements by
them will be treated on the same basis as correct statements. It all
goes tit for tat.

That's absolutely right. Fortunately, there is a discerning metric by
which to tell what is correct and incorrect -- and that is agreement
with data. Note: NOT logic, NOT argument, NOT by "proof" that the
alternate is wrong. By agreement with measurements and experimental
data.

The people scientists call idiots seem to be able to go on with life
if they get corrected. Scientists should be able to do the same
thing.

Certainly, if the "correction" turns out to be in fact correct, by the
metric above.

Well, OK, I am having the following conversation with a scientist.
Two clocks are sitting side by side. One clock ticks twice, one clock
ticks once. Which clock is faster?
Robert B. Winn

You mean you're stuck on definitions even before you get to
measurement?

Well, yeah.  The scientist says t'=t gamma, so the clock in S' is
running slower.  Lorentz said t'=(t-vx/c^2)gamma, which Einstein
interpreted to mean that a clock in S' was running slower.  As soon as
we resolve how
(t-vx/c^2)gamma= t gamma, then we will have this figured out.
Robert B. Winn

The fact that some posters hadn't met a blockheaded
uneducated trolling welder before, will not help you figure
out what you haven't been able to figure out during an
entire decade.
Let's be grateful for your willingness to yet again present
your imbecilic frunk as a punching ball.
   http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/images/myfavor...
Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Good to have you back in the conversation, Dirk. So what is your
opinion? Which is the correct value for t', (t-vx/c^2)gamma or t
gamma?
Robert B. Winn