Discussion:
[SR] Elasticity of distances and lengths.
Scot Dino
2022-01-03 16:22:26 UTC
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings. The
student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
your understanding of relativity is buttfuck manure.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-03 16:47:57 UTC
Post by Scot Dino
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings. The
student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
your understanding of relativity is buttfuck manure.
T'es aussi con que ça, toi?

Ou alors t'es un pseudo de plus de Jean-Pierre Messager?

R.H.
Python
2022-01-03 19:23:43 UTC
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Scot Dino
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings. The
student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
your understanding of relativity is buttfuck manure.
T'es aussi con que ça, toi?
Ou alors t'es un pseudo de plus ...
Idiot, I'm not using pseudos except that one.

You are, again, arguing with the "nym-shifting troll"... How come
you cranks down here are basically unable to recognize when a troll
makes fun of you? Even when it is every single week the same guy
just shifting his name...
Scot Dino
2022-01-03 20:23:30 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Scot Dino
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction"
was incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic
misunderstandings. The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
your understanding of relativity is buttfuck manure.
T'es aussi con que ça, toi? Ou alors t'es un pseudo de plus ...
Idiot, I'm not using pseudos except that one.
You are, again, arguing with the "nym-shifting troll"... How come you
cranks down here are basically unable to recognize when a troll makes
fun of you? Even when it is every single week the same guy just shifting
his name...
you frogs buttfuck manure are stupid in physics like hell. Unemployable.
No contracts with you. All goes to america. Fuck, the stupidest country
in the world. You frogs are gypsies.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-03 17:33:40 UTC
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.

For example, you do not understand what most relativity students know, that
“length contraction” inherently depends on frame dependency of
simultaneity, because the operational definition of length requires
tracking time with separate clocks in two different locations. That is
wholly lost on you, though it is not for the student who READS.
It's not quite the same thing anymore, because not
only lengths can expand depending on how you look at them, but also
distances. These things are difficult to get across. For example, I have
send a rocket towards a star placed at 12 light years, the rocket will
hardly have reached the enormous speed of 0.8c (240,000 km/s), the star to
be joined will be located 36 light years away (three times farther).
This is however what the Lorentz transformations say (and with perfect
reason) if we understand them and apply them well. But in a world that is
stupid to cry, it is to me that one advises to read pages dealing with the
principles of relativity. We think, by that, that it is I who am stupid
and that does not understand.
The illusion between scientific truth and public belief is then total.
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-03 20:56:42 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.
Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".
Well, I certainly did READ what physicists say “work” means in the context
of physics. I did not ignore them and look in a dictionary instead. This
made it easier to understand why if I carry a heavy box horizontally at the
same speed from one room to another, there is no mechanical work done.
That’s because I understand the meaning of work as physicists define that
word.

Now, some idiots might say, “But I don’t want to respect the physicists
definition of work, and so if they say there is zero mechanical work, it’s
just bullshit.” But that’s idiocy and refusal to communicate that some
people like Wozniak are perfectly happy to indulge.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-03 21:24:40 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.
Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".
Well, I certainly did READ what physicists say “work” means in the context
of physics.
Well, they're certainly a bunch of mumbling morons, like you.
But it's still a lie. Asked for a definition you've chosen
a standard dictionary one. And asked what is the function
required by this definition and what is the plan/design also
required - you simply run away. For sure you realize Ken S
would do exactly the same?
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-03 21:41:21 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.
Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".
Well, I certainly did READ what physicists say “work” means in the context
of physics.
Well, they're certainly a bunch of mumbling morons, like you.
But it's still a lie. Asked for a definition you've chosen
a standard dictionary one. And asked what is the function
required by this definition and what is the plan/design also
required - you simply run away. For sure you realize Ken S
would do exactly the same?
Woz, if you are telling me you don’t remember the physics definition of
work and are demanding that someone trot it out for you here, don’t you
feel a little stupid for not being able to cut your own meat?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-04 07:07:34 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic".
Richard, the difficulty is not the label. The difficulty is that you are
trying to capture all the meaning in simple phrases like “elastic lengths
and distances” or “length contraction”. A real student does not try to read
context to understand what the term “length contraction” means.
Like poor idiot Bodkin did with the definition of "work".
Well, I certainly did READ what physicists say “work” means in the context
of physics.
Well, they're certainly a bunch of mumbling morons, like you.
But it's still a lie. Asked for a definition you've chosen
a standard dictionary one. And asked what is the function
required by this definition and what is the plan/design also
required - you simply run away. For sure you realize Ken S
would do exactly the same?
Woz, if you are telling me you don’t remember the physics definition of
work
Bod, poor stinker, you've pointed YOURSELF another definition.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-03 21:41:20 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
For example, you do not understand what most relativity students know, that
“length contraction” inherently depends on frame dependency of
simultaneity, because the operational definition of length requires
tracking time with separate clocks in two different locations.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Nope, the definition of Length does not depend on "clocks or frames", you
are making a new definition that allows you to have a variable length for
a solid object, based on irrational claims. The length of a solid ruler
that is one meter long is always one meter long regardless of its
velocity relative to me. Einsteins claims are pure fantasy and contain
errors on rational thought, Logic and Math.
Well.

It’s fascinating to me when someone new here (at least new to me and I’ve
been here 8 years or so), comes in an pronounces that something
demonstrated in real life cannot possibly be correct because it conflicts
with “Logic” (capital L) or “Math” (capital M) or “rational thought”.

I think you might be confused about what logic actually is, or what math
is, or what rational thought actually means. I fully understand that this
does not jive with your ideas of how the world works. That doesn’t make it
irrational. It just means that you have some expectations about how the
world works that might or might not be true. What is also likely true is
that you CHOOSE not to believe something is true unless you already believe
it to be true. That just means that you cannot learn anything new and are
calcified between the ears.
Everything you need to know about motion can be most easily calculated
from the ONE location. Adding a second observer PLUS several quack claims
about how to synchronise their clocks, is only useful if you want to
deceive people. There is no such thing in reality as shrinking distances
or TIme, or growing Mass just because someone is watching you move really
fast. That's just irrational nonsense. I cant help it if you don't have
the brain power to figure this out, and cant understand straight forward
Physics. You prefer pseudo science or Einstein to reality.
While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
“straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-04 07:04:24 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
For example, you do not understand what most relativity students know, that
“length contraction” inherently depends on frame dependency of
simultaneity, because the operational definition of length requires
tracking time with separate clocks in two different locations.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Nope, the definition of Length does not depend on "clocks or frames", you
are making a new definition that allows you to have a variable length for
a solid object, based on irrational claims. The length of a solid ruler
that is one meter long is always one meter long regardless of its
velocity relative to me. Einsteins claims are pure fantasy and contain
errors on rational thought, Logic and Math.
Well.
It’s fascinating to me when someone new here (at least new to me and I’ve
been here 8 years or so), comes in an pronounces that something
demonstrated in real life cannot possibly be correct because it conflicts
with “Logic” (capital L) or “Math” (capital M) or “rational thought”.
I think you might be confused about what logic actually is, or what math
is, or what rational thought actually means. I fully understand that this
does not jive with your ideas of how the world works. That doesn’t make it
irrational. It just means that you have some expectations about how the
world works that might or might not be true.
Unlike the ideas of poor idiot woodworker, which always
have to be true because of context.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-04 15:21:22 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
“straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
I replied, but my reply has been removed.
Forget about evaluating my background, we are discussing the errors of
Einstein, and I made some comments, but you have not replied with any counter.
Did you not understand what I said?
Nothing that Einstein claims has been actually demonstrated in real life as you suggest.
Not Time dilation, (experiments are not conclusive and have other
explanations) not E=mc2, or even photoelectric being caused by tiny balls
called Photons. As for curved spacetime, well that's really way out there
in fantasy land of mere mathematicians. They should really check in with
people who study Physics before they make silly claims based on math alone.
But I really am only wanting to discuss the glaring errors of Special Relativity.
Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
demonstrated in real life. Particles that have a known lifetime before
decaying at rest, do not decay at the same time when they are moving. Now
you can splutter that there are alternate explanations for why that
happens, but the reality is that HOW MUCH the decay time is lengthened is
completely in line with what relativity says it should be. There is no
alternative explanation that gets the HOW MUCH right. If you think you have
an alternative, go for it.

I also completely disagree that E=mc^2 has not been actually demonstrated
in real life. When a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a
neutrino, you can measure the speed and kinetic energies of all the
products. Because energy has been known to be conserved since the 1700s
(this is certainly not an Einstein thing), it had to come from someplace.
The MEASURED sum of the energy exactly matches the amount you get by
looking at the mass difference between the parent and children particles in
that reaction, multiplied by c^2. Again, it’s not just the qualitative
verification, but the QUANTITATIVE one that is compelling.

As for the existence of photons, you may be interested to know that you can
buy devices called single-photon counters. They perform exactly as
advertised, which is more than what you could say if you purchased a
single-unicorn counter or a single-alien-in-a-UFO counter.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-04 17:15:32 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
“straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
I replied, but my reply has been removed.
Forget about evaluating my background, we are discussing the errors of
Einstein, and I made some comments, but you have not replied with any counter.
Did you not understand what I said?
Nothing that Einstein claims has been actually demonstrated in real life as you suggest.
Not Time dilation, (experiments are not conclusive and have other
explanations) not E=mc2, or even photoelectric being caused by tiny balls
called Photons. As for curved spacetime, well that's really way out there
in fantasy land of mere mathematicians. They should really check in with
people who study Physics before they make silly claims based on math alone.
But I really am only wanting to discuss the glaring errors of Special Relativity.
Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
demonstrated in real life.
Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
everything isalllies
2022-01-04 21:45:08 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess, compared to my half brain.
Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
Python
2022-01-04 21:56:59 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
You are not quoting Odd Bodkin but Maciej Wozniak.
Post by everything isalllies
So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess, compared to my half brain.
Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
Odd didn't call you a "poor halfbrain".
everything isalllies
2022-01-04 22:30:25 UTC
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
You are not quoting Odd Bodkin but Maciej Wozniak.
Post by everything isalllies
So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess, compared to my half brain.
Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
Odd didn't call you a "poor halfbrain".
No telling who said what, I still cant "Reply to Author" so its hard keeping track of whats what, stupid google.
Anyway, none of you are responding with decent arguments, all are sidetracking the issues.
Python
2022-01-04 22:37:43 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
You are not quoting Odd Bodkin but Maciej Wozniak.
Post by everything isalllies
So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess, compared to my half brain.
Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
Odd didn't call you a "poor halfbrain".
No telling who said what, I still cant "Reply to Author" so its hard keeping track of whats what, stupid google.
Anyway, none of you are responding with decent arguments, all are sidetracking the issues.
You misquote someone, this is big stuff, especially you acted as if
Odd insulted you. He didn't. This is NOT sidetracking.

You should consider that you are too dumb to properly use a computer
if you cannot understand how quoting is working here.

And concerning "Reply to Author", it's a good thing that you cannot do
that, it would send an e-mail (NOT a Usenet message) to the author
(well, almost nobody provide a valid e-mail in Usenet message these
days anyway). Coming from you it would be a spam.

You clearly don't know what is this place. This is not really "Google
Groups", it is Usenet. Google Group just provide a interface to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

You are also completely illiterate in physics by the way.
everything isalllies
2022-01-04 22:54:03 UTC
TO Python and Bodkin:

Despite your combined claims, neither of you are able to explain Einsteins Special Relativity in a rational manner.
I can easily point out exactly where and when you make errors. There is zero possibility the Special Relativity is correct in any way.
So who is the problem here?

I make statement about SR, and you two simply side step, never actually overcoming my criticism of SR.
Rather than directly addressing my claims, you both simply claim i am uneducated.

This is not the scientific approach at all. You are not the sole guardian of all knowledge, nope, you need to be able to defend successfully every claim you make. If Einstein is correct with Special relativity, you must be able to provide a rational counter to my criticisms.
Neither of you and no one else I've encountered has provided any rational response.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-04 23:03:13 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Despite your combined claims, neither of you are able to explain
Einsteins Special Relativity in a rational manner.
And I’ll just point out that you are another in a loooong line of loons who
come here with the stance, “I don’t believe relativity, and it’s up to you
to convince me it’s correct by explaining in such a way that I understand
and believe it.”

This is the fool’s way to learn relativity — by trying to argue about it
and learn something as by-product of the argument.

You might do well to start by learning some physics first. This means
reading textbooks in physics. If you don’t want to do that, then you’re
going to be arguing from a position of ignorance (which has nothing to do
with intelligence).
Post by everything isalllies
I can easily point out exactly where and when you make errors. There is
zero possibility the Special Relativity is correct in any way.
So who is the problem here?
I make statement about SR, and you two simply side step, never actually
overcoming my criticism of SR.
Rather than directly addressing my claims, you both simply claim i am uneducated.
This is not the scientific approach at all. You are not the sole guardian
of all knowledge, nope, you need to be able to defend successfully every claim you make.
Horseshit. No scientist owes it to ANYONE to explain it in a way that
convinces him. If you think this is what science is about, you’ve really
got no idea what science is.

Learn what relativity says FIRST. Not what you THINK it says. What it
REALLY says.
Post by everything isalllies
If Einstein is correct with Special relativity, you must be able to
provide a rational counter to my criticisms.
Neither of you and no one else I've encountered has provided any rational response.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2022-01-04 23:04:34 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Despite your combined claims, neither of you are able to explain Einsteins Special Relativity in a rational manner.
I can easily point out exactly where and when you make errors. There is zero possibility the Special Relativity is correct in any way.
So who is the problem here?
I make statement about SR, and you two simply side step, never actually overcoming my criticism of SR.
Rather than directly addressing my claims, you both simply claim i am uneducated.
This is not the scientific approach at all. You are not the sole guardian of all knowledge, nope, you need to be able to defend successfully every claim you make. If Einstein is correct with Special relativity, you must be able to provide a rational counter to my criticisms.
Neither of you and no one else I've encountered has provided any rational response.
You didn't provide anything more than "SR is wrong because I say so".
There is not much to answer to that.

You still don't know where you are, and your wish to be able to "reply
to author" is asinine. This is a public forum (again, it's Usenet,
Google Groups is only a gateway to it). "Reply to author" would send
a e-mail (private) to the author: 1st it wouldn't work most of the time
as people are not much providing a valid e-mail address and 2nd it
would be an ABUSE.

You are confusing being able to identify who's wrote what in a message,
which basically need a minimally functioning brain (even if Google
Groups presentation is not that good) with the ability to send an e-mail
which would definitely be an abuse and a spam.

You don't know, also, WHERE you are. This newsgroup has been created
DECADES ago to manage the herd of anti-relativist cranks who where
infesting sci.physics. You are definitely not the first crank to
post here even if you are especially low on arguments compared to your
fellow demented kooks.

archive or the most laughable idiocies your fellow cranks have been
posting here in a small number of years:

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

...keeping in mind that this only represents 0.000001% of how people of
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 06:27:38 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
I’m expressing the opinion of physicists.
No, poor trash, you mostly imagine. Still, of course, their opinion
is mostly worthless, samely as yours.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 06:35:05 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Uninformed opinion doesn't matter, poor halfbrain
So your uninformed opinion beats my uninformed opinion? How so?
I’m expressing the opinion of physicists. They are more informed than you.
You have not read physics textbooks, as far as I can tell. I’ve read 90 and
have 30 more in my library I’ll be getting to.
EDUCATION on the subject. If you are talking about a subject you know
nothing about, how much intelligence you have is irrelevant. You’re still
operating from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is fixable, if you choose
to do it. Stupidity is not fixable. Right now, you’re aiming for both.
Post by everything isalllies
I see no application of that enormous brain that you claim to possess,
compared to my half brain.
Where's the rational detailed arguments of your opinions?
I was expecting at least a half hearted rebuttal of my statements but not
just this flipping off attitude based on nothing at all.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Its hard to respond as I am unable to "reply to author".
Modern Science has no solution for this problem.
I dont care who you like to use with regard to info on Physics.
I also can read as well as you can.
I also have read most likely the papers from the same "experts" that you have.
The only difference between you and I, is that I don't agree with those authors.
Not agreeing with a conclusion is not equivalent to lacking in knowledge on a subject.
So first i'm not ignorant of the claims of modern Physicists.
Next, I don't disagree with all of them.
Further, as i do possess the ability to present arguments and counter
arguments to the claims of those Physicists that I disagree with, then I
can't be that stupid.
which also includes, by the
way, the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that leads them to believe that it’s
correct
No, poor halfbrain, it only includes some moronic interpretations
sitting on others moronic interpretations sitting on some moronic
postulates.
You on the other hand are not interested in the evidence
By calling a pile of bullshit "evidence" in your moronic jargon
you're not getting evidence, poor halfbrain.
everything isalllies
2022-01-04 22:28:09 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
demonstrated in real life. Particles that have a known lifetime before
decaying at rest, do not decay at the same time when they are moving. Now
you can splutter that there are alternate explanations for why that
happens, but the reality is that HOW MUCH the decay time is lengthened is
completely in line with what relativity says it should be. There is no
alternative explanation that gets the HOW MUCH right. If you think you have
an alternative, go for it.
These claims are based on dubious results from "particle accelerators" which themselves have been questioned as to whats actually being observed in the first place. Something is going on, but its all about the interpretation that matters. And all interpretation is a subjective thing. The whole notion that its "Particles all the way down" that Atoms are made of smaller particles, which are in turn made of even smaller particles is pure conjecture, speculation by believers of a certain model. Its not even possible to demonstrate the actual existence of a simple Electron, let alone a Quark. All you get in the end is the assumption that your observation indicates that you have seen the effects of an electron. Not actually isolated and measured an Electron. Measurements you make all rely on prior assumptions and their math equations based on even more assumptions, and some claimed universal constants such as Planck length, ( a mathematically calculated constant, not a measured constant) Cavendish's improbable Gravitation Constant measure, and more.
You "getting it right" statement only means that they have set up their house of cards so that each card leans on the previous one and some other neighbour. But the whole structure can be flawed yet still seem ok because they process of checking the next card, relies on comparing to the cards you already believe in. But there is no way to step outside this construct, and take a critical look from any other standpoint. You MUST stay inside your house of cards for the next card to make sense.
Post by Odd Bodkin
I also completely disagree that E=mc^2 has not been actually demonstrated
in real life. When a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a
neutrino, you can measure the speed and kinetic energies of all the
products. Because energy has been known to be conserved since the 1700s
(this is certainly not an Einstein thing), it had to come from someplace.
The MEASURED sum of the energy exactly matches the amount you get by
looking at the mass difference between the parent and children particles in
that reaction, multiplied by c^2. Again, it’s not just the qualitative
verification, but the QUANTITATIVE one that is compelling.
More "house of cards" results here. Based on prior assumptions.
You are talking about IMAGINED particles, as none have actually been observed directly, they are ALL the results of mathematical calculation. And that requires an equation, and equations are not necessarily formulated to mimic reality. You claim that a molecule is made from Atoms, and atoms made of protons, etc, that their energies all add up to their Mass times the speed of light squared..... and most suggest that its been demonstrated in Atomic decay process, the Atom Bomb example where the tiny Mass releases enormous energy....
but I say if you are correct that Energy is Mass times light speed squared, then there is no difference between the Energy in One Kilogram of enriched Plutonium, and the Energy in one kilo Mas of Duck Feathers.
Am I correct? Einsteins equation does not state that we only get to use Enriched Plutonium, the equation only stipulates MASS. So according to Einstein, one kilo of duck feathers in a bomb will give exactly the same results as one kilo of plutonium. Right? Whats that? the feathers do have the same energy potential, but we cant get it out? Surely we should be trying, as it would be great and cheaper to run power plants on duck feathers or common MUD or dog shit, rather than expensive and rare Uranium .....
Post by Odd Bodkin
As for the existence of photons, you may be interested to know that you can
buy devices called single-photon counters. They perform exactly as
advertised, which is more than what you could say if you purchased a
single-unicorn counter or a single-alien-in-a-UFO counter.
What makes you believe that they are counting PARTICLES?
You really think that a light sensitive chemical surface made from MOLECULES of various light sensitive substances, (thus being enormous compared to the claimed size of a photon- comparable to a single drop of water in the entire ocean...) is going to be able to react to a single photon, like a single drop of red die would turn the whole ocean red? Nope, why not consider that you never fired any "particle photon" in the first place, instead you fired a succession of short pulses of light energy, and gradually one of those globs of molecular light sensitive material reacted, a bit before its neighbour. In photography its common knowledge that each grain of the film has a different response rate, so some are exposed before the others. You observe one grain react, and claim its due to a single Photon striking it. This is irrational when you consider the claimed Photon size, compared to the size of the exposed spot.
So in the "Photon multiplier" you are probable not observing anything particle like, but observing the gradual accumulation of energy from wave pulses. The fact that the Photomultiplier is powered by external energy is also not good. The value of this equipment is in comparison, not definitive.
Post by Odd Bodkin
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2022-01-04 23:08:29 UTC
You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.
Let me guess... You're a Electrical Engineer, right? Or maybe an
"information engineer"?
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 00:33:48 UTC
Relativity is not controversial among physicists.
What matters in physics is
what the experimental evidence says. Period, end of story.
If you don’t buy into that, then science is not really your bag.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ok I need to correct you again.

1. How many Physicists are required to disagree with Relativity before its possible that they are right and the majority are wrong? Answer, 1. Even Einstein was once the only one who believed in relativity thus the majority was wrong. And there are more than one Physicist that doesn't agree with relativity.

2. Nope, what matters most in science is having a rational hypothesis.
Other wise you would be willing to research any and every irrational claim of anyone even from a lunatic asylum. The first thing Peer review does is decide if the submitted paper makes rational sense, and contains logical arguments. THEN someone may want o go try things in the lab. Who would be stupid enough to conduct experiments to test obviously irrational claims?

And finally to prove that its "all about the experiment" is a wrong approach to knowledge, its universally accepter fact that one can NEVER PROVE that a hypothesis is correct with an experiment. This is because all experiments and observations are necessarily INTERPRETED as to the meaning by men with subjective bias.

But you can prove that a claim is wrong with a single experiment.

As Einsteins SR theory involves Light speed, and that's never been measured in a one way experiment, then his claim that its "always measured at c regardless of the motion of the observer" is just a wild guess.

Its even irrational for Einstein to make that claim.

No experiment can prove it but likewise its not possible to dis prove it either by experiment.

All we have as scientists is the ability to be critical of Einsteins hypothesis, and if it proves to be irrational or contains logic errors then its nonsense. This is my position.

But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Python
2022-01-05 01:22:11 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Relativity is not controversial among physicists.
What matters in physics is
what the experimental evidence says. Period, end of story.
If you don’t buy into that, then science is not really your bag.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ok I need to correct you again.
1. How many Physicists are required to disagree with Relativity before its possible that they are right and the majority are wrong? Answer, 1. Even Einstein was once the only one who believed in relativity thus the majority was wrong. And there are more than one Physicist that doesn't agree with
This is not how science works. It is about understanding what a given
theory is (and you clearly don't understand neither classical physics
nor Relativity) and it is about experimental confirmation (that you
don't understand either).
Post by everything isalllies
[snip repeated dementia]
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Expose one, or shut up.
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 01:40:54 UTC
Post by Python
This is not how science works. It is about understanding what a given
theory is (and you clearly don't understand neither classical physics
nor Relativity) and it is about experimental confirmation (that you
don't understand either).
Python, You are still using ad hominem attacks instead of correcting my errors you say exist.
You repeat that I fail to understand, (insinuating that I m not intelligent enough) when all you really need to do is address my errors as you see them.
I can just as easily say that it's you who fail to comprehend the intricacies of the myriad of errors of Einstein, because your brain is just not sufficiently evolved.
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Expose one, or shut up.
Here's one error in SRT.

Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
Its a claim that is exactly counter to the "Laws of the Physics that hold good" which Einstein in the very same paper, also wants to embrace.

Its a claim that all Relativity hangs on, you at no point does Einsteins or any Physicist since ever attempted to describe how this might work as a process in Physics.

Don't bother replying with any subsequent experiment to "prove" this.

Please confine your comments to the subject matter described in Einsteins hypothesis which is what we are criticising. Either the paper is sufficient to support the hypothesis or its not.
Python
2022-01-05 01:52:17 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
This is not how science works. It is about understanding what a given
theory is (and you clearly don't understand neither classical physics
nor Relativity) and it is about experimental confirmation (that you
don't understand either).
Python, You are still using ad hominem attacks instead of correcting my errors you say exist.
You repeat that I fail to understand, (insinuating that I m not intelligent enough) when all you really need to do is address my errors as you see them.
I can just as easily say that it's you who fail to comprehend the intricacies of the myriad of errors of Einstein, because your brain is just not sufficiently evolved.
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Expose one, or shut up.
Here's one error in SRT.
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
Its a claim that is exactly counter to the "Laws of the Physics that hold good" which Einstein in the very same paper, also wants to embrace.
1st.

Einstein wrote something quite more precise than your "Laws of the
Physics that hold good" (which is meaningless as long as you don't
specify what are these "laws") he wrote that a "co-ordinate system" (a
frame of reference is a system "in which the Newtonian equations hold"

2nd.

You have nothing but your disagreement against:

"Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the
relative speed of the one measuring"

Moreover it's not even a postulate in Einstein article (only
round trip time is assumed - in accordance with experiments)
it is a consequence of the synchronization convention. But
Post by everything isalllies
[snip nonsense]
Errors: YOU: 1 / EINSTEIN: 0

Again, you're not even surprising as a crank, we've seen dozens of

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

you crazy cranks are boring.
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 02:26:02 UTC
Post by Python
1st.
Einstein wrote something quite more precise than your "Laws of the
Physics that hold good" (which is meaningless as long as you don't
specify what are these "laws") he wrote that a "co-ordinate system" (a
frame of reference is a system "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
<
Ok so he wrote that "the laws of Kinematics of moving bodies in inertial frames hold good... so how does that change my statement? Its a moot point. Clearly you are grasping at straws to try to dance around the problems I outline. So as he admitted that those laws of physics in inertial frames hold good, how is it that he later concluded that the very same laws (which provide terms of c+v and c-v ) were now wrong? He even used c+v and c-v in his maths derivations.
Post by Python
2nd.
"Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the
relative speed of the one measuring"
Moreover it's not even a postulate in Einstein article (only
round trip time is assumed - in accordance with experiments)
it is a consequence of the synchronization convention. But
Don't make out that I ONLY have a disagreement about the measurement of light speed as if this is no big deal.
Its never been explained how Einsteins version can accommodate the measuring of a finitely moving object from another finitely moving object under different conditions but always magically arriving at the very same result.
This is as big a deal as is possible, a situation where a paper claiming to be sufficient to overthrow Newton and Galileo but cant even explain its how its own primary postulate could be considered as rational.

Einsteins only statement is "that's how it is, deal with it." To which others reply, "That's NOT how it is at all, you are irrational, you need to be in a mental institution."

But Python, you are way to moronic to figure this material out, your tiny intellect cant cope with even simple logic. All you can do is learn by rote, like a parrot.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 14:33:45 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
1st.
Einstein wrote something quite more precise than your "Laws of the
Physics that hold good" (which is meaningless as long as you don't
specify what are these "laws") he wrote that a "co-ordinate system" (a
frame of reference is a system "in which the Newtonian equations hold"
<
Ok so he wrote that "the laws of Kinematics of moving bodies in inertial
frames hold good... so how does that change my statement? Its a moot
point. Clearly you are grasping at straws to try to dance around the
problems I outline. So as he admitted that those laws of physics in
inertial frames hold good, how is it that he later concluded that the
very same laws (which provide terms of c+v and c-v ) were now wrong? He
even used c+v and c-v in his maths derivations.
Post by Python
2nd.
"Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the
relative speed of the one measuring"
Moreover it's not even a postulate in Einstein article (only
round trip time is assumed - in accordance with experiments)
it is a consequence of the synchronization convention. But
Don't make out that I ONLY have a disagreement about the measurement of
light speed as if this is no big deal.
Its never been explained how Einsteins version can accommodate the
measuring of a finitely moving object from another finitely moving object
under different conditions but always magically arriving at the very same result.
Of COURSE it’s been explained.

You are asking, how is it possible that a law of composition of velocities
can produce the result that the composed velocity changes with reference
frame for objects traveling smaller than c, but also produce the result
that the composed velocity does NOT change width reference frame for
anything traveling at c.

The law of composition of velocities is v’ = (v+u)/(1+uv), where v and v’
are the velocities of the object in two different frames, u is the velocity
of one frame relative to the other, and all velocities are expressed as a
fraction of the speed of light.

Now put in some numbers. Choose any v and u that are smaller than 1. Then
v’ will always be different than v. Fine, that shows that speeds of objects
traveling slower than c are frame-dependent.
But put in 1 for v and any value for u, and you find that v’ is also 1. The
SAME law for composition of velocities predicts different outcomes for the
two cases. There’s no inconsistency at all.

Now, you might splutter, “But why is the law that way? Why isn’t it just
v’=v+u, like it was for Galileo?” And the answer is, because EXPERIMENTAL
MEASUREMENT with sufficient precision to actually MEASURE v’, v, and u well
enough to tell the difference between these two predictions says that it’s
not v’=v+u, but is v’=(v+u)/(1+uv) instead. It’s been resolved by direct
measurement for LOTS of cases of v, u, and v’.
Post by everything isalllies
This is as big a deal as is possible, a situation where a paper claiming
to be sufficient to overthrow Newton and Galileo but cant even explain
its how its own primary postulate could be considered as rational.
Einsteins only statement is "that's how it is, deal with it." To which
others reply, "That's NOT how it is at all, you are irrational, you need
to be in a mental institution."
But Python, you are way to moronic to figure this material out, your tiny
intellect cant cope with even simple logic. All you can do is learn by rote, like a parrot.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2022-01-05 04:04:00 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Expose one, or shut up.
Here's one error in SRT.
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
It wasn't unjustified, and it wasn't Einstein's idea.

Physicists of the time knew that light was always measured at the same
constant speed before Einstein came along. They just didn't know why.
Many of them kept tweaking the ether theories to "explain" it.

What Einstein did was to take this mystery and make it into a postulate.
Assume it's simply a fact, as every attempt to measure it seems to
indicate. Even if we don't know why.
Post by everything isalllies
Its a claim that all Relativity hangs on, you at no point does Einsteins or any Physicist since ever attempted to describe how this might work as a process in Physics.
Physicists already knew it was true, they just didn't know why.

The best way to look at the 1905 paper is "IF the speed of light is
constant, and if the laws of physics are the same everywhere, then <lots
of math and explanation>, therefore SR.
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 04:28:31 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
It wasn't unjustified, and it wasn't Einstein's idea.
Physicists of the time knew that light was always measured at the same
constant speed before Einstein came along. They just didn't know why.
Many of them kept tweaking the ether theories to "explain" it.
This is a false claim.
Physicists KNEW no such thing. Some may have believed it, others certainly KNEW that light must be measured as c = or - v IF light velocity was finite.
This was one big reason why many physicists and Mathematicians in Einsteins day rejected Einsteins proposals.

There is NO WAY to justify the idea that light would still me measured as still c irrespective of the velocity of the measuring guy.
No WAY.
Unless you can provide a reason why this could be the case.

No one has ever though how it could work. Its one of those PARADOXES that still have not been solved like the twin paradox, many propose solutions all at odds with the next, and none actually overcome the paradox.

Tweaking your theory, is never going to supply a rationale for light being always measured by any moving observer still at the same velocity, The notion is the perfect example of nonsensical gibberish.
Einsteins hypothesis doesn't not event try to explain it either. Tweaking a math equation with a fudge factor so that you always get the original result proportionally to the other variable is not explaining how this could happen in Physics, its only fiddling with math, using a fudge factor whose reason for inclusion cant be rationally explained. You can make math results anything you want, using these fudge factors. But please explain where you got the fudge factor from.... and Einsteins fudge of (Lorentz ) gamma, can't be rationally justified.

Not in Einsteins 1905 paper, and not By Sean Carrol or Kip Thorn or Feynman or anyone.
Michael Moroney
2022-01-05 06:05:43 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
It wasn't unjustified, and it wasn't Einstein's idea.
Physicists of the time knew that light was always measured at the same
constant speed before Einstein came along. They just didn't know why.
Many of them kept tweaking the ether theories to "explain" it.
This is a false claim.
Notice that I said physicists MEASURED the speed of light to be always
constant. Remember, reproducible experimental data conflicting with a
theory means the theory is wrong, not the data. Look up what Feynman had
to say on that.

Also if you _insist_ that reproducible scientific observations and
experimental results of a constant speed of light is *still* wrong, that
may mean that you are delusional. I hate to break the news, but
delusions (including denying reality) are a symptom of mental illnesses.
If you experience delusions, you need to consult with a mental health
expert asap.
Post by everything isalllies
Physicists KNEW no such thing.
They always measured a constant speed of light. They certainly knew of
their measurements.
Post by everything isalllies
Some may have believed it,
Believed what? The speed of light was constant or that all measurements
indicated the speed of light was constant? Physicists knew the speed of
light was always measured to be a constant.
Post by everything isalllies
others certainly KNEW that light must be measured as c = or - v IF light velocity was finite.
No, they knew that light "should" act that way if existing theory was
correct. As I said, many tried tweaking the then-popular ether theories
to account for a constant speed of light with no luck.
Post by everything isalllies
This was one big reason why many physicists and Mathematicians in Einsteins day rejected Einsteins proposals.
More like they simply couldn't believe it. Remember, the 1905 SR paper
did get published in the most respected physics journal of the time. I'm
certain the paper got examined under a microscope 100 times more closely
than other papers, certainly the feeling was 'it just HAS to be wrong!'
because it was so different than anything else. But nothing was found
wrong so it was published. And after publication, so many other
physicists must have felt 'it just HAS to be wrong!' as well, at least
at first. Many attempted experiments to disprove SR but none succeeded.
The Sagnac Effect was discovered by an attempt to disprove SR, but
instead the experiment validated SR via the Sagnac Effect.
Post by everything isalllies
There is NO WAY to justify the idea that light would still me measured as still c irrespective of the velocity of the measuring guy.
No WAY.
Except non-delusional people knew they couldn't argue with actual
observations and experimental data. The problem shifted to "WHY is this
so?" Nobody knew.
Post by everything isalllies
Unless you can provide a reason why this could be the case.
If reproducible experimental results conflict with a theory/belief, it
is the theory/belief which is wrong, not the results.
Post by everything isalllies
No one has ever though how it could work.
They tried changing the ether theories to explain it, but could not.

Einstein took a different path. Instead of tweaking the ether theories,
just assume/postulate that a constant speed of light was some unknown
law of nature, a fact, thus a postulate, and let's see what happens when
one goes through all the math. The result was the 1905 SR paper.

But remember, the idea of a constant speed of light was NOT Einstein's
idea, even if the popular press glorifying him frequently claims it was.
It was a puzzling experimental result.
Post by everything isalllies
Its one of those PARADOXES that still have not been solved like the twin paradox,
No, those so-called "paradoxes" were created as teaching examples, to
show how relativity predicts things that seem VERY counterintuitive. So
far there have been no actual paradoxes found in SR.
Post by everything isalllies
many propose solutions all at odds with the next, and none actually overcome the paradox.
Nope. The single solution to the twin "paradox" is well known, and has
been verified.

<snip remaining wrongness>
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 14:49:42 UTC
I deleted all the nonsesne i dont care to bother with just now...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Its one of those PARADOXES that still have not been solved like the twin paradox,
No, those so-called "paradoxes" were created as teaching examples, to
show how relativity predicts things that seem VERY counterintuitive. So
far there have been no actual paradoxes found in SR.
Post by everything isalllies
many propose solutions all at odds with the next, and none actually overcome the paradox.
Nope. The single solution to the twin "paradox" is well known, and has
been verified.
<snip remaining wrongness>
Ok, sorry but you are wrong still.
The paradoxes were never INVENTED as teaching tools at all. The were
submitted by people who thought Einsteins ideas were nonsense, and they
tried to explain this by pointing out the contradictions, with
hypothetical scenarios, otherwise called unsolvable paradoxes.
No, in this you are flat wrong. The ones produced by physicists were ALL
devised to illustrate pitfalls that the casual reader of relativity might
suffer, with the main intent to illustrate the nuances and correct
understanding of the theory.

You have your history completely wrong on this.
And you are totally wrong to claim that any have been "solved".
There are many attempts to dismiss the twin paradox for example, but its still unsolved.
So out of the multitude of totally conflicting proposed solution for the
twins, which one in particular did you imagine has solved this issue? Do tell.
Sure you can spin a story that might sound on superficial hearing to
explain away the twin paradox, but if you care to dig in a bit it will
fail as all other efforts have.
Any meanwhile you still refuse to actually review Einsteins paper,
looking for possible errors, because you don't really care.
Is there anyone here that is really interested in scientific knowledge
and Physics? Because you certainly are not, as a god, you are only
interested in maintaining your position of power over the minds of others with your BS.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2022-01-05 16:33:49 UTC
I deleted all the nonsesne i dont care to bother with just now...
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Its one of those PARADOXES that still have not been solved like the twin paradox,
No, those so-called "paradoxes" were created as teaching examples, to
show how relativity predicts things that seem VERY counterintuitive. So
far there have been no actual paradoxes found in SR.
Post by everything isalllies
many propose solutions all at odds with the next, and none actually overcome the paradox.
Nope. The single solution to the twin "paradox" is well known, and has
been verified.
<snip remaining wrongness>
Ok, sorry but you are wrong still.
The paradoxes were never INVENTED as teaching tools at all. The were submitted by people who thought Einsteins ideas were nonsense, and they tried to explain this by pointing out the contradictions, with hypothetical scenarios, otherwise called unsolvable paradoxes.
Nope. Some were created as teaching tools by other physicists. Some
were created by Einstein himself for some work to try to explain
relativity to common people, not just scientists.
And you are totally wrong to claim that any have been "solved".
They ALL have been solved, as they were created to explain situations
that appear to be contradictory at first, but when you do the SR
equations, aren't.
There are many attempts to dismiss the twin paradox for example, but its still unsolved.
It is NOT "unsolved", it is regularly demonstrated by muon storage
rings and the "SR" (velocity) component of the GPS satellites.*
So out of the multitude of totally conflicting proposed solution for the twins, which one in particular did you imagine has solved this issue? Do tell.
The one predicted by SR, which doesn't conflict with anything other than
the common (Newtonian) built-in expectation people have that time
passage is the same for everyone.
Sure you can spin a story that might sound on superficial hearing to explain away the twin paradox, but if you care to dig in a bit it will fail as all other efforts have.
Demonstrate the failure of the twin "paradox".
Any meanwhile you still refuse to actually review Einsteins paper, looking for possible errors, because you don't really care.
Hahaha!!! There is another poster here who claims to have found three
hundred and eleventy twelve or so flaws in the 1905 SR paper. I, and
many others here, have looked at some of the claimed "flaws" and so far,
ALL of them are either not erroneous or misunderstandings by the poster
himself. That paper has been picked over by thousands and thousands of
both physicists and cranks alike for over 100 years, and no flaws have
been found beyond a few typos, plus a statement about clock rates at the
equator vs. the poles which was wrong because Einstein did not know
about GR (yet!) and nobody knew at the time that the earth was an
ellipsoid not a sphere.
Is there anyone here that is really interested in scientific knowledge and Physics?
There are, but there are plenty of cranks who insist SR is wrong, just
because. I am mostly here for amusement, watching cranks make total
fools of themselves.
Because you certainly are not, as a god, you are only interested in maintaining your position of power over the minds of others with your BS.
You think I am a god? Why do you think that, but thanks for the compliment!

(*) be careful. While the GPS situation strictly requires a GR analysis,
an excellent approximation of the situation is to take the gravitational
effect on a (stationary) object at the GPS orbit altitude and add it to
the SR effect on a gravity-free object moving at the GPS orbital speed.
The SR effect reduces to a traveling twin situation where the twin
leaves and returns once per orbit. This gives +45 uS/day
(gravitational) -7 uS/day (motion) = +38 uS/day total.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 14:33:46 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be
measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
It wasn't unjustified, and it wasn't Einstein's idea.
Physicists of the time knew that light was always measured at the same
constant speed before Einstein came along. They just didn't know why.
Many of them kept tweaking the ether theories to "explain" it.
This is a false claim.
Physicists KNEW no such thing. Some may have believed it, others
certainly KNEW that light must be measured as c = or - v IF light velocity was finite.
This was one big reason why many physicists and Mathematicians in
Einsteins day rejected Einsteins proposals.
There is NO WAY to justify the idea that light would still me measured as
still c irrespective of the velocity of the measuring guy.
No WAY.
Unless you can provide a reason why this could be the case.
No one has ever though how it could work. Its one of those PARADOXES that
still have not been solved like the twin paradox, many propose solutions
all at odds with the next, and none actually overcome the paradox.
No sir. A paradox is when a single theory makes two statements that are

A paradox is NOT when a single theory makes a claim that is counter to a
preceding theory.

There is no paradox in relativity.

There may be an open question in your head, “But how do they arrive at this
statement deductively from what was believed before?” The answer is, THEY
DON’T. But then on the other hand, that is not required or expected.

Science does not build by expanding deductively from prior understandings.
Maybe that’s the first thing you have to embrace.
Post by everything isalllies
Tweaking your theory, is never going to supply a rationale for light
being always measured by any moving observer still at the same velocity,
The notion is the perfect example of nonsensical gibberish.
Einsteins hypothesis doesn't not event try to explain it either.
Tweaking a math equation with a fudge factor so that you always get the
original result proportionally to the other variable is not explaining
how this could happen in Physics, its only fiddling with math, using a
fudge factor whose reason for inclusion cant be rationally explained. You
can make math results anything you want, using these fudge factors. But
please explain where you got the fudge factor from.... and Einsteins
fudge of (Lorentz ) gamma, can't be rationally justified.
Not in Einsteins 1905 paper, and not By Sean Carrol or Kip Thorn or Feynman or anyone.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 06:41:44 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Expose one, or shut up.
Here's one error in SRT.
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
It wasn't unjustified, and it wasn't Einstein's idea.
Physicists of the time knew that light was always measured at the same
constant speed before Einstein came along.
Only such an idiot as you can believe such an impudent lie.
Even your idiot guru, BTW, was not able to insist on this
nonsense for a long time and his GR shit has rejected it.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 14:18:41 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
This is not how science works. It is about understanding what a given
theory is (and you clearly don't understand neither classical physics
nor Relativity) and it is about experimental confirmation (that you
don't understand either).
Python, You are still using ad hominem attacks instead of correcting my
errors you say exist.
You repeat that I fail to understand, (insinuating that I m not
intelligent enough) when all you really need to do is address my errors as you see them.
I can just as easily say that it's you who fail to comprehend the
intricacies of the myriad of errors of Einstein, because your brain is
just not sufficiently evolved.
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Expose one, or shut up.
Here's one error in SRT.
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be
measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
Its a claim that is exactly counter to the "Laws of the Physics that hold
good" which Einstein in the very same paper, also wants to embrace.
Well, first of all, you did not cite either of these things well at all.

But secondly, explain please how the constancy of light speed regardless of
the reference frame is INCONSISTENT with the invariance of the laws of
physics with reference frame. Where is the inconsistency?

Failing to explain to you how it works is not an inconsistency. You having
open questions about something you don’t understand is not an
inconsistency. Where is the CONTRADICTION between the two statements, as
you claim there is one?
Post by everything isalllies
Its a claim that all Relativity hangs on, you at no point does Einsteins
or any Physicist since ever attempted to describe how this might work as
a process in Physics.
Don't bother replying with any subsequent experiment to "prove" this.
hypothesis which is what we are criticising. Either the paper is
sufficient to support the hypothesis or its not.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Paparios
2022-01-05 15:02:15 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
Expose one, or shut up.
Here's one error in SRT.
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
Its a claim that is exactly counter to the "Laws of the Physics that hold good" which Einstein in the very same paper, also wants to embrace.
What Einstein introduced in his 1905 paper is a physics model. A physics model is just a set of human thoughts, which try to find how Nature works. But, due to our human limitations, we really do not know how and why Nature does what it does and our only response to those limitations is to build models (Galileo, Newton, SR, GR, Quantum Mechanics, QED, etc.).

Einstein's model is built based in two principles (also called postulates) which do not need to be demonstrated:

1) The principle of relativity: The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2) The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light: Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Post by everything isalllies
Its a claim that all Relativity hangs on, you at no point does Einsteins or any Physicist since ever attempted to describe how this might work as a process in Physics.
Building in those two principles, the physical consequences are shown in the 1905 paper. This model is only valid in its domain of applicability, which are those situations where movements are at constant speeds and no accelerations are present.
Post by everything isalllies
Don't bother replying with any subsequent experiment to "prove" this.
Please confine your comments to the subject matter described in Einsteins hypothesis which is what we are criticising. Either the paper is sufficient to support the hypothesis or its not.
Well, any physics model make predictions of what would be observed if an experiment is performed. If the experiment results do not verify the predictions of the model, then the model is falsified and corrections (ie a new model) should be applied.

Einstein 1905 paper (and the E=mc^2 paper) were mostly ignored by the scientific community, until around 1915. For over 100 years now, SR has been tested and verified in thousands of experiments.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 15:16:43 UTC
Post by Paparios
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
Expose one, or shut up.
Here's one error in SRT.
Einsteins unjustified postulate that Light speed can possibly always be measured at c regardless of the relative speed of the one measuring.
Its a claim that is exactly counter to the "Laws of the Physics that hold good" which Einstein in the very same paper, also wants to embrace.
What Einstein introduced in his 1905 paper is a physics model. A physics model is just a set of human thoughts, which try to find how Nature works.
A pity that it doesn't work. If you weren't too dumb for
a simple dictionary you would notice it yourself.
patdolan
2022-01-05 10:09:52 UTC
<snip irrelevant babble>
And finally to prove that its "all about the experiment" is a wrong approach to knowledge, its universally accepter fact that one can NEVER PROVE that a hypothesis is correct with an experiment. This is because all experiments and observations are necessarily INTERPRETED as to the meaning by men with subjective bias.
Physics is all about experimental evidence.
j
But you can prove that a claim is wrong with a single experiment.
Exactly.
The only way to falsify a theory of physics is to show
that the predictions of the theory not are in accordance
with the measurements in an experiment.
That's why physics is all about experimental evidence.
As Einsteins SR theory involves Light speed, and that's never been measured in a one way experiment, then his claim that its "always measured at c regardless of the motion of the observer" is just a wild guess.
Its even irrational for Einstein to make that claim.
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Free of self-contradictions, Paul? Solve for v in the Lorentz transforms.
That you find it 'irrational' is irrelevant.
No experiment can prove it but likewise its not possible to dis prove it either by experiment.
That's where you are very wrong.
If it isn't possible to prove a theory wrong,
then the theory is no valid theory of physics.
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR. Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated by SR, rendering Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Calculate what the theory predicts will be measured in an experiment.
Perform the experiment.
If the predictions of the theory are in accordance with
the measurements, then the theory is not falsified.
If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
the theory is falsified.
Here are a few of the many experiments that test the invariance
of the speed of light. Note that all the experiments had the potential
to falsify SR. But in all cases, the predictions were in accordance
with the measurements, so they didn't.
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
SR and GR are tested by innumerable experiments,
and no experiment has falsified them.
SR and GR are the only theories, within their respective
domains, which are not falsified.
(Not counting equivalent theories.)
That make SR and GR the only valid theories within their domain.
All we have as scientists is the ability to be critical of Einsteins hypothesis, and if it proves to be irrational or contains logic errors then its nonsense. This is my position.
No physicist dispute the validity of SR.
But several cranks calling themself physicists or scientists do.
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Enumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 14:49:43 UTC
Post by patdolan
<snip irrelevant babble>
And finally to prove that its "all about the experiment" is a wrong
approach to knowledge, its universally accepter fact that one can NEVER
PROVE that a hypothesis is correct with an experiment. This is because
all experiments and observations are necessarily INTERPRETED as to the
meaning by men with subjective bias.
Physics is all about experimental evidence.
j
But you can prove that a claim is wrong with a single experiment.
Exactly.
The only way to falsify a theory of physics is to show
that the predictions of the theory not are in accordance
with the measurements in an experiment.
That's why physics is all about experimental evidence.
As Einsteins SR theory involves Light speed, and that's never been
measured in a one way experiment, then his claim that its "always
measured at c regardless of the motion of the observer" is just a wild guess.
Its even irrational for Einstein to make that claim.
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Free of self-contradictions, Paul? Solve for v in the Lorentz transforms.
You said you were going to do this, Pat. I invited you to go ahead and do
it, and you said you would, and you’ve produced nothing.

So do it, and then you can talk about the self-contradiction you see
lurking there.
Post by patdolan
That you find it 'irrational' is irrelevant.
No experiment can prove it but likewise its not possible to dis prove
it either by experiment.
That's where you are very wrong.
If it isn't possible to prove a theory wrong,
then the theory is no valid theory of physics.
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR. Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated
by SR, rendering Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Calculate what the theory predicts will be measured in an experiment.
Perform the experiment.
If the predictions of the theory are in accordance with
the measurements, then the theory is not falsified.
If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
the theory is falsified.
Here are a few of the many experiments that test the invariance
of the speed of light. Note that all the experiments had the potential
to falsify SR. But in all cases, the predictions were in accordance
with the measurements, so they didn't.
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
SR and GR are tested by innumerable experiments,
and no experiment has falsified them.
SR and GR are the only theories, within their respective
domains, which are not falsified.
(Not counting equivalent theories.)
That make SR and GR the only valid theories within their domain.
All we have as scientists is the ability to be critical of Einsteins
hypothesis, and if it proves to be irrational or contains logic errors
then its nonsense. This is my position.
No physicist dispute the validity of SR.
But several cranks calling themself physicists or scientists do.
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Enumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-05 17:54:43 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
<snip irrelevant babble>
And finally to prove that its "all about the experiment" is a wrong
approach to knowledge, its universally accepter fact that one can NEVER
PROVE that a hypothesis is correct with an experiment. This is because
all experiments and observations are necessarily INTERPRETED as to the
meaning by men with subjective bias.
Physics is all about experimental evidence.
j
But you can prove that a claim is wrong with a single experiment.
Exactly.
The only way to falsify a theory of physics is to show
that the predictions of the theory not are in accordance
with the measurements in an experiment.
That's why physics is all about experimental evidence.
As Einsteins SR theory involves Light speed, and that's never been
measured in a one way experiment, then his claim that its "always
measured at c regardless of the motion of the observer" is just a wild guess.
Its even irrational for Einstein to make that claim.
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Free of self-contradictions, Paul? Solve for v in the Lorentz transforms.
You said you were going to do this, Pat. I invited you to go ahead and do
it, and you said you would, and you’ve produced nothing.
So do it, and then you can talk about the self-contradiction you see
lurking there.
Do you want to be spoon fed, Bodkin? Since I am still in the holiday mood, I'll do it, I promise. Give me some time to find and polish up a spoon large enough for the great Bodkin. Better take out your dentures.
Post by Odd Bodkin
That you find it 'irrational' is irrelevant.
No experiment can prove it but likewise its not possible to dis prove
it either by experiment.
That's where you are very wrong.
If it isn't possible to prove a theory wrong,
then the theory is no valid theory of physics.
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR. Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated
by SR, rendering Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Calculate what the theory predicts will be measured in an experiment.
Perform the experiment.
If the predictions of the theory are in accordance with
the measurements, then the theory is not falsified.
If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
the theory is falsified.
Here are a few of the many experiments that test the invariance
of the speed of light. Note that all the experiments had the potential
to falsify SR. But in all cases, the predictions were in accordance
with the measurements, so they didn't.
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
SR and GR are tested by innumerable experiments,
and no experiment has falsified them.
SR and GR are the only theories, within their respective
domains, which are not falsified.
(Not counting equivalent theories.)
That make SR and GR the only valid theories within their domain.
All we have as scientists is the ability to be critical of Einsteins
hypothesis, and if it proves to be irrational or contains logic errors
then its nonsense. This is my position.
No physicist dispute the validity of SR.
But several cranks calling themself physicists or scientists do.
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look for possible errors.
Enumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-05 19:31:47 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
<snip irrelevant babble>
And finally to prove that its "all about the experiment" is a wrong
approach to knowledge, its universally accepter fact that one can NEVER
PROVE that a hypothesis is correct with an experiment. This is because
all experiments and observations are necessarily INTERPRETED as to the
meaning by men with subjective bias.
Physics is all about experimental evidence.
j
But you can prove that a claim is wrong with a single experiment.
Exactly.
The only way to falsify a theory of physics is to show
that the predictions of the theory not are in accordance
with the measurements in an experiment.
That's why physics is all about experimental evidence.
As Einsteins SR theory involves Light speed, and that's never been
measured in a one way experiment, then his claim that its "always
measured at c regardless of the motion of the observer" is just a wild guess.
Its even irrational for Einstein to make that claim.
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Free of self-contradictions, Paul? Solve for v in the Lorentz transforms.
You said you were going to do this, Pat. I invited you to go ahead and do
it, and you said you would, and you’ve produced nothing.
So do it, and then you can talk about the self-contradiction you see
lurking there.
Do you want to be spoon fed, Bodkin? Since I am still in the holiday
mood, I'll do it, I promise. Give me some time to find and polish up a
spoon large enough for the great Bodkin. Better take out your dentures.
Just a reminder of the history here, Pat. You didn’t know how to show that
the velocities of reference frames are symmetric, just from the Lorentz
transforms and algebra, and in fact you claimed it could not be done, and
it was a huge gap in the validation of relativity. So I showed you how to
do it, and it was easy, and you should have been ashamed of yourself.
So to deflect, you then said that real insight could be had by solving for
v in the Lorentz transforms, and I said go for it if YOU think there’s
something interesting there. Now you say that the insight would include
exposing an internal contradiction in the Lorentz transforms. So I’ve said
that since you are making all these broad claims over something you’ve not
demonstrated, it’s time for you to demonstrate it.
Bodkin, I happen to be a somewhat busy anti-relativist. Please give me some time or I swear, I will spoon feed you with a dirty spoon.

While you are waiting please have a slow read through that wonderful Wikipedia article on the Lorentz contraction velocity (section 10, at bottom of article):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Length_contraction&oldid=1021612808
So now you’re making vague promises about doing it sometime, but nothing
produced.
Post by Odd Bodkin
That you find it 'irrational' is irrelevant.
No experiment can prove it but likewise its not possible to dis prove
it either by experiment.
That's where you are very wrong.
If it isn't possible to prove a theory wrong,
then the theory is no valid theory of physics.
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR. Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated
by SR, rendering Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Calculate what the theory predicts will be measured in an experiment.
Perform the experiment.
If the predictions of the theory are in accordance with
the measurements, then the theory is not falsified.
If the predictions are not in accordance with the measurements,
the theory is falsified.
Here are a few of the many experiments that test the invariance
of the speed of light. Note that all the experiments had the potential
to falsify SR. But in all cases, the predictions were in accordance
with the measurements, so they didn't.
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
SR and GR are tested by innumerable experiments,
and no experiment has falsified them.
SR and GR are the only theories, within their respective
domains, which are not falsified.
(Not counting equivalent theories.)
That make SR and GR the only valid theories within their domain.
All we have as scientists is the ability to be critical of Einsteins
hypothesis, and if it proves to be irrational or contains logic errors
then its nonsense. This is my position.
No physicist dispute the validity of SR.
But several cranks calling themself physicists or scientists do.
But none of you guys want to examine Einstein's hypothesis to look
for possible errors.
Enumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Paul B. Andersen
2022-01-05 20:00:56 UTC
Post by patdolan
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Yes.

Innumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.

No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
Post by patdolan
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR.
Your ignorance shows. SR is valid only in flat space time.
(Or when the region of space time is so small that it can be
considered to be flat, like you can consider the water surface
in your bathtub to be flat even if it is part of a sphere.)

The General Theory of Relativity (GR) is the theory of gravitation.
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated by SR, rendering Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Experimental evidence falsifies Kepler's laws.
Kepler's laws follows from Newton's Law of Gravitation.
They are extremely good approximations in most cases, but
their predictions are slightly different from the predictions
of GR, and whenever the differences are measurable, GR has
proven to be correct.

For example, Kepler's laws predict that if a planet is
in elliptic orbit around a star in an otherwise empty universe,
then the direction of the major axis of the orbit will stay constant
for all eternity. GR predicts that the major axis will rotate.

This effect is observed for the planets in the solar system,
in accordance with the predictions of GR.

See:
and:
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
patdolan
2022-01-05 20:25:53 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by patdolan
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Yes.
Innumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
Post by patdolan
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR.
Your ignorance shows. SR is valid only in flat space time.
(Or when the region of space time is so small that it can be
considered to be flat, like you can consider the water surface
in your bathtub to be flat even if it is part of a sphere.)
The General Theory of Relativity (GR) is the theory of gravitation.
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated by SR, rendering Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Experimental evidence falsifies Kepler's laws.
Kepler's laws follows from Newton's Law of Gravitation.
They are extremely good approximations in most cases, but
their predictions are slightly different from the predictions
of GR, and whenever the differences are measurable, GR has
proven to be correct.
For example, Kepler's laws predict that if a planet is
in elliptic orbit around a star in an otherwise empty universe,
then the direction of the major axis of the orbit will stay constant
for all eternity. GR predicts that the major axis will rotate.
This effect is observed for the planets in the solar system,
in accordance with the predictions of GR.
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Paul, I am not aware of anyone who claims that GR rescues SR from invalidation by gravitation.

Let's consider a gross violation of the 1st postulate involving Kep's 3rd:

Kepler's third states unequivocally that for a given star-planet system with a given semi-major axis there can be at most one, unique orbital period which results in a stable orbit. Take the earth for instance. That orbital period is 365.25 days. Now consider an observer traveling at .867c relative to the solar system, along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. From this vantage point the earth's semi-major axis is undistorted by Lorentz contraction. So the semi-major axes are the same in both the frame of the solar system and the frame of the observer traveling at .867c. But the earth's orbital period is now 730.5 days due to relativistic time dilation. So we have found a second stable orbit in violation of Kepler's 1st. Actually there are an infinite number of stable orbits. The violation of Kepler's 3rd in turn violates Einstein's 1st.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-05 20:57:38 UTC
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third states unequivocally that for a given star-planet system with a
given semi-major axis there can be at most one, unique orbital period which
results in a stable orbit. Take the earth for instance. That orbital period is
365.25 days. Now consider an observer traveling at .867c relative to the solar
system, along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. From
this vantage point the earth's semi-major axis is undistorted by Lorentz
contraction. So the semi-major axes are the same in both the frame of the solar
system and the frame of the observer traveling at .867c. But the earth's orbital
period is now 730.5 days due to relativistic time dilation. So we have found a
second stable orbit in violation of Kepler's 1st. Actually there are an infinite
number of stable orbits. The violation of Kepler's 3rd in turn violates
Einstein's 1st.
J'ai rien compris.

R.H.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
2022-01-05 21:23:35 UTC
Kepler's third states unequivocally that for a given star-planet system with a given semi-major axis there can be at most one, unique orbital period which results in a stable orbit. Take the earth for instance. That orbital period is 365.25 days. Now consider an observer traveling at .867c relative to the solar system, along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. From this vantage point the earth's semi-major axis is undistorted by Lorentz contraction. So the semi-major axes are the same in both the frame of the solar system and the frame of the observer traveling at .867c. But the earth's orbital period is now 730.5 days due to relativistic time dilation. So we have found a second stable orbit in violation of Kepler's 1st. Actually there are an infinite number of stable orbits. The violation of Kepler's 3rd in turn violates Einstein's 1st.
(sigh)
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 21:38:00 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by patdolan
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Yes.
Innumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
Post by patdolan
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR.
Your ignorance shows. SR is valid only in flat space time.
(Or when the region of space time is so small that it can be
considered to be flat, like you can consider the water surface
in your bathtub to be flat even if it is part of a sphere.)
The General Theory of Relativity (GR) is the theory of gravitation.
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated by SR, rendering
Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Experimental evidence falsifies Kepler's laws.
Kepler's laws follows from Newton's Law of Gravitation.
They are extremely good approximations in most cases, but
their predictions are slightly different from the predictions
of GR, and whenever the differences are measurable, GR has
proven to be correct.
For example, Kepler's laws predict that if a planet is
in elliptic orbit around a star in an otherwise empty universe,
then the direction of the major axis of the orbit will stay constant
for all eternity. GR predicts that the major axis will rotate.
This effect is observed for the planets in the solar system,
in accordance with the predictions of GR.
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Paul, I am not aware of anyone who claims that GR rescues SR from
invalidation by gravitation.
Then you have read practically nothing. It’s already been pointed out that
shortly after Einstein published in 1905, he realized that Newtonian
gravity does not respect invariance with inertial frames. This is when two
things ensued: a) he renamed the 1905 relativity to be the special case,
and b) he started pursuing a theory of gravity that DID respect invariance
with inertial frames.
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third states unequivocally that for a given star-planet system
with a given semi-major axis there can be at most one, unique orbital
period which results in a stable orbit.
Indeed. And it was assumed in such a statement that time was absolute and
not mixed with space, as relativity mixes them. In fact, there were LOTS of
physical laws that made no distinction between frames in relative motion,
because it assumed that distances and durations would not vary between
inertial reference frame.

This was one of the reasons why these laws needed to be narrowed down to
the rest frame of the system, for example. This doesn’t break the law but
sets its scope.
Post by patdolan
Take the earth for instance. That orbital period is 365.25 days. Now
consider an observer traveling at .867c relative to the solar system,
along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. From
this vantage point the earth's semi-major axis is undistorted by Lorentz
contraction. So the semi-major axes are the same in both the frame of
the solar system and the frame of the observer traveling at .867c. But
the earth's orbital period is now 730.5 days due to relativistic time
dilation. So we have found a second stable orbit in violation of
Kepler's 1st. Actually there are an infinite number of stable orbits.
The violation of Kepler's 3rd in turn violates Einstein's 1st.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 22:08:07 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Then you have read practically nothing. It’s already been pointed out that
shortly after Einstein published in 1905, he realized that Newtonian
gravity does not respect invariance with inertial frames. This is when two
things ensued: a) he renamed the 1905 relativity to be the special case,
and b) he started pursuing a theory of gravity that DID respect invariance
with inertial frames.
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Interesting that it was recorded in this site, I cant recall by whom, that Einstein's STR with its strict restriction that its only applicable to Inertial frame conditions, has been TWEAKED by subsequent Mathematicians to INCLUDE NON INERTIAL motion. They just took the gamma Lorentz equations and included functions that allow calculations that accommodate acceleration, or gravity if you will.

Now these Einstein fan boys are never wrong, we all know that they are following in gods footsteps, so this is a perfectly true account.
STR DOES WORK in both accelerating frames and inertial frames with suitable additions to the equations.

So that being the case, why then did Einstein not figure this out if he was the ultimate Mathematician and Genius? Why not just do the obvious fix and make math adjustments to his equation to include acceleration?

But an even more revealing question is: Now that STR now can cover ALL MOTIONS, not specifically and exclusively inertial motion, then we absolutely do not need any General Theory of Relativity do we?

Especially when you realise that the two theories don't supply the same predictions, the two theories are mutually incompatible. If one is true, the other can not possibly be.

I really wish you Einstein fans would just make up your minds and stick to a single dogma, because you are able to duck and dodge criticisms like like Neo dodges bullets in the Matrix.
rotchm
2022-01-05 23:03:58 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Interesting that it was recorded in this site, I cant recall by whom, that Einstein's STR with its strict restriction that its
only applicable to Inertial frame conditions,
Yes...if you know what those words mean.
Post by everything isalllies
has been TWEAKED by subsequent Mathematicians to INCLUDE NON INERTIAL motion.
Post by everything isalllies
Now that STR now can cover ALL MOTIONS, not specifically and exclusively inertial motion, then we
absolutely do not need any General Theory of Relativity do we?
SR, is applicable from inertial frames, from "within" inertial frames.
In these (inertial) frames, we may have objects with non inertial motions.
SR applies to these (but not from "within" these).
As long as you use SR from within an inertial frames, all motions it applies to is valid.

Don't confound the meaning of inertial frame with inertial motion.
SR can be applied to non-inertial motion as long as it is applied from within and inertial frame
Post by everything isalllies
Especially when you realize that the two theories don't supply the same predictions, the two theories are mutually incompatible.
You are confused. Special relativity is a particular case of general relativity. Special relativity is applied from within inertial frames, whereas general relativity is Applied from any frame (does from inertial frames too).
Post by everything isalllies
If one is true, the other can not possibly be.
Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is.
patdolan
2022-01-06 00:54:05 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
Interesting that it was recorded in this site, I cant recall by whom, that Einstein's STR with its strict restriction that its
only applicable to Inertial frame conditions,
Yes...if you know what those words mean.
Post by everything isalllies
has been TWEAKED by subsequent Mathematicians to INCLUDE NON INERTIAL motion.
Post by everything isalllies
Now that STR now can cover ALL MOTIONS, not specifically and exclusively inertial motion, then we
absolutely do not need any General Theory of Relativity do we?
SR, is applicable from inertial frames, from "within" inertial frames.
In these (inertial) frames, we may have objects with non inertial motions.
SR applies to these (but not from "within" these).
As long as you use SR from within an inertial frames, all motions it applies to is valid.
I agree rotchm. Please convey this to Bodkin and the rest of them. After you've done that please solve the Kepler's 3rd vs. Einstein's 1st conundrum.
Post by rotchm
Don't confound the meaning of inertial frame with inertial motion.
SR can be applied to non-inertial motion as long as it is applied from within and inertial frame
Post by everything isalllies
Especially when you realize that the two theories don't supply the same predictions, the two theories are mutually incompatible.
You are confused. Special relativity is a particular case of general relativity. Special relativity is applied from within inertial frames, whereas general relativity is Applied from any frame (does from inertial frames too).
Post by everything isalllies
If one is true, the other can not possibly be.
Since GR implies SR, if GR is true, then SR is.
rotchm
2022-01-06 01:44:03 UTC
Post by rotchm
As long as you use SR from within an inertial frames, all motions it applies to is valid.
I agree rotchm. Please convey this to Bodkin and the rest of them.
They agree to this too.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-06 11:27:34 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by rotchm
As long as you use SR from within an inertial frames, all motions it applies to is valid.
I agree rotchm. Please convey this to Bodkin and the rest of them.
They agree to this too.
Yes
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 11:51:53 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by rotchm
As long as you use SR from within an inertial frames, all motions it applies to is valid.
I agree rotchm. Please convey this to Bodkin and the rest of them.
They agree to this too.
Rotchm..
Did you delete my rebuttal of this statement of yours about how SR can address non inertial if used inside an inertial frame?

I showed why it is nonsense, that why its missing fro the comments now.
rotchm
2022-01-06 15:42:15 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Rotchm..
Did you delete my rebuttal of this statement of yours about how SR can address non inertial if used inside an inertial frame?
I showed why it is nonsense, that why its missing fro the comments now.
I might have inadvertently deleted your post while I was deleting spammers.
Or to make it clearer, in its own thread with an appropriate title.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-06 14:12:35 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Odd Bodkin
Then you have read practically nothing. It’s already been pointed out that
shortly after Einstein published in 1905, he realized that Newtonian
gravity does not respect invariance with inertial frames. This is when two
things ensued: a) he renamed the 1905 relativity to be the special case,
and b) he started pursuing a theory of gravity that DID respect invariance
with inertial frames.
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Interesting that it was recorded in this site, I cant recall by whom,
that Einstein's STR with its strict restriction that its only applicable
to Inertial frame conditions, has been TWEAKED by subsequent
Mathematicians to INCLUDE NON INERTIAL motion. They just took the gamma
Lorentz equations and included functions that allow calculations that
accommodate acceleration, or gravity if you will.
Well, I find it interesting that your cumulative understanding of
relativity comes from what you’ve read on “this site”. Has it not occurred
to you that better understanding comes from reading textbooks?

Secondly, you aren’t very good at piecing things together. For example, you
equate acceleration with gravity. That’s a mistake. An accelerated
reference frame is indistinguishable from a frame with the presence of
*uniform* gravity. But GR deals with regions where gravity is not uniform.
Much tricker problem. And you have missed this completely, because you do
Post by everything isalllies
Now these Einstein fan boys are never wrong, we all know that they are
following in gods footsteps, so this is a perfectly true account.
STR DOES WORK in both accelerating frames and inertial frames with
So that being the case, why then did Einstein not figure this out if he
was the ultimate Mathematician and Genius? Why not just do the obvious
fix and make math adjustments to his equation to include acceleration?
He did. It’s called GR.

No physicists calls him “the ultimate Mathematician and Genius”. Why would
you?
Post by everything isalllies
But an even more revealing question is: Now that STR now can cover ALL
MOTIONS, not specifically and exclusively inertial motion, then we
absolutely do not need any General Theory of Relativity do we?
Especially when you realise that the two theories don't supply the same
predictions, the two theories are mutually incompatible. If one is true,
the other can not possibly be.
I think you’re not getting the idea of a special case being a subset of a
general case. The general case covers cases that the special case does not.
Where the two overlap, they agree.
Post by everything isalllies
I really wish you Einstein fans would just make up your minds and stick
to a single dogma, because you are able to duck and dodge criticisms like
like Neo dodges bullets in the Matrix.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Paul B. Andersen
2022-01-06 20:50:09 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Interesting that it was recorded in this site, I cant recall by whom, that Einstein's STR with its strict restriction that its only applicable to Inertial frame conditions, has been TWEAKED by subsequent Mathematicians to INCLUDE NON INERTIAL motion. They just took the gamma Lorentz equations and included functions that allow calculations that accommodate acceleration, or gravity if you will.
Now these Einstein fan boys are never wrong, we all know that they are following in gods footsteps, so this is a perfectly true account.
STR DOES WORK in both accelerating frames and inertial frames with suitable additions to the equations.
Yes, exactly like Newtonian mechanics work in non
inertial frames "with suitable additions to the equations".
For example, you can use NM in rotating frames if you add
the pseudo forces centrifugal an Coriolis.
In SR it is a bit more complicated, but in a uniformly
accelerated frame, you can add a pseudo force much like
the Newtonian gravitational force. In addition clocks
will appear to run at different rates at different "highs"
in the accelerated frame.

Generally, SR can handle acceleration _as long as
space time is flat_!

Uniform acceleration of a frame doesn't curve spacetime,
and neither does rotation of a frame.
Post by everything isalllies
So that being the case, why then did Einstein not figure this out if he was the ultimate Mathematician and Genius? Why not just do the obvious fix and make math adjustments to his equation to include acceleration?
Why should he? It's just a question of using calculus.
Post by everything isalllies
But an even more revealing question is: Now that STR now can cover ALL MOTIONS, not specifically and exclusively inertial motion, then we absolutely do not need any General Theory of Relativity do we?
SR can handle all motion _in flat space-time_.
But GR is the theory of gravitation.
Gravitation is curvature of space time.
If gravitation is present, GR must be used, SR doesn't apply.
Post by everything isalllies
Especially when you realise that the two theories don't supply the same predictions, the two theories are mutually incompatible. If one is true, the other can not possibly be.
From whence have you got this stupid Idea?
If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
the equations of SR.

Look at this:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

Equation (1) is the general metric equation,
which is one of the equations of GR.

If the metric tensor is as shown in equation 3,
then space time is flat, and the metric can be written
as in equation (5), which can be simplified to equation (7).
Both equation (5) and (7) are SR-equation, so the GR equation (1)
has simplified to SR equations because space-time is flat.

If you look at this:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
Equation (1) is the metric of space time in Earth's vicinity.
(In spherical coordinates)

This equation is the metric for curved spacetime.

It is a GR equation, and very different from
the SR equation (5) above, even if they are two
examples of the general metric equation.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 21:02:02 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
If space time is flat, the equations of GR simplifies to
the equations of SR.
But even Einstein realised that there can be no place where the imaginary "spacetime" could be "flat".
He said exactly that.

So your comment, "If space time is flat"... is without meaning, spacetime is never flat.
You propose a conditions that your own theory (GR) says is untrue, to try to back up another theory that is not comparable with the first.
Relativists place a foot in all camps, so as never to be wrong, they can swaps sides quickly and seem to be correct no matter what.
patdolan
2022-01-06 00:12:39 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by patdolan
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Yes.
Innumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
Post by patdolan
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR.
Your ignorance shows. SR is valid only in flat space time.
(Or when the region of space time is so small that it can be
considered to be flat, like you can consider the water surface
in your bathtub to be flat even if it is part of a sphere.)
The General Theory of Relativity (GR) is the theory of gravitation.
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated by SR, rendering
Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Experimental evidence falsifies Kepler's laws.
Kepler's laws follows from Newton's Law of Gravitation.
They are extremely good approximations in most cases, but
their predictions are slightly different from the predictions
of GR, and whenever the differences are measurable, GR has
proven to be correct.
For example, Kepler's laws predict that if a planet is
in elliptic orbit around a star in an otherwise empty universe,
then the direction of the major axis of the orbit will stay constant
for all eternity. GR predicts that the major axis will rotate.
This effect is observed for the planets in the solar system,
in accordance with the predictions of GR.
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Paul, I am not aware of anyone who claims that GR rescues SR from
invalidation by gravitation.
Then you have read practically nothing. It’s already been pointed out that
shortly after Einstein published in 1905, he realized that Newtonian
gravity does not respect invariance with inertial frames. This is when two
things ensued: a) he renamed the 1905 relativity to be the special case,
and b) he started pursuing a theory of gravity that DID respect invariance
with inertial frames.
Thank goodness! Finally, there is someone who can actually use GR to solve the Kepler 3rd vs. Einstein 1st conundrum.

Go ahead Bodkin, do it. You will be the first to do so. How do I know? Because you can't cite a single page from one of your cherished books that addresses this problem.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Kepler's third states unequivocally that for a given star-planet system
with a given semi-major axis there can be at most one, unique orbital
period which results in a stable orbit.
Indeed. And it was assumed in such a statement that time was absolute and
not mixed with space, as relativity mixes them. In fact, there were LOTS of
physical laws that made no distinction between frames in relative motion,
because it assumed that distances and durations would not vary between
inertial reference frame.
This was one of the reasons why these laws needed to be narrowed down to
the rest frame of the system, for example. This doesn’t break the law but
sets its scope.
Take the earth for instance. That orbital period is 365.25 days. Now
consider an observer traveling at .867c relative to the solar system,
along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. From
this vantage point the earth's semi-major axis is undistorted by Lorentz
contraction. So the semi-major axes are the same in both the frame of
the solar system and the frame of the observer traveling at .867c. But
the earth's orbital period is now 730.5 days due to relativistic time
dilation. So we have found a second stable orbit in violation of
Kepler's 1st. Actually there are an infinite number of stable orbits.
The violation of Kepler's 3rd in turn violates Einstein's 1st.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
patdolan
2022-01-06 17:07:05 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by patdolan
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Yes.
Innumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
Post by patdolan
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR.
Your ignorance shows. SR is valid only in flat space time.
(Or when the region of space time is so small that it can be
considered to be flat, like you can consider the water surface
in your bathtub to be flat even if it is part of a sphere.)
The General Theory of Relativity (GR) is the theory of gravitation.
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated by SR, rendering
Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Experimental evidence falsifies Kepler's laws.
Kepler's laws follows from Newton's Law of Gravitation.
They are extremely good approximations in most cases, but
their predictions are slightly different from the predictions
of GR, and whenever the differences are measurable, GR has
proven to be correct.
For example, Kepler's laws predict that if a planet is
in elliptic orbit around a star in an otherwise empty universe,
then the direction of the major axis of the orbit will stay constant
for all eternity. GR predicts that the major axis will rotate.
This effect is observed for the planets in the solar system,
in accordance with the predictions of GR.
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Paul, I am not aware of anyone who claims that GR rescues SR from
invalidation by gravitation.
Then you have read practically nothing. It’s already been pointed out that
shortly after Einstein published in 1905, he realized that Newtonian
gravity does not respect invariance with inertial frames. This is when two
things ensued: a) he renamed the 1905 relativity to be the special case,
and b) he started pursuing a theory of gravity that DID respect invariance
with inertial frames.
Thank goodness! Finally, there is someone who can actually use GR to
solve the Kepler 3rd vs. Einstein 1st conundrum.
There is no Kepler vs Einstein conundrum. There is your mistaken insistence
that Kepler’s 3rd law should apply in all inertial reference frames, which
is now understood to be a bad idea, even if Kepler did not know that at the
time.
Remember, the first postulate is that all CORRECTLY formulated laws of
physics are invariant with inertial reference frame. This does not mean
that all the laws as originally formulated meet that criterion.
Go ahead Bodkin, do it. You will be the first to do so. How do I know?
Because you can't cite a single page from one of your cherished books
Well, indeed, there are 99,999 ways to say something stupid and a good
chance that won’t be explicitly called out in a book. Only COMMON mistakes
are usually addressed, not the truly weirdo mistakes you like to try to
make.
Would you like a reference about how Newtonian gravity was clearly
understood to be inconsistent with special relativity?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Kepler's third states unequivocally that for a given star-planet system
with a given semi-major axis there can be at most one, unique orbital
period which results in a stable orbit.
Indeed. And it was assumed in such a statement that time was absolute and
not mixed with space, as relativity mixes them. In fact, there were LOTS of
physical laws that made no distinction between frames in relative motion,
because it assumed that distances and durations would not vary between
inertial reference frame.
This was one of the reasons why these laws needed to be narrowed down to
the rest frame of the system, for example. This doesn’t break the law but
sets its scope.
Take the earth for instance. That orbital period is 365.25 days. Now
consider an observer traveling at .867c relative to the solar system,
along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. From
this vantage point the earth's semi-major axis is undistorted by Lorentz
contraction. So the semi-major axes are the same in both the frame of
the solar system and the frame of the observer traveling at .867c. But
the earth's orbital period is now 730.5 days due to relativistic time
dilation. So we have found a second stable orbit in violation of
Kepler's 1st. Actually there are an infinite number of stable orbits.
The violation of Kepler's 3rd in turn violates Einstein's 1st.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Good ol' Bodkodlian. You want to choose the question I ask you. I remember asking damned ol' Tim Shubba for a similar demonstration after boasting he knew how. His answer: "I don't think I will". But I am a gracious soul, Bodkin. I will not only cease to chide you for your failure to prove your case, I will spoon feed you the solution for v in the LTs. Your lucky day, a Bodkin?
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-06 19:28:53 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by patdolan
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Yes.
Innumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
No physicist questions the consistency of SR.
Post by patdolan
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR.
Your ignorance shows. SR is valid only in flat space time.
(Or when the region of space time is so small that it can be
considered to be flat, like you can consider the water surface
in your bathtub to be flat even if it is part of a sphere.)
The General Theory of Relativity (GR) is the theory of gravitation.
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third law of planetary motion is violated by SR, rendering
Einstein's first postulate meaningless.
Experimental evidence falsifies Kepler's laws.
Kepler's laws follows from Newton's Law of Gravitation.
They are extremely good approximations in most cases, but
their predictions are slightly different from the predictions
of GR, and whenever the differences are measurable, GR has
proven to be correct.
For example, Kepler's laws predict that if a planet is
in elliptic orbit around a star in an otherwise empty universe,
then the direction of the major axis of the orbit will stay constant
for all eternity. GR predicts that the major axis will rotate.
This effect is observed for the planets in the solar system,
in accordance with the predictions of GR.
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Paul, I am not aware of anyone who claims that GR rescues SR from
invalidation by gravitation.
Then you have read practically nothing. It’s already been pointed out that
shortly after Einstein published in 1905, he realized that Newtonian
gravity does not respect invariance with inertial frames. This is when two
things ensued: a) he renamed the 1905 relativity to be the special case,
and b) he started pursuing a theory of gravity that DID respect invariance
with inertial frames.
Thank goodness! Finally, there is someone who can actually use GR to
solve the Kepler 3rd vs. Einstein 1st conundrum.
There is no Kepler vs Einstein conundrum. There is your mistaken insistence
that Kepler’s 3rd law should apply in all inertial reference frames, which
is now understood to be a bad idea, even if Kepler did not know that at the
time.
Remember, the first postulate is that all CORRECTLY formulated laws of
physics are invariant with inertial reference frame. This does not mean
that all the laws as originally formulated meet that criterion.
Go ahead Bodkin, do it. You will be the first to do so. How do I know?
Because you can't cite a single page from one of your cherished books
Well, indeed, there are 99,999 ways to say something stupid and a good
chance that won’t be explicitly called out in a book. Only COMMON mistakes
are usually addressed, not the truly weirdo mistakes you like to try to
make.
Would you like a reference about how Newtonian gravity was clearly
understood to be inconsistent with special relativity?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Kepler's third states unequivocally that for a given star-planet system
with a given semi-major axis there can be at most one, unique orbital
period which results in a stable orbit.
Indeed. And it was assumed in such a statement that time was absolute and
not mixed with space, as relativity mixes them. In fact, there were LOTS of
physical laws that made no distinction between frames in relative motion,
because it assumed that distances and durations would not vary between
inertial reference frame.
This was one of the reasons why these laws needed to be narrowed down to
the rest frame of the system, for example. This doesn’t break the law but
sets its scope.
Take the earth for instance. That orbital period is 365.25 days. Now
consider an observer traveling at .867c relative to the solar system,
along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. From
this vantage point the earth's semi-major axis is undistorted by Lorentz
contraction. So the semi-major axes are the same in both the frame of
the solar system and the frame of the observer traveling at .867c. But
the earth's orbital period is now 730.5 days due to relativistic time
dilation. So we have found a second stable orbit in violation of
Kepler's 1st. Actually there are an infinite number of stable orbits.
The violation of Kepler's 3rd in turn violates Einstein's 1st.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Good ol' Bodkodlian. You want to choose the question I ask you. I
remember asking damned ol' Tim Shubba for a similar demonstration after
boasting he knew how. His answer: "I don't think I will". But I am a
gracious soul, Bodkin. I will not only cease to chide you for your
failure to prove your case, I will spoon feed you the solution for v in
the LTs. Your lucky day, a Bodkin?
It’s appropriate to point out the difference between you asking me to do
something to prove something to you and me deciding not to do that, and you
saying you know how to prove something to me and then just not doing that
(while promising that you will).
Yup, how does it feel.
Finally time for me to find that spoon...
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Still waiting, I am.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2022-01-05 23:05:55 UTC
Post by patdolan
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by patdolan
SR is falsifiable.
An experiment testing SR must have the potential to falsify SR.
Gravity falsifies SR.
Your ignorance shows. SR is valid only in flat space time.
(Or when the region of space time is so small that it can be
considered to be flat, like you can consider the water surface
in your bathtub to be flat even if it is part of a sphere.)
Paul, I am not aware of anyone who claims that GR rescues SR from invalidation by gravitation.
Einstein himself stated that SR doesn't work in situations where gravity
isn't 0 or small enough to be ignored.
Bzzzzt. Kepler's Third Law involves gravity.
Post by patdolan
Kepler's third states unequivocally that for a given star-planet system with a given semi-major axis there can be at most one, unique orbital period which results in a stable orbit.
Because of gravity.
Post by patdolan
Take the earth for instance. That orbital period is 365.25 days. Now consider an observer traveling at .867c relative to the solar system, along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. From this vantage point the earth's semi-major axis is undistorted by Lorentz contraction. So the semi-major axes are the same in both the frame of the solar system and the frame of the observer traveling at .867c. But the earth's orbital period is now 730.5 days due to relativistic time dilation. So we have found a second stable orbit in violation of Kepler's 1st. Actually there are an infinite number of stable orbits. The violation of Kepler's 3rd in turn violates Einstein's 1st.
Because SR doesn't apply, because of gravity.

Also, even though it doesn't matter because SR doesn't apply, did you
take into account the transverse Doppler Effect on the earth's radius
and period?
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-06 06:53:58 UTC
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by patdolan
SR is a consistent theory, which means that it is free
Yes.
Innumerable people have tried to find inconsistencies in SR
for more than a century, no one has succeeded.
Or if one did, fanatic stinkers like you refuse to
acknowledhe it.
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Your ignorance shows. SR is valid only in flat space time.
I.e. nowhere.
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 00:37:21 UTC
You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.
But you would not know what is false physics.
You are not able to solve the basic physics nor math problems.
This shows that you are just the troll and want to make noise.
What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.
rotchm
2022-01-05 01:04:57 UTC
What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.
There are many trolls and cranks here.
Prove that you are not one of them and then we can converse.

Here is a simple math question. If you can solve it, then you show a hint of worthiness.

How long did it take to receive 99.9% of this file?
Python
2022-01-05 01:36:26 UTC
Post by rotchm
What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.
There are many trolls and cranks here.
Prove that you are not one of them and then we can converse.
Here is a simple math question. If you can solve it, then you show a hint of worthiness.
How long did it take to receive 99.9% of this file?
How long is a piece of string?
The satanic download will eventually reach 99.9% because you said you got that much of it, but the last 0.1% is still taking 10 minutes as displayed, and even the last 0.000001% it will still take 10 minutes. No matter how little the remainder is, (one bit of data is the smallest packet of computer data) it's still taking ten minutes. Meaning not that the last bit WILL take 10 minutes, but that the last bit will never be completed. The download speed will drop off to infinity. So the time it took for this Zeno paradoxical download to reach 99.9% can only be 99.9% of infinite time. You never did get to watch Satan's movie.
So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.
rotchm
2022-01-05 02:37:48 UTC
How long is a piece of string?
Yes, as implied in the question.
... but the last 0.1% is still taking 10 minutes as displayed,
Yes.
No matter how little the remainder is, (one bit of data is the smallest packet of computer data)
Yes [and that would entail another question (one that I amused myself with)] but irrelevant.
I want the time it took to receive 99.9% of the file.
... So the time it took for this Zeno paradoxical download to reach 99.9% can only be 99.9% of infinite time.
Since that's wrong, you have shown me that you cannot solve a "simple" math question.
Hence, you have no business of discussing physics here.
So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.
It's a math question, requires a little calculation to find the answer, the value I seek/asked.
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 02:43:46 UTC
Post by rotchm
... So the time it took for this Zeno paradoxical download to reach 99.9% can only be 99.9% of infinite time.
Since that's wrong, you have shown me that you cannot solve a "simple" math question.
Hence, you have no business of discussing physics here.
So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.
It's a math question, requires a little calculation to find the answer, the value I seek/asked.
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 02:47:45 UTC
Post by rotchm
I want the time it took to receive 99.9% of the file.
... So the time it took for this Zeno paradoxical download to reach 99.9% can only be 99.9% of infinite time.
Since that's wrong, you have shown me that you cannot solve a "simple" math question.
Hence, you have no business of discussing physics here.
So this is not a Math question at all, its a logic question.
It's a math question, requires a little calculation to find the answer, the value I seek/asked.

You realise that Infinity is impossible in Physics, but might be a concept of Math, which is NOT PHYSICS.
So 99.9 of infinity is effectively the same for a Physicist as 0.1% of infinity, neither are possible.
rotchm
2022-01-05 02:56:05 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
As you state above, here is a hint: "derive it".
Post by everything isalllies
You realise that Infinity is impossible in Physics,
Yes. And irrelevant to the problem, since the answer is finite.

Btw, if we assume total reception of the file as more than "half of the last bit", then the time of total reception is
3h 50 min and XX seconds [which I leave to the reader to discover the XX]. But this has nothing to do with the (simpler) question I asked [ time of reception of 99.9% of the file].
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 03:51:43 UTC
Post by rotchm
Btw, if we assume total reception of the file as more than "half of the last bit", then the time of total reception is
3h 50 min and XX seconds [which I leave to the reader to discover the XX]. But this has nothing to do with the (simpler) question I asked [ time of reception of 99.9% of the file].
Fine, I don't know how you derived the answer, but I do expect you to tell me now.

However I do note that in your second sentence, you started of with an ASSUMPTION about "half the last bit".

Now in maths, such an assumption is not much good is it? If you assumption is wrong, then your results will be also wrong.

But as Einstein is describing in his paper on SR, the Physical conditions that led one to the conclusion that there is some dilemma or discrepancy that presents a major problem, we don't need any Math to follow his supposedly rational argument. Playing about with Math can be very misleading in Physics, all you need to do is provide an equation that is based on a flawed understand of the physical process about which you want to perform calculations, to make major mistakes.

I'm not interested in Maths, but I do study Physics, how things work, and don't need to calculate results of different scenarios. Understanding the process is studying Physics.
I understand exactly how my car works, but I don't need to calculate the heat loss from the engine in order to drive the car or appreciate its designs.

The often used statement "Physics Is MATHEMATICS" is totally incorrect.
Sure you can use Math, but to understand Physics, you never need it. The use of Maths in Physics comes only AFTER you understand the Physics. And even then only if you want to design a machine or bridge.

So up to you now to supply the answer to your Math puzzle, and how you derived the answer.
rotchm
2022-01-05 04:12:41 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Fine, I don't know how you derived the answer,
Then, you do not have what it takes to discuss physics here.
Post by everything isalllies
but I do expect you to tell me now.
Maybe.
Post by everything isalllies
However I do note that in your second sentence, you started of with an ASSUMPTION about "half the last bit".
Yes, not an optimal choice of words by my part. I should have said:
If we define "total reception of the file" as more than "half of the last bit", ...
Post by everything isalllies
Now in maths, such an assumption is not much good is it?
Yes it is. The word "assumption" or "assume" is very often used in math.
In math, it has the connotation of a definition (as I intended above) , or of a trial (as in, assume x = 3 ...).
Post by everything isalllies
I'm not interested in Maths,
Math is just "logical thinking". Applying the given rules. This is true in language, physics, etc.
Post by everything isalllies
but I do study Physics, how things work, and don't need to calculate results of different scenarios.
You are always "calculating" in physics.
Post by everything isalllies
I understand exactly how my car works, but I don't need to calculate the heat loss
Understanding how you Car Works is calculating. It's not a numerical calculation but it's still calculation in the sense of a computation, a thought process, a deduction.
Post by everything isalllies
The often used statement "Physics Is MATHEMATICS" is totally incorrect.
A philosophical discussion will entail. Out of topic.
Post by everything isalllies
The use of Maths in Physics comes only AFTER you understand the Physics.
"understanding" is math. Again, philosophical discussion.
Post by everything isalllies
So up to you now to supply the answer to your Math puzzle, and how you derived the answer.
I would not want to spoil it in case others want to try it out. Perhaps later I will give you a walkthrough.
I could give you another math/logic problem, to see if you have what it takes to have an intelligent discussion, to see if you are worthy of our time...?
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 04:41:07 UTC
Post by rotchm
I could give you another math/logic problem, to see if you have what it takes to have an intelligent discussion, to see if you are worthy of our time...?
So you don't have an answer either. Or you would surely rub my nose in it.

Several people, Einstein and RIchard Feynman were two, said "If you cant explain your theory (Physics theory) to a 6 year old (or a bar maid) then you don't know what you are talking about"

I'm older than 6 and not a bar maid, but neither of these is much good with advance mathematics.
The fact that you are wasting your time on the internet chat rooms, (a LOT) is indication that you have nothing better to do.

I've presented several intelligent questions here that Im sure you have read, and not once has anyone provided a reasonable reply. Some replies were attempted, but they are all based around one Logical fallacy or another.
Such as claiming that Einstein must be correct in his hypothesis because we did some experiment later...

Meanwhile we have not even heard a rational explanation of the main points of his hypothesis.
If you are half as smart as you make out, then you know we must confine our arguments to the subject which is the question of the validity of Einstein's 1905 hypothesis on the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
And the only place to start is in getting a handle on what it is he claims, how he justifies his conclusions, then maybe later, if anyone interested we can play with math, but not until the 6 year olds and bar maids can follow what we are talking about.
rotchm
2022-01-05 05:08:24 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by rotchm
I could give you another math/logic problem, to see if you have what it takes to have an intelligent discussion, to
see if you are worthy of our time...?
No anwer? I guess you know how you would fair.
Post by rotchm
So you don't have an answer either.
Of course I do. I even gave you the answer to the "harder" version.
Post by rotchm
Or you would surely rub my nose in it.
Nope. I prefer to let the people think and work at it on their own for a while.
Post by rotchm
The fact that you are wasting your time on the internet chat rooms, (a LOT) is indication that you have nothing better to do.
Exactly. I am free to do what I want with my time. This evening, I have some time for you guys...
Post by rotchm
I've presented several intelligent questions here that Im sure you have read,
Nope. I glanced, I seen some cries and rants. Thus, 99% chances you are a crank.
To quickly decide if you are or not, I asked you a simple math question.
Post by rotchm
and not once has anyone provided a reasonable reply.
Don't cry nor rant. Just short and direct questions. Be clear and unambiguous.
It takes good brains and logic skills to write coherently and clearly.
Post by rotchm
Such as claiming that Einstein must be correct in his hypothesis because we did some experiment later...
Up until Einstein's hypothesis, all measurements of the speed of light all gave the same value. This is an empirical fact.
Therefore, Einstein made the hypothesis that the speed of light is a constant for all Observers. From that hypothesis and a few other ones, Einstein developed a theory, a model. This model makes predictions. Since then, physicists have verified these predictions with experiments. To date, they all have been in agreement with special relativity.

So the idea here for you, is that: who cares it Einstein or special relativity is right or wrong. To date, it has been Vindicated by all experiments. And that is what counts. Special relativity is a model that currently still works. So we'll use this model since it is useful.
Post by rotchm
Meanwhile we have not even heard a rational explanation of the main points of his hypothesis.
Will this explanation change the predictions of special relativity?
Will this explanation change the results of experiments?
Thus, Is an explanation needed?
Post by rotchm
If you are half as smart as you make out, then you know we must confine our arguments to the subject
which is the question of the validity of Einstein's 1905 hypothesis on the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
No, that is not needed. You might want that, might make you happy, but your desires won't change the predictions of special relativity and won't change the results of experiments.
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 08:32:33 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
I've presented several intelligent questions here that Im sure you have read,
Nope. I glanced, I seen some cries and rants. Thus, 99% chances you are a crank.
To quickly decide if you are or not, I asked you a simple math question.
OK GOD, One who believes he is far superior to mere mortals... dishing out little tests to see who's worthy of a few scraps of wisdom for your holiness......

I told you I'm not interested in Math but in Physics. The two are distinct.

I've stated that there are problems in Einsteins theory and you don't care.

That's what we are up to now, you could care less if the paper on SRT is absolutely riddled with errors.
i.e. "who cares it Einstein or special relativity is right or wrong?"

Well the issue then is that your next statement is nonsense: "To date, it {SRT} has been Vindicated by all experiments. And that is what counts. Special relativity is a model that currently still works. So we'll use this model since it is useful."

You see, if the hypothesis is nonsensical gibberish, then how come it all magically worked out just fine with those claimed experimental evidences?

Was it divine providence that in a moment of drunken delusion, Einstein scribbled down utter tripe but someone thought to run some experiment that proved that the tripe actually gave correct results?

Wow, that's a miracle. So you see that its IS critical that any examination of Einsteins Hypothesis MUST be able to stand any test for rational content and logical stability. If it full of errors, then we have to agree a holy miracle of the supernatural was at work.

Now I hate to inform you but those examples of experimental verification for SRT are full of shit.
None of them can stand scrutiny, they all rely on some form of circular reasoning, and cherry picking the data.
GPS doesn't need STR as claimed. The thing you fail to realise is that this is a deception of people who don't want an educated population, they want a dumbed down controllable population, as can be easily seen today, take a look outside. SRT and GR are deliberate red herrings, inserted into science in order to basically confuse everyone, meanwhile Im sure that the elites do possess the real knowledge, and because knowledge is power , they don't what you to have it.

But anyway, the fact remains that if it can be shown that Einstein's work is nonsensical, then no, you don't get to keep hold of the theories. They too are deceptive rubbish, holding science back, not allowing any advancement in the right direction.

So is an explanation necessary? Hell yes. Einstein has been challenged and if you are Einsteins God, (you surely act like an all knowing god ) then its up to you to defend his claims.
Post by rotchm
Up until Einstein's hypothesis, all measurements of the speed of light all gave the same value. This is an empirical fact.
No god, it's not an empirical fact at all.
First, to accurately measure the speed of any moving thing, you must conduct a one way trial, between two known locations but no such test has ever been done and indeed can never be done. You can only claim that you have conducted a TWO way test, out to a reflector, then back to the source location. But here remains a possibility that the velocity in one direction may be different than the other, and all you have is an average speed, not an exact velocity.
Second reason why any speed of light experiment result is not empirical fact, is this:
Aside from the observation of the moon IO, every other experiment was not actually timing a photon in its travel over some measured distance. no, what all tests are observing is the interference pattern caused when a series of gaps in a disk (for example) fail to coincide with a light beam that is returning from a distant mirror.
So then all you are measuring is not the speed of a photon, but the frequency of the waves of the light.
To measure the speed of light you would need to send a single short pulse of light and time its travel over a set distance. This has never been done.

And the observation related to IO are not only explainable by a travel time for light. The changes are real enough, but are still small and need to be considered as cumulative readings to get anywhere.
There are a great many factors involved in celestial observations from Earth, and not the least of which would be the reliance of the IO observations on the principal that light travels in straight lines. Einsteins claims that it does not, as all spacetime is curved. So watching something that SEEMS to be over there, is only an illusion, it's someplace else. Additionally, Einsteins also claims that Roemer's time piece (clock) does not maintain accurate intervals because its travelling at speed relative to IO, as the Earth circles the Sun. So of course he must get different time readings for these reasons plus probably others we have not even considered.
You can';t hang on to Roemer's belief that its possible to measure the speed of light by this method. And anyway, his result was no where near the currently accepted number, which was decided by a committee decree, not any actual experiment, as they kept getting DIFFERENT readings!
But this is not important as what you and your bum buddy Einstein claim is that not only does the speed of light always remains stable, but further and without any explanation, you both insist that I can take a measure of ligh speed while stand still, or moving toward the light or away, and STILL get the very same result, as if I was not moving at all! even though I can prove I was moving.

Do you really think this is a rationally sound position to embrace?
Really? Clearly you do, because you are a little god, and know all, so do tell, how does such a condition come about, where regardless of my speed relative to what I'm measuring, I could still get the same result?
Can you explain this without calling up Zeus or Thor or Santa, or the tooth fairy?
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 14:49:41 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
I've presented several intelligent questions here that Im sure you have read,
Nope. I glanced, I seen some cries and rants. Thus, 99% chances you are a crank.
To quickly decide if you are or not, I asked you a simple math question.
OK GOD, One who believes he is far superior to mere mortals... dishing
out little tests to see who's worthy of a few scraps of wisdom for your holiness......
I told you I'm not interested in Math but in Physics. The two are distinct.
Not really. You can’t do physics without being competent in the math.
Period. I’m sorry, but this is a fact. Math skills are a prerequisite.
Having a logical mind is not sufficient for doing physics.

This does not put physics above mere mortals. I’m a mere mortal. I took the
time to learn the math and learn the physics. Taking that time is not above
mere mortals.

Now, if your complaint is that people here are unwilling to engage in
serious conversation about physics with a mere mortal who CAN’T BE BOTHERED
to learn basic concepts in physics and math skills, then yes, I think
you’ll find that’s commonly true here.

Post by everything isalllies
I've stated that there are problems in Einsteins theory and you don't care.
That's what we are up to now, you could care less if the paper on SRT is
absolutely riddled with errors.
i.e. "who cares it Einstein or special relativity is right or wrong?"
Well the issue then is that your next statement is nonsense: "To date, it
{SRT} has been Vindicated by all experiments. And that is what counts.
Special relativity is a model that currently still works. So we'll use
this model since it is useful."
You see, if the hypothesis is nonsensical gibberish, then how come it
all magically worked out just fine with those claimed experimental evidences?
Was it divine providence that in a moment of drunken delusion, Einstein
scribbled down utter tripe but someone thought to run some experiment
that proved that the tripe actually gave correct results?
Wow, that's a miracle. So you see that its IS critical that any
examination of Einsteins Hypothesis MUST be able to stand any test for
rational content and logical stability. If it full of errors, then we
have to agree a holy miracle of the supernatural was at work.
Now I hate to inform you but those examples of experimental verification
for SRT are full of shit.
None of them can stand scrutiny, they all rely on some form of circular
reasoning, and cherry picking the data.
GPS doesn't need STR as claimed. The thing you fail to realise is that
this is a deception of people who don't want an educated population, they
want a dumbed down controllable population, as can be easily seen today,
take a look outside. SRT and GR are deliberate red herrings, inserted
into science in order to basically confuse everyone, meanwhile Im sure
that the elites do possess the real knowledge, and because knowledge is
power , they don't what you to have it.
But anyway, the fact remains that if it can be shown that Einstein's work
is nonsensical, then no, you don't get to keep hold of the theories. They
too are deceptive rubbish, holding science back, not allowing any
So is an explanation necessary? Hell yes. Einstein has been challenged
and if you are Einsteins God, (you surely act like an all knowing god )
then its up to you to defend his claims.
Post by rotchm
Up until Einstein's hypothesis, all measurements of the speed of light
all gave the same value. This is an empirical fact.
No god, it's not an empirical fact at all.
First, to accurately measure the speed of any moving thing, you must
conduct a one way trial, between two known locations but no such test has
ever been done and indeed can never be done. You can only claim that you
have conducted a TWO way test, out to a reflector, then back to the
source location. But here remains a possibility that the velocity in one
direction may be different than the other, and all you have is an average
speed, not an exact velocity.
Aside from the observation of the moon IO, every other experiment was not
actually timing a photon in its travel over some measured distance. no,
what all tests are observing is the interference pattern caused when a
series of gaps in a disk (for example) fail to coincide with a light beam
that is returning from a distant mirror.
So then all you are measuring is not the speed of a photon, but the
frequency of the waves of the light.
To measure the speed of light you would need to send a single short pulse
of light and time its travel over a set distance. This has never been done.
And the observation related to IO are not only explainable by a travel
time for light. The changes are real enough, but are still small and need
to be considered as cumulative readings to get anywhere.
There are a great many factors involved in celestial observations from
Earth, and not the least of which would be the reliance of the IO
observations on the principal that light travels in straight lines.
Einsteins claims that it does not, as all spacetime is curved. So
watching something that SEEMS to be over there, is only an illusion, it's
someplace else. Additionally, Einsteins also claims that Roemer's time
piece (clock) does not maintain accurate intervals because its travelling
at speed relative to IO, as the Earth circles the Sun. So of course he
must get different time readings for these reasons plus probably others
we have not even considered.
You can';t hang on to Roemer's belief that its possible to measure the
speed of light by this method. And anyway, his result was no where near
the currently accepted number, which was decided by a committee decree,
not any actual experiment, as they kept getting DIFFERENT readings!
But this is not important as what you and your bum buddy Einstein claim
is that not only does the speed of light always remains stable, but
further and without any explanation, you both insist that I can take a
measure of ligh speed while stand still, or moving toward the light or
away, and STILL get the very same result, as if I was not moving at all!
even though I can prove I was moving.
Do you really think this is a rationally sound position to embrace?
Really? Clearly you do, because you are a little god, and know all, so do
tell, how does such a condition come about, where regardless of my speed
relative to what I'm measuring, I could still get the same result?
Can you explain this without calling up Zeus or Thor or Santa, or the tooth fairy?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 15:14:03 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
I've presented several intelligent questions here that Im sure you have read,
Nope. I glanced, I seen some cries and rants. Thus, 99% chances you are a crank.
To quickly decide if you are or not, I asked you a simple math question.
OK GOD, One who believes he is far superior to mere mortals... dishing
out little tests to see who's worthy of a few scraps of wisdom for your holiness......
I told you I'm not interested in Math but in Physics. The two are distinct.
Not really. You can’t do physics without being competent in the math.
Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your idiot
guru had to announce its oldest part false, as it didn't want to
fit his insane visions.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 15:15:39 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
OK GOD, One who believes he is far superior to mere mortals... dishing out little tests to see who's
worthy of a few scraps of wisdom for your holiness......
I gave you a little test to see if you can think clearly, and if you have sufficient mathematical skills for physics.
Thinking clearly and a good base in math are required. If you can't do these then you can't do " good physics".
Post by everything isalllies
Well the issue then is that your next statement is nonsense: "To date, it {SRT} has been Vindicated by all experiments.
And that is what counts. Special relativity is a model that currently still works. So we'll use this model since it is useful."
You see, if the hypothesis is nonsensical gibberish, then how come it all magically worked out just fine
with those claimed experimental evidences?
One possibility is that the hypothesis is not nonsensical gibberish.
And even if the hypotheses were gibberish, if their conclusions agree with experiments, then that is what counts.
A pity that forbidden by your moronic religion TAI and GPS keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 15:17:26 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
Up until Einstein's hypothesis, all measurements of the speed of light all gave the same value. This is an empirical fact.
No god, it's not an empirical fact at all.
First, to accurately measure the speed of any moving thing, you must conduct a one way trial, between two known locations but no such test has ever been done and indeed can never be done. You can only claim that you have conducted a TWO way test, out to a reflector, then back to the source location. But here remains a possibility that the velocity in one direction may be different than the other, and all you have is an average speed, not an exact velocity.
Quick question: If the speed out to the mirror is c+v and the speed
back is c-v, what will the measured two-way (round trip) speed of light?
That depends on measurement procedure, stupid Mike.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-05 15:37:40 UTC
Quick question: If the speed out to the mirror is c+v and the speed
back is c-v, what will the measured two-way (round trip) speed of light?
This is a very good question.
We can transpose it to this.
If a cyclist seizes up to 20 km / h and goes down to 80 km / h, and comes
back after five hours. Someone who does not know what happened will think
that he has moved at 32 km / h.
It's a bit the same with light.
It is not constantly moving at 300,000 km / s as it is believed between A
and B. All depending on the observer O.
A bit like two observers placed in front of a train and the other behind
the train who do not hear the same sound.
Of course, today it is still very difficult to admit it, and to admit it
in full. The ideas of relative anichrony and chronotropy are poorly
understood.
As for the light (which does not exist between here and there) the real
speed is infinite. It is a transaction, instantaneous information, between
two points in the space-time of the sensor (for the sender, it is
different).
The receiver (my retina) sees the universe live. This horse in this
meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in my telescope are seen as they
are, absolutely indicative of themselves and of their present time which
is also mine. On the other hand, if I send a message to this galaxy, it
will receive it instantly. But for me that snapshot for her will be a few
billion years away.
The distance speed of the message seems to move, for me, at 150,000 km /
s.
Half the speed of light.
Note that if I am answered, obviously, the average round trip will be c.
We had the same thing when we communicated with the lunar astronauts. We
instantly heard their words. But ours seemed to us to move away from the
earth at Vo = 0.5c.
It is a pity that it is so difficult to get this simple idea understood,
and even harder to get it accepted.

R.H.
--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=***@jntp>
rotchm
2022-01-05 16:08:37 UTC
human excrement. Macron is *"pissing on you"* you frogs certainly deserve.
We should not blame the French. A dictatorship has been installed in
<off topic snipped>

I don't get to see the troll trolling because my newsreader automatically blocks them.
But when you reply the troll, my newsreader does not block you so I get to see the troll's stupidity.
To fix that, I will need to put an appropriate script that will block you when you reply to a troll. So I won't get to see your off-topic post too.

That said, it's very disrespectful of you to reply to a troll and to make noise here. Learn some respect.

And for that, I am reporting you as spam.
I incite others to do the same concerning your post.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 14:49:40 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
I could give you another math/logic problem, to see if you have what it
takes to have an intelligent discussion, to see if you are worthy of our time...?
So you don't have an answer either. Or you would surely rub my nose in it.
Several people, Einstein and RIchard Feynman were two, said "If you cant
explain your theory (Physics theory) to a 6 year old (or a bar maid) then
you don't know what you are talking about"

Note that Feynman also is quoted as saying, “Hell, if I could explain it to
the average person, it wouldn’t have been worth the Nobel prize.”

That being said, it’s not really mysterious. It just takes some studying.
I’m a woodworker, not a physicist. But I’ve read and worked the problems in
a lot of textbooks, as a hobby. Do THAT, and you’ll understand things a lot
better.
Post by everything isalllies
I'm older than 6 and not a bar maid, but neither of these is much good
The fact that you are wasting your time on the internet chat rooms, (a
LOT) is indication that you have nothing better to do.
I've presented several intelligent questions here that Im sure you have
read, and not once has anyone provided a reasonable reply. Some replies
were attempted, but they are all based around one Logical fallacy or another.
Such as claiming that Einstein must be correct in his hypothesis because
we did some experiment later...
Meanwhile we have not even heard a rational explanation of the main
points of his hypothesis.
If you are half as smart as you make out, then you know we must confine
our arguments to the subject which is the question of the validity of
Einstein's 1905 hypothesis on the electrodynamics of moving bodies.
And the only place to start is in getting a handle on what it is he
claims, how he justifies his conclusions, then maybe later, if anyone
interested we can play with math, but not until the 6 year olds and bar
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-05 14:33:45 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
Btw, if we assume total reception of the file as more than "half of the
last bit", then the time of total reception is
3h 50 min and XX seconds [which I leave to the reader to discover the
XX]. But this has nothing to do with the (simpler) question I asked [
time of reception of 99.9% of the file].
Fine, I don't know how you derived the answer, but I do expect you to tell me now.
However I do note that in your second sentence, you started of with an
ASSUMPTION about "half the last bit".
Now in maths, such an assumption is not much good is it? If you
assumption is wrong, then your results will be also wrong.
But as Einstein is describing in his paper on SR, the Physical conditions
that led one to the conclusion that there is some dilemma or discrepancy
that presents a major problem, we don't need any Math to follow his
supposedly rational argument. Playing about with Math can be very
misleading in Physics, all you need to do is provide an equation that is
based on a flawed understand of the physical process about which you want
to perform calculations, to make major mistakes.
I'm not interested in Maths, but I do study Physics, how things work, and
don't need to calculate results of different scenarios. Understanding
the process is studying Physics.
I understand exactly how my car works, but I don't need to calculate the
heat loss from the engine in order to drive the car or appreciate its designs.
No sir. You have never learned what physics is about. What you are
describing is physics as a children’s museum exhibit, showing the inner
parts and how they move and engage to make the thing “work”. That is NOT
what physics does.

Physics is a quantitative science. “Explaining things” is not accomplished
by drawing pictures and explaining with words what’s going on inside is not
at all sufficient for physics. What physics requires is that a
quantitative prediction of a measurable outcome under a particular set of
conditions, and where that prediction is distinctive from the predictions
of other theories in the same set of conditions. This means CALCULATING A
NUMBER for the value of that measurement. If you cannot develop the math
that springs from the theory, and you cannot calculate with the math such
predictions, and those predictions do not match experiment, then in physics
you have explained nothing. I cannot emphasize this enough.

This group is littered with idiots who have written self-published books
about their views about “how things work”, complete with diagrams and new
names for fancy new parts, and they call this a theory. It’s not a theory
of anything. There are no calculations of any predicted outcomes that could
be tested in experiment. Nothing.

Without the quantitative aspect of the theory, you do not have a physics
theory, period. This has been true since the 17th century, WITHOUT
EXCEPTION.

You clearly have NO idea how physics actually works.
Post by everything isalllies
The often used statement "Physics Is MATHEMATICS" is totally incorrect.
Sure you can use Math, but to understand Physics, you never need it. The
use of Maths in Physics comes only AFTER you understand the Physics. And
even then only if you want to design a machine or bridge.
So up to you now to supply the answer to your Math puzzle, and how you derived the answer.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2022-01-05 01:40:18 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
You seem to believe that every scientists agrees with every other scientist. They don't.
I'm clearly not against science or physics, I'm against FALSE Physics.
But you would not know what is false physics.
You are not able to solve the basic physics nor math problems.
This shows that you are just the troll and want to make noise.
What are you talking about? Explain where I'm wrong, don't just submit an ad hominem response.
Front up with the Physics based argument to support Einstein against my criticisms of his theory or shut up.
You remind me this guy:

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecilePhysics.html
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 06:39:48 UTC
And you remind me of those mindless school kids marching into the meat grinder in the Pink Floyd movie, "The Wall".
Post by Python
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecilePhysics.html
And you remind me of those mindless school kids marching into the meat grinder in the Pink Floyd movie, "The Wall". But this has zero to do with Physics of Einstein, correct?
Oh, come on "everything isalllies", you are uneducated in science,
especially math and physics
Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your bunch of idiots
And speaking of education in math, it's always good to remind that you
don't know the difference between sqrt(7) and a square root of 7.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-05 06:29:46 UTC
Sorry but that’s all just bullshit. There’s not ambiguity among physicists
Sorry but that's all bullshit. There is. Not so long ago there was
significant disagreement about poor idiot JJ Lodder and some
other poor idiots here.
Ken Seto
2022-01-05 17:38:02 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
While we’re at it, I’m curious about what your background is in
“straightforward Physics”. How did you learn physics?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
I replied, but my reply has been removed.
Forget about evaluating my background, we are discussing the errors of
Einstein, and I made some comments, but you have not replied with any counter.
Did you not understand what I said?
Nothing that Einstein claims has been actually demonstrated in real life as you suggest.
Not Time dilation, (experiments are not conclusive and have other
explanations) not E=mc2, or even photoelectric being caused by tiny balls
called Photons. As for curved spacetime, well that's really way out there
in fantasy land of mere mathematicians. They should really check in with
people who study Physics before they make silly claims based on math alone.
But I really am only wanting to discuss the glaring errors of Special Relativity.
Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
demonstrated in real life.
Clock time dilation have been demonstratedased on the assumption that a clock second represent the same amount of time in different frame but it does not.......a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of TIME.That’s your problem.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Particles that have a known lifetime before
decaying at rest, do not decay at the same time when they are moving. Now
you can splutter that there are alternate explanations for why that
happens, but the reality is that HOW MUCH the decay time is lengthened is
completely in line with what relativity says it should be. There is no
alternative explanation that gets the HOW MUCH right. If you think you have
an alternative, go for it.
I also completely disagree that E=mc^2 has not been actually demonstrated
in real life. When a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a
neutrino, you can measure the speed and kinetic energies of all the
products. Because energy has been known to be conserved since the 1700s
(this is certainly not an Einstein thing), it had to come from someplace.
The MEASURED sum of the energy exactly matches the amount you get by
looking at the mass difference between the parent and children particles in
that reaction, multiplied by c^2. Again, it’s not just the qualitative
verification, but the QUANTITATIVE one that is compelling.
As for the existence of photons, you may be interested to know that you can
buy devices called single-photon counters. They perform exactly as
advertised, which is more than what you could say if you purchased a
single-unicorn counter or a single-alien-in-a-UFO counter.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 21:51:34 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
demonstrated in real life.
Clock time dilation have been demonstratedased on the assumption that a clock second represent the same amount of time in different frame but it does not.......a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of TIME.That’s your problem.
***@gmail.com

Well you fail to realise that what the hands (or digital readings) on a physical clock show, is NOT TIME.
Its a machine that increments to periods that are supposed to be uniform. We have a big clock, which is reliable enough for us, (whose periods are biologically important to all life) its called the Solar system. We get our increment divisions from this big clock.
But your clock on a space ship in Einsteins experiments, is not showing TIME, its only showing its own incremental progress.
And that physical process even if its based on crystal oscillation or atomic decay, is influenced by immediate physical conditions.
So your clock on a space ship may lose or gain the duration of increment period, and get out of sync wit a similar clock place in some other physical environment, but meanwhile the Earth still is reliably orbiting the sun, and spinning once every 24 hours, so you space ship located clock never affected the Earths orbit, never was TIME changed, only your local clock became unreliable due to local physical conditions. That's all that happened.
Time doesn't change because someone moves fast. Distances don't shrink nor Mass increase for the same reason.
And no, we don't have solid experimental evidence to prove otherwise.
We do have a massive science fraud. part of a giant lie that includes all aspects of life, now affecting even medicine and our very health.
Python
2022-01-06 00:21:53 UTC
everything isalllies wrote:
...
Post by everything isalllies
We do have a massive science fraud. part of a giant lie that includes all aspects of life, now affecting even medicine and our very health.
Certainly... Now could you return the the psychiatric ward? It's
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 11:45:32 UTC
Post by Python
...
Post by everything isalllies
We do have a massive science fraud. part of a giant lie that includes all aspects of life, now affecting even medicine and our very health.
Certainly... Now could you return the the psychiatric ward? It's
Python there is only one word for you, and its not fit to print here.
Are you really as stupid as you make out?
Most of your "science comment" consists of personal insulting of people who don't agree with you. Great science there.

Now regarding the world wide urgent coordinated push toward a communistic totalitarian "New World Order", Great Reset, Build Back Better or whatever label they slap on it, only a total idiot would blindly carry on as if nothing was happening, oblivious to current affairs. Getting his news only from the propaganda outlets fully owned by your dictators.

Either you are 1. stupid, (very likely)
2., totally ignorant of everything real, (should take a look outside your mums basement sometimes)
or 3. part of the problem, a paid shill. (China and Israel employ THOUSANDS of them for internet censoring and "corrections" you know like the "Minsitry of Truth" .. Orwell .. in his book, you know? Oh probably not, its a book and Orwell is a man who writes words..... oh, to hard to explain to you... I need to start with "Once upon a time... to appeal to you.

Actually stupid covers all 3 of the above.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 12:12:02 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Python there is only one word for you, and its not fit to print here.
Are you really as stupid as you make out?
Most of your "science comment" consists of personal insulting of people who
don't agree with you. Great science there.
But he was already like that when he was young.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-06 06:56:04 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Odd Bodkin
Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
demonstrated in real life.
Clock time dilation have been demonstratedased on the assumption that a
clock second represent the same amount of time in different frame but it
does not.......a clock second in different frame contains a different
Well you fail to realise that what the hands (or digital readings) on a
physical clock show, is NOT TIME.
Its a machine that increments to periods that are supposed to be uniform.
We have a big clock, which is reliable enough for us, (whose periods are
biologically important to all life) its called the Solar system. We get
our increment divisions from this big clock.
This may come as a shock to you, but mean solar time has not been the
standard of time for a long time now.
This may come as a shock, but what you say is a classic reality
enchanting.
But standards are based on the highest bar need, not the lowest bar need.
Only the standards of people respecting common sense, poor
halfbrain.
Ken Seto
2022-01-06 12:53:08 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Odd Bodkin
Well, I completely disagree that time dilation has not been actually
demonstrated in real life.
Clock time dilation have been demonstratedased on the assumption that a clock second represent the same amount of time in different frame but it does not.......a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of TIME.That’s your problem.
Well you fail to realise that what the hands (or digital readings) on a physical clock show, is NOT TIME.
It is TIME but it is not an absolute interval TIME in different frames..
Post by everything isalllies
Its a machine that increments to periods that are supposed to be uniform. We have a big clock, which is reliable enough for us, (whose periods are biologically important to all life) its called the >Solar system. We get our increment divisions from this big clock.
You assumed wrongly that a period on the Big Clock is an absolute interval of TIME in different frames......it is not. There is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of time in different frames.
Post by everything isalllies
But your clock on a space ship in Einsteins experiments, is not showing TIME, its only showing its own incremental progress.
And that physical process even if its based on crystal oscillation or atomic decay, is influenced by immediate physical conditions.
So your clock on a space ship may lose or gain the duration of increment period, and get out of sync wit a similar clock place in some other physical environment, but meanwhile the Earth still is reliably orbiting the sun, and spinning once every 24 hours, so you space ship located clock never affected the Earths orbit, never was TIME changed, only your local clock became unreliable due to local physical conditions. That's all that happened.
Time doesn't change because someone moves fast. Distances don't shrink nor Mass increase for the same reason.
And no, we don't have solid experimental evidence to prove otherwise.
We do have a massive science fraud. part of a giant lie that includes all aspects of life, now affecting even medicine and our very health.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2022-01-05 04:30:04 UTC
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic". It's not quite the same thing anymore, because not
only lengths can expand depending on how you look at them, but also
distances. These things are difficult to get across. For example, I have
send a rocket towards a star placed at 12 light years, the rocket will
hardly have reached the enormous speed of 0.8c (240,000 km/s), the star to
be joined will be located 36 light years away (three times farther).
This is however what the Lorentz transformations say (and with perfect
reason) if we understand them and apply them well. But in a world that is
stupid to cry, it is to me that one advises to read pages dealing with the
principles of relativity. We think, by that, that it is I who am stupid
and that does not understand.
The illusion between scientific truth and public belief is then total.
R.H.
How would distance get to go away? How could length go away
without influencing the chemistry by a lopsided atom length contraction?
everything isalllies
2022-01-05 04:47:47 UTC
For example, I have
Post by ***@gmail.com
send a rocket towards a star placed at 12 light years, the rocket will
hardly have reached the enormous speed of 0.8c (240,000 km/s), the star to
be joined will be located 36 light years away (three times farther).
This is however what the Lorentz transformations say (and with perfect
reason) if we understand them and apply them well.
R.H.
How would distance get to go away? How could length go away
without influencing the chemistry by a lopsided atom length contraction?
Clearly R.H is wrong, he actually believes that there is a valid aspect to the Lorentz transformation equation.
But its based on a misconception that's not hard to find when you look.
And Mitchr... is right in wondering what to make of lengths shrinking due ONLY to the observation of some non moving person.... Let alone the same atom whilst shrinking is supposed to gain MASS... and lose time.

Anyone who thinks this is an idiot, a deluded idiot.
rotchm
2022-01-05 05:11:23 UTC
On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 11:47:48 PM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:

Since you are new here, I'll give you a heads up:

This "mitch" is just one of the local trolls/bots. Do not entertain it.
It does not have discussions, it just randomly stitches words together that kind of looks nice, but has no substance nor logical thread.
IOW, DO NOT STROKE THE TROLLS.
patdolan
2022-01-05 09:57:46 UTC
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
It would be better to be more specific, and say that "lengths and
distances are elastic". It's not quite the same thing anymore, because not
only lengths can expand depending on how you look at them, but also
distances. These things are difficult to get across. For example, I have
send a rocket towards a star placed at 12 light years, the rocket will
hardly have reached the enormous speed of 0.8c (240,000 km/s), the star to
be joined will be located 36 light years away (three times farther).
This is however what the Lorentz transformations say (and with perfect
reason) if we understand them and apply them well. But in a world that is
stupid to cry, it is to me that one advises to read pages dealing with the
principles of relativity. We think, by that, that it is I who am stupid
and that does not understand.
The illusion between scientific truth and public belief is then total.
R.H.
Richard, thank you for this thought provoking post. You are by no means stupid. The concept of unlimited length and distance elasticity is contained in, and implied by, special relativity. As is the concept of very-superluminal Lorentz contraction velocities. It's all explained deep within the bowels of the Wikipedia page on Length contraction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Length_contraction&oldid=1021612808#Contraction_velocity

It is astounding to consider that every time you get up from your chair and accelerate towards your kitchen, no matter how small and humble that acceleration be, vast sections of the universe are contracting/expanding in your direction far above the speed of light!
thor stoneman
2022-01-06 17:56:34 UTC
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.

++++++++++++++++++________

The length contraction of Michelson's interferometer armature to reverse the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of the ether, composed of matter, that the wave theory of light is based on.

\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 18:52:35 UTC
I have always thought that the very common term "length contraction" was
incorrect, and that it could lead to relativistic misunderstandings.
The student is taught that the lengths contract.
++++++++++++++++++________
The length contraction of Michelson's interferometer armature to reverse the
negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of the ether,
composed of matter, that the wave theory of light is based on.
I have answered that many times.
If we wanted to speak more properly, we would speak of relativistic
elasticity.
For lengths, for distances, for durations, for pusatile frequencies, for
electromagnetic wavelengths.
All of this can both expand and contract.
It depends on the relative speed of the observed subject and its direction
relative to the observer's line of sight.
Schemes given here : clic ---> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Bv-***@jntp>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Bv-***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Bv-***@jntp/Data.Media:2>

R.H.
--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.