Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:

k m
/\/\/\/\---O

m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a

For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
= 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0

Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.

Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
to solve the equations now. Maybe later.

You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
including your local priest, etc.

NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.


Mike

Mike wrote:
Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:

k m
/\/\/\/\---O

m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a

For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
= 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0

Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.

There is no gravity in that example, so exactly what is there for
general relativity to explain?

Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
to solve the equations now. Maybe later.

You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
including your local priest, etc.

NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.

That is extremely important in your example, since Newtonian
mechanics
makes a great many assumptions in order to arrive at a tractable
differential
equation and explains exactly nothing about the physics of the spring
or why
Hooke's law should apply. If anyone were to mention those shortcomings
you would lose the advantage of creating a strawman to object to any
approximations made for a relativistic case (assuming you manage to
create an example that includes gravity).

"Mike" wrote in message ups.com...
| Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:
|
| k m
| /\/\/\/\---O
|
| m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
| free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a
|
| For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
| line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
| case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
| = 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0
|
| Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
| to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
| usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.
|
| Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
| to solve the equations now. Maybe later.
|
| You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
| including your local priest, etc.
|
| NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.
|
|
| Mike

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years" -- Dork Van de progeria.

And you want it to solve a problem?

wrote:
Mike wrote:
Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:

k m
/\/\/\/\---O

m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a

For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
= 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0

Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.

There is no gravity in that example, so exactly what is there for
general relativity to explain?

Well, "gravity" in GR is nothing more than curvature of spacetime and
any kind of motion is due to the way spacetime curves in the presense
of mass-energy distribution.


Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
to solve the equations now. Maybe later.

You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
including your local priest, etc.

NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.

That is extremely important in your example, since Newtonian
mechanics
makes a great many assumptions in order to arrive at a tractable
differential
equation and explains exactly nothing about the physics of the spring
or why
Hooke's law should apply. If anyone were to mention those shortcomings
you would lose the advantage of creating a strawman to object to any
approximations made for a relativistic case (assuming you manage to
create an example that includes gravity).

Let's be fair here, neither GR explains why spacetime curves. This si
reasonable because physical theories are not expected to answer such
questions. Mike's point I believe is that GR should provide a
geometrical approach to motion and one should be able to model simple
problems like a spring-mass oscillator using these notions. As it turns
out however, the solutions are either very hard or impossible to get.
Having realized that, there are those who insist GR is an extension to
Newtonian physics. I'm not sure about that though. I look at GR as a
cosmological theory rather than a theory of motion dynamics.

Joe

wrote:
wrote:
Mike wrote:
Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:

k m
/\/\/\/\---O

m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a

For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
= 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0

Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.

There is no gravity in that example, so exactly what is there for
general relativity to explain?

Well, "gravity" in GR is nothing more than curvature of spacetime and
any kind of motion is due to the way spacetime curves in the presense
of mass-energy distribution.


Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
to solve the equations now. Maybe later.

You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
including your local priest, etc.

NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.

That is extremely important in your example, since Newtonian
mechanics
makes a great many assumptions in order to arrive at a tractable
differential
equation and explains exactly nothing about the physics of the spring
or why
Hooke's law should apply. If anyone were to mention those shortcomings
you would lose the advantage of creating a strawman to object to any
approximations made for a relativistic case (assuming you manage to
create an example that includes gravity).

Let's be fair here, neither GR explains why spacetime curves. This si
reasonable because physical theories are not expected to answer such
questions. Mike's point I believe is that GR should provide a
geometrical approach to motion and one should be able to model simple
problems like a spring-mass oscillator using these notions. As it turns
out however, the solutions are either very hard or impossible to get.
Having realized that, there are those who insist GR is an extension to
Newtonian physics. I'm not sure about that though. I look at GR as a
cosmological theory rather than a theory of motion dynamics.

Joe

xxein: GR was formed because SR could not handle gravity. SR was
formed as a mathematical model of our subjective measurements. GR can
have slight bursts of objective reasoning, but all to please the
mathematic of its SR. It does this by curving space and time wrt some
parameters of, the still, subjective nature of SR.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message ups.com...
| Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:
|
| k m
| /\/\/\/\---O
|
| m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
| free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a
|
| For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
| line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
| case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
| = 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0
|
| Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
| to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
| usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.
|
| Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
| to solve the equations now. Maybe later.
|
| You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
| including your local priest, etc.
|
| NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.
|
|
| Mike

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years" -- Dork Van de progeria.

And you want it to solve a problem?

xxein: You can't even think your way off of the side of a piece of
paper. !00% of posters think you are nuts. Just because half of them
are idiots like you does not mean you have a 50% chance of being right
or credible.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message ups.com...
| Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:
|
| k m
| /\/\/\/\---O
|
| m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
| free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a
|
| For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
| line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
| case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
| = 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0
|
| Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
| to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
| usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.
|
| Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
| to solve the equations now. Maybe later.
|
| You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
| including your local priest, etc.
|
| NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.
|
|
| Mike

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years" -- Dork Van de progeria.

And you want it to solve a problem?

xxein: You can't even think your way off of the side of a piece of
paper. !00% of posters think you are nuts. Just because half of them
are idiots like you does not mean you have a 50% chance of being right
or credible.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:30:36 -0800, Mike wrote:

Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:

k m
/\/\/\/\---O

m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a

For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
= 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0

Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.

Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
to solve the equations now. Maybe later.

You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
including your local priest, etc.

NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.


Mike

As you know but likely can't accept, SR and GR reduce to the
classical limit for weak fields and slow moving objects. The
equations for the spring on a mass are found by writing the
Lagrangian for the mass point at the integral of the proper
length of the mass world line. Add to this the proper length
of the spring times k and one has the Lagrangian for the mass
and the spring in free space. The constraint of attaching the
free end of the spring must be imposed by adding a constraint
to the variation that the free end of the spring is to follow
a predefined geodesic curve. Perform the constrained variation
and solve.

Regards
The

wrote in message ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Mike" wrote in message ups.com...
| | Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:
| |
| | k m
| | /\/\/\/\---O
| |
| | m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
| | free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a
| |
| | For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
| | line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
| | case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
| | = 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0
| |
| | Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
| | to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
| | usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.
| |
| | Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
| | to solve the equations now. Maybe later.
| |
| | You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
| | including your local priest, etc.
| |
| | NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.
| |
| |
| | Mike
|
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html
|
| "So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
| have aged 10 years" -- Dork Van de progeria.
|
| And you want it to solve a problem?
|
| xxein: You can't even think your way off of the side of a piece of
| paper. !00% of posters think you are nuts. Just because half of them
| are idiots like you does not mean you have a 50% chance of being right
| or credible.

The entire !00%... You can't even find your way around a keyboard,
as you've just proved, ****head. **** off, troll.

wrote in message ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Mike" wrote in message ups.com...
| | Here is your problem, self-proclaimed relativity expert:
| |
| | k m
| | /\/\/\/\---O
| |
| | m is rest mass and k is a linear spring, massless in this case. The
| | free end of the spring is atatched to a locally inertial frame a
| |
| | For example, in Newtonian mechanics, the equations are derived in one
| | line as follows (for non-relativistic cases): F = dp/dt = -kx, in the
| | case of an unforced oscillator the equation of motion is: md^2x/dt^2+kx
| | = 0, x(t=0) = x0, dx/dt(t=0) = v0
| |
| | Go ahead and write down the relativistic equation of motion according
| | to GR. Assume v0/c = 0.9. Don't scream, shout or throw curses as
| | usual. Hint: avoid just stating G = T.
| |
| | Come on Dork, show us what kind of expert you are. I will not ask you
| | to solve the equations now. Maybe later.
| |
| | You are allowed to ask for help from other cranks in these groups,
| | including your local priest, etc.
| |
| | NOTE: DO NOT BY ANY MEANS REFER TO NEWTON.
| |
| |
| | Mike
|
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html
|
| "So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
| have aged 10 years" -- Dork Van de progeria.
|
| And you want it to solve a problem?
|
| xxein: You can't even think your way off of the side of a piece of
| paper. !00% of posters think you are nuts. Just because half of them
| are idiots like you does not mean you have a 50% chance of being right
| or credible.
|

Even repeats the same **** up... what !00%, ****head troll?