Re: A paradox may indicate a fallacy.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 6, 5:43 pm, Unified_Perspective wrote:
> >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_...
The twins’ paradox convicts utter stupidity in the conjectures that
lead to this fallacy. PERIOD.
Einstein Dingleberries have been trumpeting how any observed time
dilation would validate SR. However, when confronted to produce any
experimental results that show this mutual time dilation nonsense,
they are indeed even more silent than the deceased souls in any
cemetery. <shrug>
Correct me if yours truly is been misled. In order to claim any
validity in any conjectures, experimental results must be produced and
interpreted to agree with the predictions. Furthermore, it is the
mutual time dilation thingy that results in the relative simultaneity
which in turn becomes the very gospel of SR, and that has never been
verified in any experiments. To claim the validity in SR becomes
asinine, retarded, and/or grossly religiously inclined. Are self-
styled physicists a whole bunch of hypocrites? <shrug>
> Your post might be understandable if posted in 1911, when many people
> were believing that Einstein MUST be wrong somehow.
That is a fucked up logic. If the conjecture is wrong, it does not
matter how long time takes that the conjecture would always remain
wrong. Why are self-styled physicists becoming such stupid? <shrug>
> In 2011, however, after a century of discussion, only people
> unfamiliar with the hundreds of confirming tests of SR allow
> themselves to continue their scepticism.
Again, show me an experimental result that supports this mutual time
dilation thingy. If not, you are still crackpot. <shrug>
> Have you been in a trance since 1911?
The Einstein Dingleberries have been in this trance of stupidity in
the past 100 years. <shrug> Showing a one-way time dilation does not
mean anything, for it supports both the claims of absolute and
relative simultaneity. However, experimentally showing the mutual
time dilation will support relative simultaneity. So, where are these
experimental results? Without any experimental results to support
their claims, the self-styled physicists are nothing but a bunch of
soothsayers, and that is nowhere close to what science indicates.
<shrug>
hanson
> Uncle Ben Green <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> > Unified_Perspective wrote:
>
Uniper wrote:
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_...>
>
KW wrote:
The twins� paradox convicts utter stupidity in the conjectures that
lead to this fallacy. PERIOD.
Einstein Dingleberries have been trumpeting how any observed time
dilation would validate SR. However, when confronted to produce any
experimental results that show this mutual time dilation nonsense,
they are indeed even more silent than the deceased souls in any
cemetery. <shrug>
Correct me if yours truly is been misled. In order to claim any
validity in any conjectures, experimental results must be produced and
interpreted to agree with the predictions. Furthermore, it is the
mutual time dilation thingy that results in the relative simultaneity
which in turn becomes the very gospel of SR, and that has never been
verified in any experiments. To claim the validity in SR becomes
asinine, retarded, and/or grossly religiously inclined. Are self-
styled physicists a whole bunch of hypocrites? <shrug>
>
Ben Green wrote:
Your post might be understandable if posted in 1911, when many
people were believing that Einstein MUST be wrong somehow.
>
KW wrote:
That is a fucked up logic. If the conjecture is wrong, it does not
matter how long time takes that the conjecture would always remain
wrong. Why are self-styled physicists becoming such stupid? <shrug>
>
Ben Green wrote:
In 2011, however, after a century of discussion, only people
unfamiliar with the hundreds of confirming tests of SR allow
themselves to continue their scepticism.
>
KW wrote:
Again, show me an experimental result that supports this mutual time
dilation thingy. If not, you are still crackpot. <shrug>
>
Ben Green wrote:
Have you been in a trance since 1911?
>
KW wrote:
The Einstein Dingleberries have been in this trance of stupidity in
the past 100 years. <shrug>
Showing a one-way time dilation does not mean anything, for it
supports both the claims of absolute and relative simultaneity.
However, experimentally showing the mutual time dilation will
support relative simultaneity. So, where are these experimental results?
Without any experimental results to support their claims, the
self-styled physicists are nothing but a bunch of soothsayers, and
that is nowhere close to what science indicates. <shrug>
>
hanson wrote:
Not withstanding all the physics details, there is an underlying
physiological reason why Einstein Dingleberries cannot
see the light. The ED are in the same boat as are all other
Monotheistic religious believers. Like those religionists,
the EDs faith (in Einstein's crock o'shit) is based on time
dependent phenomena that cannot be verified experimentally.
>
The Einstein "mutual time dilation / relative simultaneity" is just
an analog latter-day version of the 2nd coming of the Messiah,
Christ or the Mahi fabulation... That smeary time concept is
engraved in their religion... & they believe it without reservation.
>
The Zios were BRILLIANT to use Einstein and his shitty
time to convince the Yidds to return to their holey land....
The Zios did not believe in their wildest dream that they
would be even more successful in brainwashing the goyim
with it. <http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity>
>
So, Wubli, convincing any Einstein Dingleberry of the
falsity of Einstein's shit is like telling a Kike not to kiss
his stonewall, or a Quoraner not to vent is ass 5 times
a day, or a Catholic not to twist his rosary, and much
less that either of then will be able to convert one of the
others. But it's fun to crank the splendid bastards, isn't
it..Thanks for the laughs, dude,...ahaha... ahahahanson
Sam Wormley
> The twins’ paradox convicts utter stupidity in the conjectures that
> lead to this fallacy. PERIOD.
Poor Koobee should learn relativity.
Daryl McCullough
>On Jan 6, 8:07 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 5:43 pm, Unified_Perspective wrote:
>
>> >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_...
>
>The twins paradox convicts utter stupidity in the conjectures that
>lead to this fallacy. PERIOD.
In order to derive a genuine paradox (in the sense of a contradiction),
you need to add your own stupidity. It's not found in SR.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Salmon Egg
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have neglected this thread for a long time, but every now and then I
look into it to check on inanity.
Some years ago on a PBS NOVA episode concerrning the nature of time. for
which Richard Feynman was the scientific consultant, a compelling
explanation was given for the slowing of moving clocks. That episode
completely changed ny outlook on special relativity. In addition to the
dilation of time, I was able to extend that explanation, to my
satisfaction. to cover shrinkage of measuring sticks oriented along the
direction of motion.
I expect to get arguments from kooks that I am wrong whether or not they
bother to understand the explanation. Their minds are made up
irrespective of facts.
A few years ago there was a traveling exhibit devoted to Einstein. One
of the items was the depiction of a "Fabry-Perot" clock. That is a clock
consisting of two mirrors with ticking determined by light bouncing
between the mirrors. When moving, it is clear that light has to go
further between ticks thereby slowing the clock. Moreover, when the
clock axis is oriented normal to the direction of motion, the
Pythagorean theorem calculates the extra distance traveled, and
consequently the extent of slowing. That IS what relativity predicts.
Once you understand special relativity, you wonder why it was so
problematical.
Bill
--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
Koobee Wublee
> I have neglected this thread for a long time, but every now and then I
> look into it to check on inanity.
Einstein Dingleberry handwaving. <shrug>
> Some years ago on a PBS NOVA episode concerrning the nature of time. for
> which Richard Feynman was the scientific consultant, a compelling
> explanation was given for the slowing of moving clocks. That episode
> completely changed ny outlook on special relativity. In addition to the
> dilation of time, I was able to extend that explanation, to my
> satisfaction. to cover shrinkage of measuring sticks oriented along the
> direction of motion.
Slowing clocks do not validate SR. There are more to make up what SR
is. You need to learn more. <shrug>
> I expect to get arguments from kooks that I am wrong whether or not they
> bother to understand the explanation. Their minds are made up
> irrespective of facts.
You are talking about yourself. <shrug>
> A few years ago there was a traveling exhibit devoted to Einstein.
Any promotions deifying a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar such as
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god ought not
to be taken seriously. <shrug>
> One
> of the items was the depiction of a "Fabry-Perot" clock. That is a clock
> consisting of two mirrors with ticking determined by light bouncing
> between the mirrors. When moving, it is clear that light has to go
> further between ticks thereby slowing the clock. Moreover, when the
> clock axis is oriented normal to the direction of motion, the
> Pythagorean theorem calculates the extra distance traveled, and
> consequently the extent of slowing.
This is what any non-ballistic theory of light predicts where all
these references must be referencing back to the absolute frame of
reference. <shrug>
> That IS what relativity predicts.
Wrong. There are an infinite numbers of transforms that predict the
same thing. Larmor’s original version of the Lorentz transform does
not satisfy the principle of relativity in the general case. It only
does so when observers are moving in parallel to each other. That
special case becomes what is now called the Lorentz transform, and
that is fucked up with stupidity. <shrug>
> Once you understand special relativity, you wonder why it was so
> problematical.
You need to study more about the subject instead of worshipping a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar as a god. <shrug>
Unified_Perspective
> In article <NcmdnabWxeSLmbrQnZ2dnUVZ_h2dn...@mchsi.com>,
I think you misunderstood my criticism. I do not dispute the apparent
slowing of time intervals. SR applies to dt correctly especially when
dt is infinitely small. That is the nature of calculus.
However, you can not apply a contraction factor valid for an
infinitely small time interval to the duration of a trip of several
years without actually summing the integral. If that were possible
calculus would be equivalent to algebra and everyone could do it.
When you do the integral you find that Stella's clock is observed to
emit red shifted pulses for 7 years, the two years of her trip, plus 5
years of delayed arrivals after her return.
On the return leg Stella's clock is observed to emit a blue shifted
pulse every 14 seconds for 52.14 days even though she emitted the
first return pulse 365 days earlier.
Pulses outbound must = Pulses inbound or even the rules of algebra are
violated. Which of course they are not.
Because Stella's turn around is "magical" rather than physical Tom
Roberts is correct and Stella sees a different signal pattern than
Terrance. I think I will work on a restatement of the problem that may
clarify things a bit. I don't know about that though. It is not a real
problem, only a thought experiment, and such a small error in such a
fine paper, so long ago is perhaps not worth troubling over.
Sincerely,
A. Gallistel
Salmon Egg
<d552b583-2b71-40f6...@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Unified_Perspective <agal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you misunderstood my criticism. I do not dispute the apparent
> slowing of time intervals. SR applies to dt correctly especially when
> dt is infinitely small. That is the nature of calculus.
>
> However, you can not apply a contraction factor valid for an
> infinitely small time interval to the duration of a trip of several
> years without actually summing the integral. If that were possible
> calculus would be equivalent to algebra and everyone could do it.
>
> When you do the integral you find that Stella's clock is observed to
> emit red shifted pulses for 7 years, the two years of her trip, plus 5
> years of delayed arrivals after her return.
>
> On the return leg Stella's clock is observed to emit a blue shifted
> pulse every 14 seconds for 52.14 days even though she emitted the
> first return pulse 365 days earlier.
>
> Pulses outbound must = Pulses inbound or even the rules of algebra are
> violated. Which of course they are not.
>
> Because Stella's turn around is "magical" rather than physical Tom
> Roberts is correct and Stella sees a different signal pattern than
> Terrance. I think I will work on a restatement of the problem that may
> clarify things a bit. I don't know about that though. It is not a real
> problem, only a thought experiment, and such a small error in such a
> fine paper, so long ago is perhaps not worth troubling over.
I did not misunderstand your criticism because I did not read it.What
you say about red and blue shifts is partly true but also irrelevant. If
you watch Stellas clocks, they would all read different depending upon
they are. They all are slow. When Stella turns around, she is emitting
blue shifted light toward her departure point. Her clocks are still
running slow and the blue and red shifts do not cancel each other.
Moreover, she finds that all her clocks are reading wrong and need to be
resynchronization. As an observer, you must compensate your measurements
for the travel time of light.
Again. sort of quoting Feynman, the explanation for perceived flaws in
relativity lie in psychology and not in physics.
Bill Taylor
> >The twins paradox convicts utter stupidity in the conjectures that
> >lead to this fallacy. PERIOD.
>
> In order to derive a genuine paradox (in the sense of a contradiction),
> you need to add your own stupidity. It's not found in SR.
-- <snigger> --
!!
Huang
> > >The twins paradox convicts utter stupidity in the conjectures that
> > >lead to this fallacy. PERIOD.
Paradox does not neccesarily imply invalidity vis-a-vis falsification
by contradiction.
It is human bias which causes us to believe that paradox neccesarily
implies falsehood somewhere along the way. This is not correct.
Paradox is poorly understood, and that is the problem.
Tom Roberts
> Pulses outbound must = Pulses inbound or even the rules of algebra are
> violated. Which of course they are not.
This depends on what you mean. If you mean that Terrance emits an equal number
of pulses for Stella's inbound and outbound legs, AS SEEN IN TERRANCE'S FRAME,
then this is correct. Ditto for Stella emitting equal numbers of pulses during
her two legs, AS COUNTED BY STELLA. But if you think this means that Stella will
receive the same number of pulses from Terrance during her two legs, or vice
versa, then you are wrong.
> Because Stella's turn around is "magical" rather than physical
Nonsense -- she physically turns around, with no "magic" involved, just a rocket
engine. But while doing so she is not at rest in any inertial frame, and that
fact makes her observations qualitatively and quantitatively different from
Terrance's observations (he remains at rest in an inertial frame throughout).
Stella also changes inertial frames during her turn around, and that also
affects her observations, because her relationship to Terrance has changed thereby.
Tom Roberts
Salmon Egg
Tom Roberts <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/7/11 1/7/11 - 7:41 PM, Unified_Perspective wrote:
> > Pulses outbound must = Pulses inbound or even the rules of algebra are
> > violated. Which of course they are not.
>
> This depends on what you mean. If you mean that Terrance emits an equal
> number
> of pulses for Stella's inbound and outbound legs, AS SEEN IN TERRANCE'S
> FRAME,
There seems to be too many examples of faulty logic presented here. Let
me give an that is likely to mislerad many.
Suppose you have a source of random pulses with an average rate of of f
per second. At random, you turn on counting apparatus that starts
working accurately without any warm-up Answer the following questions.
1. What is the average or expected time interval from the last sent
pulse to the instant the counter becomes active?
2. What is the average time between the instant the detector turns on
and the next pulse is sent?
3. What is the average length of the pulse interval during which the
counter becomes active?
bill
Koobee Wublee
> On 1/7/11 1/7/11, Unified_Perspective wrote:
> > Pulses outbound must = Pulses inbound or even the rules of algebra are
> > violated. Which of course they are not.
>
> This depends on what you mean. If you mean that Terrance emits an equal number
> of pulses for Stella's inbound and outbound legs, AS SEEN IN TERRANCE'S FRAME,
> then this is correct. Ditto for Stella emitting equal numbers of pulses during
> her two legs, AS COUNTED BY STELLA. But if you think this means that Stella will
> receive the same number of pulses from Terrance during her two legs, or vice
> versa, then you are wrong.
Hmmm... That is just obvious. It can be concluded without invoking
SR. So, try not to trumpet on a simple prediction of logic in order
to emphasize the validity of SR. <shrug>
> > Because Stella's turn around is "magical" rather than physical
>
> Nonsense -- she physically turns around, with no "magic" involved, just a rocket
> engine. But while doing so she is not at rest in any inertial frame, and that
> fact makes her observations qualitatively and quantitatively different from
> Terrance's observations (he remains at rest in an inertial frame throughout).
> Stella also changes inertial frames during her turn around, and that also
> affects her observations, because her relationship to Terrance has changed thereby.
Oh, it is magic in your point of view as you have described it in the
very words above but rigorously denied as magic. Then, in that case,
show me the mathematics that justify the “magic moment” of turn
around. I hope it is not too much to ask for a verification of SR.
<shrug>
There are lots of conjectures that predict this time dilation thingy
whether it is rightfully valid or not. However, SR went beyond that
to predict the mutual time dilation. As an experimental physicist
that abides to the experimental results in validating any conjectures,
please provide experimental results that definitively show this mutual
time dilation. Again, I hope it is not too much to ask for the
validation of SR. <shrug>
Salmon Egg
Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <_cidnd9xW6ax...@giganews.com>,
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/7/11 1/7/11 - 7:41 PM, Unified_Perspective wrote:
> > > Pulses outbound must = Pulses inbound or even the rules of algebra are
> > > violated. Which of course they are not.
> >
> > This depends on what you mean. If you mean that Terrance emits an equal
> > number
> > of pulses for Stella's inbound and outbound legs, AS SEEN IN TERRANCE'S
> > FRAME,
>
> There seems to be too many examples of faulty logic presented here. Let
> me give one that is likely to mislerad many.
>
> Suppose you have a source of random pulses with an average rate of of f
> per second. At random, you turn on counting apparatus that starts
> working accurately without any warm-up Answer the following questions.
>
> 1. What is the average or expected time interval from the last sent
> pulse to the instant the counter becomes active?
>
> 2. What is the average time between the instant the detector turns on
> and the next pulse is sent?
>
> 3. What is the average length of the pulse interval during which the
> counter becomes active?
>
> Bill
NO ONE ON THIS NEWSGROUP SEEMED WILLING TO TACKLE THIS ONE.
spudnik
the two atronauts are accelerating at the same rate
for the whole experiment ... if they really know,
where dayat.
obviously, if one of the atronauts is staying
at home on spaceship Earth, it's not going to happen.
unforetunately, the contumely of the spacetime cult has
to put every problem on the x-axis,
which is kinda bizarre.
Salmon Egg
<1040d574-b3d5-4cde...@f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
spudnik <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
By chance I actually read this in time for a useful response. I think
that I now know what the problem is leading to the misunderstanding.
1. There is mutual time dilation.
2. For the stationary twin, the one who does not get accelerated and
decelerated to and from high speed, nothing special takes place when the
other twin reverses direction. He and his outlying assistants can
continue to make measurements in the ususal way during the moving twin
reverses direction.
3. The traveling twin has two travel stages to deal with; outgoing and
returning.
4. The traveling twin has had time to synchronize clocks on the way
out. That includes compensation for the travel time of synchronizing
light or radio signals.
5. The stationary twin can note that the various synchronized clocks
the moving twin has read differently, depending upon position of the
clock.
6. The reversal takes place. All clocks read the same as before.
7. Using his own clocks, the stationary twin sees that none of the
clocks have changed reading.
8. The moving twin sees that there is something wrong. When he sends
out synchronizing signals, he finds out that all of his clocks, except
for his standard clock, are wrong. He goes about synchronizing his
clocks again.
8. The stationary twin sees that all the moving clocks are being reset
by this resynchronization. Again, they will be position dependent.
9. Mutual time dilation still exists, but there has been a change in
the moving clock settings.
10. To the moving twin, this means that the stationary twin has changed
age during reversal of direction according to how much his moving clock
near the stationary twin jumped during the resynchronization.
Koobee Wublee
> I think
> that I now know what the problem is leading to the misunderstanding.
>
> 1. There is mutual time dilation.
The mutual time dilation plus the principle of relativity dubbed this
special symmetry is what causing all the fiasco. <shrug>
> 2. For the stationary twin, the one who does not get accelerated and
> decelerated to and from high speed, nothing special takes place when the
> other twin reverses direction. He and his outlying assistants can
> continue to make measurements in the ususal way during the moving twin
> reverses direction.
Proposing acceleration break this so-called symmetry was first
proposed by Born. Lacking any rationalization capability, Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar went along with that stupid
proposal. This resolution of the twins’ paradox is no longer
supported by any highly ranked self-styled physicists due to obvious
fallacy within. Think of a scenario where both twins do travel with
the same acceleration profile. Somewhere during their identical
journeys where their relative speeds are obvious, allow them to coast
for a while without any acceleration. Make that coasting time
variable. If anyone understands the Lorentz transform, the fallacy is
just obvious. <shrug>
> [rest of handwaving bullshit snipped]
There is no mathematics to show how this magical turn-around thing
will resolve the paradox. That seems not to bother the ones with
their heads in the clouds. <shrug>
Peter Webb
If so, which ones?
Koobee Wublee
In the meantime, present me an experiment showing this mutual time
dilation.
Peter Webb
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60d1806d-dd46-47be...@b25g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> Just about every experiment including the MMX.
>
The question was:
"Are their any experimental predictions of SR which you consider incorrect?"
Relativity predicts the observed result of the MMX theory.
So obviously Relativity's experimental predictions of the result of the MMX
experiment is correct. The MMX experiment functioned exactly how Relativity
said it would.
So I repeat my question:
Henry Wilson DSc
No experimental predictions of SR have ever been directly tested.
Henry Wilson...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:05m6j6dkh20b6m3bs...@4ax.com...
Webb is a fuckwit, he asks the same question repeatedly and never
accepts the answer. He doesn't seem to know what a prophecy is.
At least Dr. Niemenin from Queensland seems to have seen the light
and shut the fuck up.
--
r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif>
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif>
Let r_AB = 480 million metres,
let c = 300 million metres/sec,
let v = 180 million metres/sec.
480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180)
480/(120) = 480/(480)
4 = 1
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant, the velocity of
light in empty space." --§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity --
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity"--§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
--ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the
part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in
Relativityland.
Peter Webb
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:05m6j6dkh20b6m3bs...@4ax.com...
Time dilation from both gravity and relaive motion.
Relativistic doppler shift.
Relativistic momentum and energy
Reduction to Newton for speeds << c.
> Henry Wilson...
Idiot.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_2011j> wrote in message
news:ByKYo.100391$oG7....@newsfe24.ams2...
>
> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> news:05m6j6dkh20b6m3bs...@4ax.com...
> | On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:08:06 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> | <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> |
> | >
> | >"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> |
> >news:60d1806d-dd46-47be...@b25g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> | >> Just about every experiment including the MMX.
> | >>
> | >
> | >The question was:
> | >
> | >"Are their any experimental predictions of SR which you consider
> incorrect?"
> | >
> | >Relativity predicts the observed result of the MMX theory.
> | >
> | >So obviously Relativity's experimental predictions of the result of the
> MMX
> | >experiment is correct. The MMX experiment functioned exactly how
> Relativity
> | >said it would.
> | >
> | >So I repeat my question:
> | >
> | >"Are their any experimental predictions of SR which you consider
> incorrect?"
> |
> | No experimental predictions of SR have ever been directly tested.
> |
> Yes they have and they always fail.
> Webb is a fuckwit, he asks the same question repeatedly and never
> accepts the answer. He doesn't seem to know what a prophecy is.
>
What answer? I have yet to hear a single experimental prediction from Koobee
that he thinks is incorrect. Yet he won't say that he believes them all to
be correct.
Why does he refuse to answer my question? Its a pretty simple question, I am
only asking him what he believes.
For that matter, what experimental predictions of relativity do *you*
consider incorrect, if any?
Henry Wilson DSc
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:05m6j6dkh20b6m3bs...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:08:06 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>Time dilation from both gravity and relaive motion.
>
>Relativistic doppler shift.
>
>Relativistic momentum and energy
>
>Reduction to Newton for speeds << c.
>
>> Henry Wilson...
>
>Idiot.
If Einstein was right the planets in the solar system would have disappeared
eons ago...
Moron!
Henry Wilson...
Koobee Wublee
> "Androcles" wrote:
> > Webb is a fuckwit, he asks the same question repeatedly and never
> > accepts the answer. He doesn't seem to know what a prophecy is.
This is one of the very few moments that Andro is correct. <Applaud>
> What answer?
The MMX. <shrug>
> I have yet to hear a single experimental prediction from Koobee
> that he thinks is incorrect.
The MMX again. <shrug>
> Yet he won't say that he believes them all to
> be correct.
For the n’th time, the MMX. <shrug>
> Why does he refuse to answer my question?
You are indeed very fucked up. <shrug>
> Its a pretty simple question, I am
> only asking him what he believes.
Peter Webb is a retard that keeps asking the same question which has
been answered many times before. <shrug>
> For that matter, what experimental predictions of relativity do *you*
> consider incorrect, if any?
The absolute simultaneity. <shrug>
Let me ask you a simple question. What experiment shows the mutual
time dilation that supports the validity of SR? You are a man,
right? Then answer this question. <Middle finger>
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> >So I repeat my question:
>
> >"Are their any experimental predictions of SR which you consider incorrect?"
>
> No experimental predictions of SR have ever been directly tested.
>
> Henry Wilson...
There have been plenty of tests you just reject all of them.
Androcles
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c25951c2-fa8d-41b5...@h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 12:44 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
[...]
===========
[...]
I'm superior, you're inferior
I'm the big attraction, you're the small
I'm the major one, you're the minor one
I can beat you shootin', that's not all
/ C - Dm - / G7 - C - / - - D7 - / G - Cdim7 G7 /
Anything you can snip, I can snip better
I can snip any thing better than you
No you can't, Yes I can, No you can't, Yes I can
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can
/ G7 C G7 C / / / Dm7 G7 - - /
Anything you can be I can be greater
Sooner or later, I'm greater than you
No you're not, Yes I am, No you're not Yes I am
No you're not, Yes I am, yes I am
I can shoot a partridge with a single cartridge
I can get a sparrow with a bow and arrow
I can do most anything
Can you bake a pie? No. Neither can I
/ Em - Em6 - / Dm - Dm6 - / D7Am7 D7Am7 D7 - / G7 - Dm7 G7 /
Anything you can snip I can snip louder
I can snip anything louder than you
No you can't....
Anything you can snip, I can snip cheaper
I can snip anything cheaper than you
Fifty cents, Forty cents, Thirty cents, Twenty cents
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can
Anything you can dig, I can dig deeper
I can dig anything deeper than you
Thirty feet, Forty feet, Fifty feet, Sixty feet
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can
I can drink my liquor faster than a flicker
I can do it quicker and get even sicker
I can live on bread and cheese
And only on that? Yes, So can a rat
Anything you can reach, I can go higher
I can sing anything higher than you
No you can't....
Anyone you can lick, I can lick faster
I can lick anyone faster than you
With your fist? With my feet, With your feet? With an axe
No you can't, Yes I can, yes I can
Any school where you went, I could be master
I could be master much faster than you
Can you spell, No I can't, Can you add, No I can't
Can you teach, Yes I can, yes I can
I could be a racer, quite a steeple chaser
I can jump a hurdle even with my girdle
I can open any safe
With out being caught? Yes, That's what I thought, you crook
Any note you can hold I can hold longer
I can hold any note longer than you.
No you can't, Yes I ca-a-a-a-an, Yes you ca-a-an
Henry Wilson DSc
[..]
Henry Wilson...
Peter Webb
On Jan 16, 11:12 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Androcles" wrote:
> > Webb is a fuckwit, he asks the same question repeatedly and never
> > accepts the answer. He doesn't seem to know what a prophecy is.
This is one of the very few moments that Andro is correct. <Applaud>
> What answer?
The MMX. <shrug>
___________________________________________________
You don't believe that SR predicts the results of the MMX experiment
correctly?
Let me assure you it does. SR predicts the constancy of the speed of light,
which means a null result (to the limits of accuracy), and that is exactly
what they got.
Here is the question again:
"Are their any experimental predictions of SR which you consider incorrect?"
Now either you don't believe that SR would predict a null result for the MM
experiment to the limits of observational accuracy, or you don't believe the
MM experiment showed a null result to the limits of observational accuracy.
Which is it?
Sam Wormley
>
> If Einstein was right the planets in the solar system would have disappeared
> eons ago...
>
> Moron!
>
> Henry Wilson...
Ralph--Do the calculations. (oh, I forgot you are not capable)
hagman
> On Jan 15, 8:20 pm, Salmon Egg wrote:
>
> > I think
> > that I now know what the problem is leading to the misunderstanding.
>
> > 1. There is mutual time dilation.
>
> The mutual time dilation plus the principle of relativity dubbed this
> special symmetry is what causing all the fiasco. <shrug>
>
> > 2. For the stationary twin, the one who does not get accelerated and
> > decelerated to and from high speed, nothing special takes place when the
> > other twin reverses direction. He and his outlying assistants can
> > continue to make measurements in the ususal way during the moving twin
> > reverses direction.
>
> Proposing acceleration break this so-called symmetry was first
> proposed by Born. Lacking any rationalization capability, Einstein
> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar went along with that stupid
> proposal. This resolution of the twins’ paradox is no longer
> supported by any highly ranked self-styled physicists due to obvious
> fallacy within. Think of a scenario where both twins do travel with
> the same acceleration profile. Somewhere during their identical
> journeys where their relative speeds are obvious, allow them to coast
> for a while without any acceleration. Make that coasting time
> variable. If anyone understands the Lorentz transform, the fallacy is
> just obvious. <shrug>
If they coast for a while and have *identical* acceleration profiles,
they stay in a common frame altogether and have no reason to expect
different clock readings.
Even if they have identical profiles except for opposite directions,
they will end up with no twin older than the other - by symmetry.
Hence they conclude that SR is not all there is and easily conclude
that clocks subject to accelaration (or gravity) slow down; GR is
born.
hagman
Androcles
"hagman" <goo...@von-eitzen.de> wrote in message
news:3be06f3b-eb4d-4b9a...@fx12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
hagman
==============================================
Test of GR.
Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif>
Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
<http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm>
If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c>
Either way, NIST are useless yankee wankers and WRONG.
GR was still-born, dean on arrival.
Daryl McCullough
>> Proposing acceleration break this so-called symmetry was first
>> proposed by Born. =A0Lacking any rationalization capability, Einstein
>> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar went along with that stupid
>> proposal. =A0This resolution of the twins=92 paradox is no longer
>> supported by any highly ranked self-styled physicists due to obvious
>> fallacy within. =A0Think of a scenario where both twins do travel with
>> the same acceleration profile. =A0Somewhere during their identical
>> journeys where their relative speeds are obvious, allow them to coast
>> for a while without any acceleration. =A0Make that coasting time
>> variable. =A0If anyone understands the Lorentz transform, the fallacy is
>> just obvious. =A0<shrug>
>
>If they coast for a while and have *identical* acceleration profiles,
>they stay in a common frame altogether and have no reason to expect
>different clock readings.
>Even if they have identical profiles except for opposite directions,
>they will end up with no twin older than the other - by symmetry.
>Hence they conclude that SR is not all there is and easily conclude
>that clocks subject to accelaration (or gravity) slow down; GR is
>born.
That is not correct. GR makes *identical* predictions to SR for
accelerated clocks.
Koobee does not actually know he is talking about.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Henry Wilson DSc
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0c47e0b5-3b1b-4f70...@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 16, 11:12 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>> "Androcles" wrote:
>
>> > Webb is a fuckwit, he asks the same question repeatedly and never
>> > accepts the answer. He doesn't seem to know what a prophecy is.
>
>This is one of the very few moments that Andro is correct. <Applaud>
>
>> What answer?
>
>The MMX. <shrug>
>
>___________________________________________________
>You don't believe that SR predicts the results of the MMX experiment
>correctly?
>
>Let me assure you it does. SR predicts the constancy of the speed of light,
>which means a null result (to the limits of accuracy), and that is exactly
>what they got.
SR simply steals the BaTh explanation for the null result.
"Light always moves at c wrt the source and all components at rest in the
source frame."
>Here is the question again:
>
>"Are their any experimental predictions of SR which you consider incorrect?"
Yes. Light speed is source dependent....as demonstrated by the study of
variable star light curves.
The sagnac effect refutes SR because the rays have to magically move at c+v and
c-v wrt the source.
>
>Now either you don't believe that SR would predict a null result for the MM
>experiment to the limits of observational accuracy, or you don't believe the
>MM experiment showed a null result to the limits of observational accuracy.
>
>Which is it?
SR is fairyland physics.
Henry Wilson...
hagman
Erm, does SR make predictions about accelerated clocks at all?
hagman
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:28:45 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
> >"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
How about this method of assessing spookiness of certain theories:
http://xkcd.com/808/
Daryl McCullough
Yes, the prediction by SR [see comment below] is that the time shown
on an accelerated clock is given by
T = Integral of square-root(1-(v/c)^2) dt
where t is coordinate time, and v is the instantaneous velocity of
the clock, (as measured in an inertial coordinate system).
[Comment] There is a discussion about this point in the thread
"Rare, legitimate question posted to spr". Some say that it requires
an additional "clock hypothesis" to derive this from SR, but it definitely
doesn't require GR.
Henry Wilson DSc
...don't you have anything better to do?
Henry Wilson...
Eric Gisse
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:28:45 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
> >"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Which is why special relativity has been relegated to the fringes of
USENET and ballistic theory has been standard theory for more than a
century now.
Oh wait, that's exactly backwards. I wonder why.
Got any plans to graduate from rambling on USENET to doing something
actually useful with your theory? Like, perhaps, publishing it finally?
Peter Webb
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
So what is the experiment, exacty?
> The sagnac effect refutes SR because the rays have to magically move at
> c+v and
> c-v wrt the source.
>
Describe the experiment where you think Relativity makes an incorrect
prediction.
Koobee Wublee
certainly make yours truly a better learned scholar in this subject
than all self-styled physicists. <shrug>
Peter Webb, the retard, wrote:
> SR predicts the constancy of the speed of light,
> which means a null result (to the limits of accuracy), and that is exactly
> what they got.
So what? There are an infinite such conjectures that also predict the
constancy in the speed of light, and all of them do no satisfy the
principle of relativity. <shrug>
Larmor’s original transformation also does not satisfy the principle
of relativity. It is the same as the Lorentz transform except one of
the two observers must be the absolute frame of reference. <shrug>
This is not for your benefit but for the others reading this post.
Yours truly does not believe a retard can understand simple
mathematics. <shrug>
All these transformations transform relate two observers observer the
same event from each frame of reference. All these transforms
(including the good old Galilean based on the ballistic theory of
light) must also reference back to the absolute frame of reference.
So, two observers (each NOT of the absolute frame of reference) must
from two sets of transformations where each transform involves one
observer and the absolute frame of reference, and the other transform
involves the other observer and the absolute frame of reference.
Combining the two transforms, the Galilean transform shows the
absolute frame of reference is not necessary in the combined
transform. The combined transform only involves the two observers and
not the absolute frame of reference. Thus, it is said that the
Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity.
However, all other transforms, including the Voigt, Larmor’s original,
and all others discovered by Lorentz, exhibit the absolute frame of
reference after combining. Thus, they do not satisfy the principle of
relativity.
Now, when the two observers are traveling in parallel relative to the
absolute frame of reference, Larmor’s original transform does reduce
into the combined one where the absolute frame of reference drops
out. This becomes the Lorentz transform.
Thus, the Lorentz transform was born out of a very special case where
in general it is invalid. That is why yours truly has claimed the MMX
is not the basis of the Lorentz transform and thus not the basis of
SR.
<shrug>
> Here is the question again:
>
> "Are their any experimental predictions of SR which you consider incorrect?"
Yes, the MMX. <shrug>
> [the rest of retarded regurgitation snipped]
hagman
> In article <SalmonEgg-6ED746.17210511012...@news60.forteinc.com>,
> Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <_cidnd9xW6ax5bHQRVn_...@giganews.com>,
> > Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 1/7/11 1/7/11 - 7:41 PM, Unified_Perspective wrote:
> > > > Pulses outbound must = Pulses inbound or even the rules of algebra are
> > > > violated. Which of course they are not.
>
> > > This depends on what you mean. If you mean that Terrance emits an equal
> > > number
> > > of pulses for Stella's inbound and outbound legs, AS SEEN IN TERRANCE'S
> > > FRAME,
>
> > There seems to be too many examples of faulty logic presented here. Let
> > me give one that is likely to mislerad many.
>
> > Suppose you have a source of random pulses with an average rate of of f
> > per second. At random, you turn on counting apparatus that starts
> > working accurately without any warm-up Answer the following questions.
>
> > 1. What is the average or expected time interval from the last sent
> > pulse to the instant the counter becomes active?
>
> > 2. What is the average time between the instant the detector turns on
> > and the next pulse is sent?
>
> > 3. What is the average length of the pulse interval during which the
> > counter becomes active?
>
> > Bill
>
> NO ONE ON THIS NEWSGROUP SEEMED WILLING TO TACKLE THIS ONE.
>
> --
> An old man would be better off never having been born.
Before you keep on shouting, let's try:
This is a Poisson process.
The probability of no pulse in interval [0, t] is given by exp(-
f*t).
The probability of at least on pulse in [0, t] is 1-exp(-f*t).
Thus the density function of the random variable X = "time of first
pulse after 0" is
f(t) = d/dt(1-exp(-f*t)) = f*exp(-f*t).
Thus the expected value of X is
E(X) = \int_0^oo t*f(t) dt = \int_0^oo f*t*exp(-f*t) dt = 1/f.
This is not really a surprise.
By symmetry, the answer to both questions 1 and 2 is 1/f.
Hence the answer to question 3 is 2/f.
This is not much of a surprise either.
hagman
Peter Webb
Yours truly has explained why SR is totally nonsense, and that would
certainly make yours truly a better learned scholar in this subject
than all self-styled physicists. <shrug>
Peter Webb, the retard, wrote:
> SR predicts the constancy of the speed of light,
> which means a null result (to the limits of accuracy), and that is exactly
> what they got.
So what? There are an infinite such conjectures that also predict the
constancy in the speed of light, and all of them do no satisfy the
principle of relativity. <shrug>
_____________________________________________
Sure. But the question I asaked you was "Are there any experimental
predictions of Relativity that you think are incorrect".
You said the MMX experiment.
But as you now concede, SR predicts a null result and they got a null
result.
So that experimental prediction of Relativity obviously was correct.
Allow me to repeat my question.
"Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity that you think are
incorrect"
Eric Gisse
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[...]
> You said the MMX experiment.
>
> But as you now concede, SR predicts a null result and they got a null
> result.
>
> So that experimental prediction of Relativity obviously was correct.
>
> Allow me to repeat my question.
>
> "Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity that you think are
> incorrect"
A better question is 'what do you think your sniping from the cover of
a pseudonym is going to accomplish?'
Androcles
================
I agree, "[...]" is all anyone should say.
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
> > So what? There are an infinite such conjectures that also predict the
> > constancy in the speed of light, and all of them do no satisfy the
> > principle of relativity. <shrug>
>
> Sure. But the question I asaked you was "Are there any experimental
> predictions of Relativity that you think are incorrect".
What predictions can be valid when the conjecture is fouled in the
first place? This is the basics of scientific method. <shrug>
> You said the MMX experiment.
Yes. <shrug>
> But as you now concede, SR predicts a null result and they got a null
> result.
Your conclusion is not valid.
> So that experimental prediction of Relativity obviously was correct.
No, the mutual time dilation is never shown valid. <shrug>
If that is a wrong statement, let yours truly know ASAP. <shrug>
> Allow me to repeat my question.
Here we go again. <shrug>
> Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity that you think are incorrect?
The MMX. <shrug>
In the meantime, SR predicts this mutual time dilation, and mutual
time dilation has never been observed once in any laboratories.
According to scientific method, SR must be deemed bullshit. <shrug>
PD
> On Jan 18, 1:11 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>
> > "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
> > > So what? There are an infinite such conjectures that also predict the
> > > constancy in the speed of light, and all of them do no satisfy the
> > > principle of relativity. <shrug>
>
> > Sure. But the question I asaked you was "Are there any experimental
> > predictions of Relativity that you think are incorrect".
>
> What predictions can be valid when the conjecture is fouled in the
> first place? This is the basics of scientific method. <shrug>
No, sir, it is not.
The validity of the conjecture is not determined PRIOR to comparison
with experimental measurement. It is determined BY comparison with
experimental measurement.
The MMX measurement agrees with the prediction of relativity. You say
it is wrong anyway, but that is not by the metric above.
>
> > You said the MMX experiment.
>
> Yes. <shrug>
>
> > But as you now concede, SR predicts a null result and they got a null
> > result.
>
> Your conclusion is not valid.
Those statements made are facts.
1. SR predicts a null result.
2. M-M got a null result.
Which of these two facts do you think is incorrect?
>
> > So that experimental prediction of Relativity obviously was correct.
>
> No, the mutual time dilation is never shown valid. <shrug>
>
> If that is a wrong statement, let yours truly know ASAP. <shrug>
>
> > Allow me to repeat my question.
>
> Here we go again. <shrug>
>
> > Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity that you think are incorrect?
>
> The MMX. <shrug>
Please elucidate. So far, you don't seem to be very clear on it.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 18, 11:20 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > What predictions can be valid when the conjecture is fouled in the
> > first place? This is the basics of scientific method. <shrug>
>
> No, sir, it is not.
> The validity of the conjecture is not determined PRIOR to comparison
> with experimental measurement. It is determined BY comparison with
> experimental measurement.
The conjecture must be shown as self-consistent before validation by
experimental results. This is scientific method. <shrug>
> The MMX measurement agrees with the prediction of relativity. You say
> it is wrong anyway, but that is not by the metric above.
There is no prediction in the first place from a self-inconsistent
conjecture. Just what part of scientific methodology do you not
understand? <shrug>
> Those statements made are facts.
> 1. SR predicts a null result.
> 2. M-M got a null result.
> Which of these two facts do you think is incorrect?
There are infinite other conjectures that predict the same results.
So, you don’t understand scientific method. <shrug>
> > The MMX. <shrug>
>
> Please elucidate. So far, you don't seem to be very clear on it.
For example, the following are facts:
1. All monkeys have four limbs.
2. Humans also have four limbs.
PD who does not understand scientific method would not hesitate to
conclude the following.
** Monkeys and humans are the same species.
In the meantime, show me a single experiment to support the unique
prediction of SR that is the mutual time dilation. After claiming the
validity in SR, is it so much to ask of you to support your position
with experimental results showing the unique prediction to SR?
PD
> On Jan 18, 9:30 am, PD wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 11:20 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > What predictions can be valid when the conjecture is fouled in the
> > > first place? This is the basics of scientific method. <shrug>
>
> > No, sir, it is not.
> > The validity of the conjecture is not determined PRIOR to comparison
> > with experimental measurement. It is determined BY comparison with
> > experimental measurement.
>
> The conjecture must be shown as self-consistent before validation by
> experimental results. This is scientific method. <shrug>
No, it does not have to be *shown* to be self-consistent. Especially
not to pot-bellied pigs and table legs. It has to be *accepted* by the
community to be self-consistent, which is usually contingent on the
absence of an *accepted* demonstration that it is internally
inconsistent.
You can sit and foam all day that it hasn't been shown to be
consistent to YOU, and you can blather and splutter that you believe
it is internally inconsistent and that you're smarter than anyone on
the planet. When you can convince someone that it is internally
inconsistent, then you may be on the path to an *accepted*
demonstration of internal inconsistency.
>
> > The MMX measurement agrees with the prediction of relativity. You say
> > it is wrong anyway, but that is not by the metric above.
>
> There is no prediction in the first place from a self-inconsistent
> conjecture. Just what part of scientific methodology do you not
> understand? <shrug>
>
> > Those statements made are facts.
> > 1. SR predicts a null result.
> > 2. M-M got a null result.
> > Which of these two facts do you think is incorrect?
>
> There are infinite other conjectures that predict the same results.
So?
The presence of a competitive model (and so far you haven't produced
one) does not discredit the incumbent one.
> So, you don’t understand scientific method. <shrug>
>
> > > The MMX. <shrug>
>
> > Please elucidate. So far, you don't seem to be very clear on it.
>
> For example, the following are facts:
>
> 1. All monkeys have four limbs.
> 2. Humans also have four limbs.
Neither statement pertains to the MMX.
>
> PD who does not understand scientific method would not hesitate to
> conclude the following.
>
> ** Monkeys and humans are the same species.
>
> In the meantime, show me a single experiment to support the unique
> prediction of SR that is the mutual time dilation. After claiming the
> validity in SR, is it so much to ask of you to support your position
> with experimental results showing the unique prediction to SR?
Before we get into that, it isn't true that EVERY claim made by a
theory must be exhaustively tested before the theory is accepted. If
you think it does, then you have some reading on scientific
methodology to do.
Huang
Paradox does not neccesarily negate validity. I created a FaceBook
page which explains all of my crazy ideas in a more compact,
comprehensive form. It is a work in progress and rebuttals /
criticisms are invited.
Huang
> Paradox does not neccesarily negate validity. I created a FaceBook
> page which explains all of my crazy ideas in a more compact,
> comprehensive form. It is a work in progress and rebuttals /
> criticisms are invited.
>
dont know why my link got broken -
Here's the link again
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071
Or if you need to glue it together manually
http://www.facebook.com/pages/
Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/
184947098190071
Henry Wilson DSc
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
the experiment is to compare an observed light curve with one simulated on the
basis of variable light speed coming from an orbiting or pulsating star.
The result proves that light speed is source dependent.
>> The sagnac effect refutes SR because the rays have to magically move at
>> c+v and
>> c-v wrt the source.
>>
>
>Describe the experiment where you think Relativity makes an incorrect
>prediction.
Every experiment ever performed.
>>>Now either you don't believe that SR would predict a null result for the
>>>MM
>>>experiment to the limits of observational accuracy, or you don't believe
>>>the
>>>MM experiment showed a null result to the limits of observational
>>>accuracy.
>>>
>>>Which is it?
>>
>> SR is fairyland physics.
>>
>> Henry Wilson...
Henry Wilson...
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The conjecture must be shown as self-consistent before validation by
> > experimental results. This is scientific method. <shrug>
>
> No, it does not have to be *shown* to be self-consistent.
Yes, it does. <shrug>
> Especially not to pot-bellied pigs and table legs.
What? <shrug>
> It has to be *accepted* by the
> community to be self-consistent, which is usually contingent on the
> absence of an *accepted* demonstration that it is internally
> inconsistent.
Oh, just like a religion. <shrug>
> You can sit and foam all day that it hasn't been shown to be
> consistent to YOU, and you can blather and splutter that you believe
> it is internally inconsistent and that you're smarter than anyone on
> the planet. When you can convince someone that it is internally
> inconsistent, then you may be on the path to an *accepted*
> demonstration of internal inconsistency.
The inconsistencies have been shown many times. The moral of the
story is that the zealous just cannot accept the self-inconsistencies
in the ideology they worship. <shrug>
> Those statements made are facts.
> 1. SR predicts a null result.
> 2. M-M got a null result.
> Which of these two facts do you think is incorrect?
>
> > There are infinite other conjectures that predict the same results.
>
> So?
You are just oblivious to scientific method. That is all. <shrug>
> The presence of a competitive model (and so far you haven't produced
> one) does not discredit the incumbent one.
Oh, yes. The Voigt transform satisfies both 1 and 2, and so are the
infinite others Lorentz had discovered. <shrug>
So, another very important fact must be considered. That is there are
infinite numbers of transforms that satisfy 1 and 2. <shrug>
> > For example, the following are facts:
>
> > 1. All monkeys have four limbs.
> > 2. Humans also have four limbs.
>
> Neither statement pertains to the MMX.
The same logic applies. <shrug>
> > PD who does not understand scientific method would not hesitate to
> > conclude the following.
>
> > ** Monkeys and humans are the same species.
If you finally understands what scientific method is, you will
comprehend and see the logic lies within. <shrug>
> > In the meantime, show me a single experiment to support the unique
> > prediction of SR that is the mutual time dilation. After claiming the
> > validity in SR, is it so much to ask of you to support your position
> > with experimental results showing the unique prediction to SR?
>
> Before we get into that, it isn't true that EVERY claim made by a
> theory must be exhaustively tested before the theory is accepted.
Yes, provided the theory is self-consistent. SR predicts mutual time
dilation. It is self-inconsistent. If claimed otherwise, show me
experiments that support this mutual time dilation. <shrug>
> If you think it does, then you have some reading on scientific
> methodology to do.
You must get over with that. Your truly is not here to teach about
scientific method. You must learn that either on your own or from
school. If you have been to school already, you should go back to
that school and demand a complete refund in your tuition. It is
solely your problem. <shrug>
PD
> On Jan 18, 11:04 am, PD wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The conjecture must be shown as self-consistent before validation by
> > > experimental results. This is scientific method. <shrug>
>
> > No, it does not have to be *shown* to be self-consistent.
>
> Yes, it does. <shrug>
>
> > Especially not to pot-bellied pigs and table legs.
>
> What? <shrug>
>
> > It has to be *accepted* by the
> > community to be self-consistent, which is usually contingent on the
> > absence of an *accepted* demonstration that it is internally
> > inconsistent.
>
> Oh, just like a religion. <shrug>
Nope, not like it at all. You can foam the scientific method does what
you expect it to do for you and that it's failed to do that.
>
> > You can sit and foam all day that it hasn't been shown to be
> > consistent to YOU, and you can blather and splutter that you believe
> > it is internally inconsistent and that you're smarter than anyone on
> > the planet. When you can convince someone that it is internally
> > inconsistent, then you may be on the path to an *accepted*
> > demonstration of internal inconsistency.
>
> The inconsistencies have been shown many times.
Who have you convinced?
> The moral of the
> story is that the zealous just cannot accept the self-inconsistencies
> in the ideology they worship. <shrug>
>
> > Those statements made are facts.
> > 1. SR predicts a null result.
> > 2. M-M got a null result.
> > Which of these two facts do you think is incorrect?
>
> > > There are infinite other conjectures that predict the same results.
>
> > So?
>
> You are just oblivious to scientific method. That is all. <shrug>
>
> > The presence of a competitive model (and so far you haven't produced
> > one) does not discredit the incumbent one.
>
> Oh, yes. The Voigt transform satisfies both 1 and 2, and so are the
> infinite others Lorentz had discovered. <shrug>
>
> So, another very important fact must be considered. That is there are
> infinite numbers of transforms that satisfy 1 and 2. <shrug>
So?
Relativity's competitive stance among other models does not rest on
the MMX.
>
> > > For example, the following are facts:
>
> > > 1. All monkeys have four limbs.
> > > 2. Humans also have four limbs.
>
> > Neither statement pertains to the MMX.
>
> The same logic applies. <shrug>
Then please elucidate what you think is wrong about the agreement
between relativity's predictions of the MMX result and the actual
result.
>
> > > PD who does not understand scientific method would not hesitate to
> > > conclude the following.
>
> > > ** Monkeys and humans are the same species.
>
> If you finally understands what scientific method is, you will
> comprehend and see the logic lies within. <shrug>
And what do you think the scientific method is?
>
> > > In the meantime, show me a single experiment to support the unique
> > > prediction of SR that is the mutual time dilation. After claiming the
> > > validity in SR, is it so much to ask of you to support your position
> > > with experimental results showing the unique prediction to SR?
>
> > Before we get into that, it isn't true that EVERY claim made by a
> > theory must be exhaustively tested before the theory is accepted.
>
> Yes, provided the theory is self-consistent. SR predicts mutual time
> dilation.
Yes.
> It is self-inconsistent.
Mutual time dilation is inherently inconsistent?
Which two statements are in direct contradiction with each other?
Please be sure to use statements that are actually claimed by
relativity, not ones from comic books about relativity.
> If claimed otherwise, show me
> experiments that support this mutual time dilation. <shrug>
>
> > If you think it does, then you have some reading on scientific
> > methodology to do.
>
> You must get over with that. Your truly is not here to teach about
> scientific method.
It's a good thing, too. You don't really have a good grip on it.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 18, 3:09 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > It has to be *accepted* by the
> > > community to be self-consistent, which is usually contingent on the
> > > absence of an *accepted* demonstration that it is internally
> > > inconsistent.
>
> > Oh, just like a religion. <shrug>
>
> Nope, not like it at all.
You can whine, deny, and lie all you want, but the end of the day,
what you have described in accepting SR is no different from someone
else invite a special or several gods into his “heart”. <shrug>
> You can foam the scientific method does what
> you expect it to do for you and that it's failed to do that.
Thus, whining about how you unscientifically accepts a conjecture as
reality does not mean it abides to scientific method. <shrug>
> > > You can sit and foam all day that it hasn't been shown to be
> > > consistent to YOU, and you can blather and splutter that you believe
> > > it is internally inconsistent and that you're smarter than anyone on
> > > the planet. When you can convince someone that it is internally
> > > inconsistent, then you may be on the path to an *accepted*
> > > demonstration of internal inconsistency.
>
> > The inconsistencies have been shown many times.
>
> Who have you convinced?
Not too many. As yours truly has said, it is very lonely at the top.
Yours truly can attest to that. This is a very humble truthful
opinion from yours truly. <shrug>
The moral of the story is that the zealous just cannot accept the self-
inconsistencies in the ideology they worship. <shrug>
> > > Those statements made are facts.
> > > 1. SR predicts a null result.
> > > 2. M-M got a null result.
> > > Which of these two facts do you think is incorrect?
>
> > There are infinite other conjectures that predict the same results.
>
> So?
You are just oblivious to scientific method. That is all. <shrug>
> > > The presence of a competitive model (and so far you haven't produced
> > > one) does not discredit the incumbent one.
>
> > Oh, yes. The Voigt transform satisfies both 1 and 2, and so are the
> > infinite others Lorentz had discovered. <shrug>
>
> > So, another very important fact must be considered. That is there are
> > infinite numbers of transforms that satisfy 1 and 2. <shrug>
>
> So?
<shrug>
> Relativity's competitive stance among other models does not rest on
> the MMX.
Any theory must satisfy the MMX. That is it must be derived from the
null results of the MMX without any self-inconsistencies. <shrug>
> > > > For example, the following are facts:
>
> > > > 1. All monkeys have four limbs.
> > > > 2. Humans also have four limbs.
>
> > > Neither statement pertains to the MMX.
>
> > The same logic applies. <shrug>
>
> Then please elucidate what you think is wrong about the agreement
> between relativity's predictions of the MMX result and the actual
> result.
A retard still does not get it. <shrug> Which college did you get
that pile higher degree from? If you have any ethics, you ought to
ask for a complete refund on your tuition. <shrug>
> > > > PD who does not understand scientific method would not hesitate to
> > > > conclude the following.
>
> > > > ** Monkeys and humans are the same species.
>
> > If you finally understands what scientific method is, you will
> > comprehend and see the logic lies within. <shrug>
>
> And what do you think the scientific method is?
Same as any textbooks. <shrug> Which textbooks do you have? Knowing
you, you are going to ask where. Well, post the entire textbook, and
yours would gladly show the retards. <shrug>
> > > > In the meantime, show me a single experiment to support the unique
> > > > prediction of SR that is the mutual time dilation. After claiming the
> > > > validity in SR, is it so much to ask of you to support your position
> > > > with experimental results showing the unique prediction to SR?
>
> > > Before we get into that, it isn't true that EVERY claim made by a
> > > theory must be exhaustively tested before the theory is accepted.
>
> > Yes, provided the theory is self-consistent. SR predicts mutual time
> > dilation.
>
> Yes.
Then, SR is not self-consistent. <shrug>
> > It is self-inconsistent.
>
> Mutual time dilation is inherently inconsistent?
Yes. <shrug>
> Which two statements are in direct contradiction with each other?
The Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> Please be sure to use statements that are actually claimed by
> relativity, not ones from comic books about relativity.
Done. <shrug>
In the meantime, yours truly is still waiting for you to show me
experiments that support this mutual time dilation. <shrug>
> > > If you think it does, then you have some reading on scientific
> > > methodology to do.
>
> > You must get over with that. Your truly is not here to teach about
> > scientific method.
>
> It's a good thing, too. You don't really have a good grip on it.
How can you judge? You don’t have any clue as what scientific method
is. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 18, 12:07 pm, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> > No, it doesn't. In the same way that Euclidean geometry
> > gives an unambiguous answer as to whether Road A or Road B
> > is longer between their two meetings, Relativity gives an
> > unambiguous answer as to which of two clocks has the greatest
> > elapsed time.
No, this is not true. SR cannot compare the elapsed time of an event
as observed by two different frames of references. This is the basis
of relative simultaneity. <shrug>
> > In Euclidean geometry, the length of any road between two points is
> > given by:
>
> > L = integral of square-root(1+m^2) dx
>
> > You can use *any* straight line as your x-axis for measuring dx,
> > as long as you measure the slope m relative to that axis. You get
> > the same answer.
Yes, you are correct. It is the arc length in which 1st year calculus
students have studied. You sound like a high-school calculus
teacher. <shrug>
> > Although slope is relative in Euclidean geometry, the integral
> > L is absolute. Everyone agrees on its value.
>
> > In a similar way, in SR, the elapsed time for any clock between
> > two points in spacetime is given by:
>
> > T = integral of square-root(1-(v/c)^2) dt
>
> > You can use *any* inertial coordinate system for measuring dt,
> > as long as you measure the velocity v relative to that coordinate
> > system. You will get the same answer.
This T should be labeled as delta T instead to avoid confusion among
the new students. <shrug>
> > Although velocity is relative in SR, the integral for T is
> > absolute. Everyone agrees on its value.
Yes, it is true. That is from the other frame’s point of view, he
will get the same answer. This is what mutual time dilation is all
about, and it is problematic in the making. A good chess player will
see the fallacy in a few steps and avoid embracing the nonsense of
SR. <shrug>
> > Slope is relative, but *change* in slope is not.
> > Velocity is relative, but *change* in velocity is not.
Hmmm... You will need pages of derivation to show that with the
Lorentz transform. A good way to avoid it is to follow professor
Robert’s path by embracing a sudden or non-smooth transition from flat
spacetime to slightly curved one. <shrug>
> I will consider what you have to say in greater detail, because I am
> not certain, at what point, if any I disagree with you. However, you
> state that;
>
> T = integral of square-root(1-(v/c)^2) dt
>
> If v is zero the prediction of some practitioners of relativity is
> that T = 0. The correct interpretation of the integration is that as v
> approaches 0 then T = the summation of a infinite string of terms
> equalig one and it therefor approaches infinity. Sensibly this states
> that if the to clocks are stationary they will never approach nor
> meet. Which is reasonable and valid.
No, the integration limit is not from – infinity to + infinity. It is
from finite T1 to T2 in which T = T2 – T1 if v = 0. <shrug>
> Conversely, as v approaches c the incorrect interpretation of the
> integration gives T, the duration of the journey approaching zero.
> This is correct for dt, but not for T. T shall approach X/c as v
> approaches c,where X is the proper distance traveled. This would be
> stated in words as; A one light year journey at light speed takes one
> year.
No, if v = c, T = 0 regardless what T1 and T2 are. <shaking head>
Peter Webb
> On Jan 18, 1:11 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
>
>> > So what? There are an infinite such conjectures that also predict the
>> > constancy in the speed of light, and all of them do no satisfy the
>> > principle of relativity. <shrug>
>>
>> Sure. But the question I asaked you was "Are there any experimental
>> predictions of Relativity that you think are incorrect".
>
> What predictions can be valid when the conjecture is fouled in the
> first place? This is the basics of scientific method. <shrug>
>
I didn't ask you whether the theory is valid; I asked you if there were any
experimental predictions of it which you thought were incorrect.
>> You said the MMX experiment.
>
> Yes. <shrug>
>
>> But as you now concede, SR predicts a null result and they got a null
>> result.
>
> Your conclusion is not valid.
>
>> So that experimental prediction of Relativity obviously was correct.
>
> No, the mutual time dilation is never shown valid. <shrug>
>
I repeat my question.
Are there any experimerntal predictions of Relativity which you believe are
incorrect?
> If that is a wrong statement, let yours truly know ASAP. <shrug>
>
Perhaps if you outlined an experiment which involves "mutual time dilation"
where you think the predictions of Relativity are incorrect?
>> Allow me to repeat my question.
>
> Here we go again. <shrug>
>
>> Are there any experimental predictions of Relativity that you think are
>> incorrect?
>
> The MMX. <shrug>
For the MMX, Relativity predicts a null result and MMX got a null result.
How is the experimental prediction of Relativity wrong in the case of the
MMX ?
>
> In the meantime, SR predicts this mutual time dilation, and mutual
> time dilation has never been observed once in any laboratories.
So what experimental prediction does Relativity make with respect to mutual
time dilation that you think is wrong?
Feel free to use rockets capable of travelling at 0.99c, atomic clocks, and
anything else you like in your experiment.
> According to scientific method, SR must be deemed bullshit. <shrug>
So are there any experimental predictions of Relativity you believe to be
incorrect?
Relativity does predict a null result for the MMX, and the MMX got a null
result. So its not the MMX. You haven't actually named or described any
other experiments at all, so you still haven't answered my simple question.
If you can't think of any, you can simply say that you believe all the
experimental predictions of Relativity that you know of are correct.
Peter Webb
believe to be incorrect - as now appears to be obviously te case, then you
believe all of its experimental predictions are true.
Is your only real problem with Relativity that you don't understand it?
Peter Webb
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
*simulated* !!!!
ROFL.
Got a real experiment?
> on the
> basis of variable light speed coming from an orbiting or pulsating star.
>
> The result proves that light speed is source dependent.
>
Or that the simulation is wrong.
I guess you wrote the simulation?
>>> The sagnac effect refutes SR because the rays have to magically move at
>>> c+v and
>>> c-v wrt the source.
>>>
>>
>>Describe the experiment where you think Relativity makes an incorrect
>>prediction.
>
> Every experiment ever performed.
Ohh really?
How about the MMX?
SR predicts a null result, they got a null result.
So you are clearly wrong.
Daryl McCullough
>> The inconsistencies have been shown many times.
>
>Who have you convinced?
In fact, Koobee has never shown any inconsistency in Special Relativity.
I've asked that he do so, and is incapable of it.
To show an inconsistency in a theory, what you must do is to write
down a sequence of statements such that every statement is either
(1) a postulate of the theory, (2) a pure mathematical or logical theorem,
or (3) follows from previous statements by mathematical or logical
rules of inference. The last statement in the sequence must be a
logical contradiction.
Koobee can't do this for two reasons: (1) he is incompetent at
mathematics and logic, and (2) even if he were competent, SR is
consistent, so there is no way to derive a contradiction from it.
What Koobee claims is that his understanding of the principle
of relativity and the true meaning of the Lorentz equations
allows him to see a contradiction that the so-called experts
in relativity, with a shallower understanding, cannot see.
We can understand this logically as follows:
Let T_0 be the theory that everyone who actually works in SR
uses. Let T_K be the additional postulates about relativity
and the Lorentz transformations that only Koobee understands.
He is claiming that
T_0 + T_K
is contradictory. That is *completely* uninteresting, since
everyone except him *rejects* T_K. If he wants to show that
the usual understanding of SR is wrong, he must show that
T_0 is contradictory, without adding T_K.
He can't do that, because he is so enamored of his own
thoughts (as contradictory as they are) that he can't
consider T_0 without adding his own "special understanding"
which makes it inconsistent.
Tom Roberts
> To show an inconsistency in a theory, what you must do is to write
> down a sequence of statements such that every statement is either
> (1) a postulate of the theory, (2) a pure mathematical or logical theorem,
> or (3) follows from previous statements by mathematical or logical
> rules of inference. The last statement in the sequence must be a
> logical contradiction.
>
> Koobee can't do this for two reasons: (1) he is incompetent at
> mathematics and logic, and (2) even if he were competent, SR is
> consistent, so there is no way to derive a contradiction from it.
Yes. As for (2), there are two slightly-different known proofs of the internal
consistency of SR [#]:
1. It is as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry.
2. It is as self-consistent as is real analysis.
[#] Technically these are for Minkowski geometry, but the
difference between that and SR is physics, and consists of
identifications of symbols in the theory with real-world
quantities, which cannot affect the theory's internal
mathematical consistency.
There is a third reason why Koobee cannot show any inconsistency in SR: (3)
Koobee does not understand SR, and does not know which statements are part of it
and which are not. He regularly makes erroneous statements about it.
> [Koobee] is so enamored of his own
> thoughts (as contradictory as they are) that he can't
> consider T_0 without adding his own "special understanding"
> which makes it inconsistent.
Yes, something like that. Or perhaps he is just incapable of rational discourse
-- which is why I have given up trying to discuss anything with him.
"His opinions sound so loud in his ear that he cannot hear anything
else." -- attribution lost (Tom Clancy?)1
Tom Roberts
PD
> On Jan 18, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 3:09 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
> > > > It has to be *accepted* by the
> > > > community to be self-consistent, which is usually contingent on the
> > > > absence of an *accepted* demonstration that it is internally
> > > > inconsistent.
>
> > > Oh, just like a religion. <shrug>
>
> > Nope, not like it at all.
>
> You can whine, deny, and lie all you want, but the end of the day,
> what you have described in accepting SR is no different from someone
> else invite a special or several gods into his “heart”. <shrug>
Let me explain the difference. With relativity and with the premises
of relativity, one can make *predictions* of what will be measured in
experiments yet to be done. With religion, one cannot. This is what
distinguishes science from religion, you see. That, by the way, is the
core of the scientific method that you've been foaming and shrugging
about.
>
> > You can foam the scientific method does what
> > you expect it to do for you and that it's failed to do that.
>
> Thus, whining about how you unscientifically accepts a conjecture as
> reality does not mean it abides to scientific method. <shrug>
Whether to accept a conjecture is based, in science, *entirely* on
whether it makes accurate predictions of measurements made in
experiment or observation.
That IS central to the scientific method.
Whether you find the conjectures plausible or not from the outset is
NOT.
>
> > > > You can sit and foam all day that it hasn't been shown to be
> > > > consistent to YOU, and you can blather and splutter that you believe
> > > > it is internally inconsistent and that you're smarter than anyone on
> > > > the planet. When you can convince someone that it is internally
> > > > inconsistent, then you may be on the path to an *accepted*
> > > > demonstration of internal inconsistency.
>
> > > The inconsistencies have been shown many times.
>
> > Who have you convinced?
>
> Not too many. As yours truly has said, it is very lonely at the top.
> Yours truly can attest to that. This is a very humble truthful
> opinion from yours truly. <shrug>
Not too many? I would guess one is too many.
As I said, when you can convince someone that it is internally
consistent, then you may be on the path to an *accepted* demonstration
of internal inconsistency. In the meantime, you are dwelling in a
delusion, as well as the surrounding delusion that you and you alone
can see that it is not a delusion.
>
> The moral of the story is that the zealous just cannot accept the self-
> inconsistencies in the ideology they worship. <shrug>
>
> > > > Those statements made are facts.
> > > > 1. SR predicts a null result.
> > > > 2. M-M got a null result.
> > > > Which of these two facts do you think is incorrect?
>
> > > There are infinite other conjectures that predict the same results.
>
> > So?
>
> You are just oblivious to scientific method. That is all. <shrug>
Explain how the scientific method applies in the case of multiple
conjectures that predict the same results from a given experiment.
>
> > > > The presence of a competitive model (and so far you haven't produced
> > > > one) does not discredit the incumbent one.
>
> > > Oh, yes. The Voigt transform satisfies both 1 and 2, and so are the
> > > infinite others Lorentz had discovered. <shrug>
>
> > > So, another very important fact must be considered. That is there are
> > > infinite numbers of transforms that satisfy 1 and 2. <shrug>
>
> > So?
>
> <shrug>
That's your answer? A shrug?
>
> > Relativity's competitive stance among other models does not rest on
> > the MMX.
>
> Any theory must satisfy the MMX. That is it must be derived from the
> null results of the MMX without any self-inconsistencies. <shrug>
Sorry, no, you don't DERIVE theories from an experiment.
>
> > > > > For example, the following are facts:
>
> > > > > 1. All monkeys have four limbs.
> > > > > 2. Humans also have four limbs.
>
> > > > Neither statement pertains to the MMX.
>
> > > The same logic applies. <shrug>
>
> > Then please elucidate what you think is wrong about the agreement
> > between relativity's predictions of the MMX result and the actual
> > result.
>
> A retard still does not get it. <shrug> Which college did you get
> that pile higher degree from? If you have any ethics, you ought to
> ask for a complete refund on your tuition. <shrug>
You seem unable to explain your position.
>
> > > > > PD who does not understand scientific method would not hesitate to
> > > > > conclude the following.
>
> > > > > ** Monkeys and humans are the same species.
>
> > > If you finally understands what scientific method is, you will
> > > comprehend and see the logic lies within. <shrug>
>
> > And what do you think the scientific method is?
>
> Same as any textbooks. <shrug> Which textbooks do you have? Knowing
> you, you are going to ask where. Well, post the entire textbook, and
> yours would gladly show the retards. <shrug>
Oh, good grief. You can't explain your understanding of the scientific
method unless someone posts an entire textboook?
>
> > > > > In the meantime, show me a single experiment to support the unique
> > > > > prediction of SR that is the mutual time dilation. After claiming the
> > > > > validity in SR, is it so much to ask of you to support your position
> > > > > with experimental results showing the unique prediction to SR?
>
> > > > Before we get into that, it isn't true that EVERY claim made by a
> > > > theory must be exhaustively tested before the theory is accepted.
>
> > > Yes, provided the theory is self-consistent. SR predicts mutual time
> > > dilation.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Then, SR is not self-consistent. <shrug>
How so?
>
> > > It is self-inconsistent.
>
> > Mutual time dilation is inherently inconsistent?
>
> Yes. <shrug>
How so? How is mutual time dilation self-inconsistent?
>
> > Which two statements are in direct contradiction with each other?
>
> The Lorentz transform. <shrug>
Sorry, that's one statement.
Which two statements are in direct contradiction with each other.
>
> > Please be sure to use statements that are actually claimed by
> > relativity, not ones from comic books about relativity.
>
> Done. <shrug>
>
> In the meantime, yours truly is still waiting for you to show me
> experiments that support this mutual time dilation. <shrug>
>
> > > > If you think it does, then you have some reading on scientific
> > > > methodology to do.
>
> > > You must get over with that. Your truly is not here to teach about
> > > scientific method.
>
> > It's a good thing, too. You don't really have a good grip on it.
>
> How can you judge? You don’t have any clue as what scientific method
> is. <shrug>
So you say.
:)
Foam and splutter away, you deluded egomaniacal psycho.
Koobee Wublee
IS UNIQUE TO SR AMONG ALL THE OTHER INFINTE CONJECTURES THAT ALSO
SATISFY THE NULL RESULTS OF THE MMX?
Koobee Wublee
> Yes. As for (2), there are two slightly-different known proofs of the internal
> consistency of SR [#]:
>
> 1. It is as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry.
So, a unicorn is an animal. The prediction for the existence of
unicorns must be self-consistent according to your illogic. <shrug>
> 2. It is as self-consistent as is real analysis.
SR predicts mutual time dilation. SR also predicts both red and blue
shift in transverse Doppler effect. These are sure signs of self-
inconsistencies. <shrug>
> [#] Technically these are for Minkowski geometry, but the
> difference between that and SR is physics, and consists of
> identifications of symbols in the theory with real-world
> quantities, which cannot affect the theory's internal
> mathematical consistency.
SR fails in real analysis. SR is not self-consistent according to
your logic. <shrug>
> There is a third reason why Koobee cannot show any inconsistency in SR: (3)
> Koobee does not understand SR, and does not know which statements are part of it
> and which are not. He regularly makes erroneous statements about it.
Here we go again. Accusing someone else who know more than they do of
illiteracy seems to be a popular pastime in their aloof club. <shrug>
> Yes, something like that. Or perhaps he is just incapable of rational discourse
> -- which is why I have given up trying to discuss anything with him.
You gave up because you don’t want to embarrass yourself any more.
<shrug>
> "His opinions sound so loud in his ear that he cannot hear anything
> else." -- attribution lost (Tom Clancy?)1
Why don’t you do <shrug> anymore? That is a sign of embarrassment,
no?
Ahahaha... Self-styled physicists really know how to make caricatures
out of themselves. Ahahaha...
Koobee Wublee
> In fact, Koobee has never shown any inconsistency in Special Relativity.
That is a lie. <shrug>
> I've asked that he do so, and is incapable of it.
More lies. <shrug>
[snipped the rest of lies]
There is no interest to discuss lies. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 18, 10:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > You can whine, deny, and lie all you want, but the end of the day,
> > what you have described in accepting SR is no different from someone
> > else invite a special or several gods into his “heart”. <shrug>
>
> Let me explain the difference.
Oh, now you are a philosopher as well. <shrug>
> With relativity and with the premises
> of relativity, one can make *predictions* of what will be measured in
> experiments yet to be done.
The climax is building. <shrug>
> With religion, one cannot.
With religion, you predict the existence of a god or gods exist and
use any divine signs to prove the existence of these deities. <shrug>
> This is what distinguishes science from religion, you see.
Not really. In science, you must have a logical conviction to soundly
establish your conjecture. Otherwise, there is no difference between
your “science” and religion. <shrug>
> That, by the way, is the
> core of the scientific method that you've been foaming and shrugging
> about.
Giving you an example, say PD pulled out of his ass and predicts the
existence of a unicorn. It is a horse with a single thin, twisted
horn coming out of its forehead. With that, he went out to look for
signs (experimental evidence) of this animal. He found the horse. He
then trumpets his “science” prevails once again. The unicorn is found
by him.
> > Thus, whining about how you unscientifically accepts a conjecture as
> > reality does not mean it abides to scientific method. <shrug>
>
> Whether to accept a conjecture is based, in science, *entirely* on
> whether it makes accurate predictions of measurements made in
> experiment or observation.
>
> That IS central to the scientific method.
>
> Whether you find the conjectures plausible or not from the outset is
> NOT.
The self-styled physicists worshipping voodoo physics would hail PD’s
so-called “scientific” method as a triumph. In reality, his
“scientific method” is no more scientific than any shaman predicts
illusions and uses other phenomena to justify his predictions. What a
sham! <shrug>
> > Not too many. As yours truly has said, it is very lonely at the top.
> > Yours truly can attest to that. This is a very humble truthful
> > opinion from yours truly. <shrug>
>
> Not too many? I would guess one is too many.
There is at least one. <ahrug>
> As I said, when you can convince someone that it is internally
> consistent, then you may be on the path to an *accepted* demonstration
> of internal inconsistency. In the meantime, you are dwelling in a
> delusion, as well as the surrounding delusion that you and you alone
> can see that it is not a delusion.
Well, not understanding physics is your problem and not of yours
truly. <shrug>
> > The moral of the story is that the zealous just cannot accept the self-
> > inconsistencies in the ideology they worship. <shrug>
>
> > You are just oblivious to scientific method. That is all. <shrug>
>
> Explain how the scientific method applies in the case of multiple
> conjectures that predict the same results from a given experiment.
First of all, you can start to reject the conjectures that are not
self-consistent in math. Then, find a unique prediction that no
others do and test for that. Is that really too much to ask?
> > > > > The presence of a competitive model (and so far you haven't produced
> > > > > one) does not discredit the incumbent one.
>
> > > > Oh, yes. The Voigt transform satisfies both 1 and 2, and so are the
> > > > infinite others Lorentz had discovered. <shrug>
>
> > > > So, another very important fact must be considered. That is there are
> > > > infinite numbers of transforms that satisfy 1 and 2. <shrug>
>
> > > So?
>
> > <shrug>
>
> That's your answer? A shrug?
Yes. What answer do you expect to “so?”? <shrug>
> > > Relativity's competitive stance among other models does not rest on
> > > the MMX.
>
> > Any theory must satisfy the MMX. That is it must be derived from the
> > null results of the MMX without any self-inconsistencies. <shrug>
>
> Sorry, no, you don't DERIVE theories from an experiment.
Yes, you do. Unexpected experimental results force you to derive new
conjectures or mathematical model to correct the old ones. <shrug>
> > A retard still does not get it. <shrug> Which college did you get
> > that pile higher degree from? If you have any ethics, you ought to
> > ask for a complete refund on your tuition. <shrug>
>
> You seem unable to explain your position.
Yours truly has explained it many times over, and you still don’t get
it by asking the same stupid ones over and over again. <shrug>
> > Same as any textbooks. <shrug> Which textbooks do you have? Knowing
> > you, you are going to ask where. Well, post the entire textbook, and
> > yours would gladly show the retards. <shrug>
>
> Oh, good grief. You can't explain your understanding of the scientific
> method unless someone posts an entire textboook?
Going back to the example of you predicting the existence of unicorns,
a scientific method is to not pull out that crap out of your ass in
the first place. If you exist to do so, you must analyze and list the
differences and similarities between horses and unicorns. You then
devise experiments to distinguish between these animals. <shrug>
> > Then, SR is not self-consistent. <shrug>
>
> How so?
We have gone through this many times over before. One is the mutual
time dilation. Another is the capability to predict both a red and
blue shift in transverse Doppler shift. <shrug>
> > Mutual time dilation is inherently inconsistent?
>
> How so? How is mutual time dilation self-inconsistent?
It leads to the twin’s paradox. <shrug>
> > The Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
> Sorry, that's one statement.
There are four statements in the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> Which two statements are in direct contradiction with each other.
The Lorentz transform is not self-consistent. <shrug>
> > How can you judge? You don’t have any clue as what scientific method
> > is. <shrug>
>
> So you say.
Yes. <shrug>
> :)
>
> Foam and splutter away, you deluded egomaniacal psycho.
<shrug>
In the meantime, ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS THAT SUPPORT THIS MUTUAL
TIME DILATION WHICH IS UNIQUE TO SR AMONG ALL THE OTHER INFINTE
CONJECTURES THAT ALSO SATISFY THE NULL RESULTS OF THE MMX?
Why do you keep avoiding answering this question?
Koobee Wublee
The prediction of mutual time dilation is incorrect. Show me
experiment that support this mutual time dilation. <shrug>
The real problem lies in you and your lack of understanding in SR.
<shrug>
Eric Gisse
What's your goal here?
You won't convince anyone of your beliefs - many years of you trying
without success is evidence of that.
Nobody is going to convince you of the validity of science - same
reason as the above.
Why persist?
Henry Wilson DSc
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:l7vbj61q16uiqlsne...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>So what is the experiment, exacty?
>>
>> the experiment is to compare an observed light curve with one simulated
>
>*simulated* !!!!
>
>ROFL.
>
>Got a real experiment?
>
>> on the
>> basis of variable light speed coming from an orbiting or pulsating star.
>>
>> The result proves that light speed is source dependent.
>>
>
>Or that the simulation is wrong.
>
>I guess you wrote the simulation?
You can do it if you wish...and have the ability, which I doubt.....
If you do it properly you will get the same answer.
>>>> The sagnac effect refutes SR because the rays have to magically move at
>>>> c+v and
>>>> c-v wrt the source.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Describe the experiment where you think Relativity makes an incorrect
>>>prediction.
>>
>> Every experiment ever performed.
>
>Ohh really?
>
>How about the MMX?
>
>SR predicts a null result, they got a null result.
>
>So you are clearly wrong.
SR reverts to BaTh for its MMX explanation.
Henry Wilson...
PD
Lorentz aether theory also predicts mutual time dilation. So?
The selection of special relativity among the other viable candidates
is not based on two experimental results. It is based on the *entire
body* of relevant experimental information.
PD
> PD the retard wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 10:07 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > You can whine, deny, and lie all you want, but the end of the day,
> > > what you have described in accepting SR is no different from someone
> > > else invite a special or several gods into his “heart”. <shrug>
>
> > Let me explain the difference.
>
> Oh, now you are a philosopher as well. <shrug>
>
> > With relativity and with the premises
> > of relativity, one can make *predictions* of what will be measured in
> > experiments yet to be done.
>
> The climax is building. <shrug>
>
> > With religion, one cannot.
>
> With religion, you predict the existence of a god or gods exist and
> use any divine signs to prove the existence of these deities. <shrug>
Prediction of a *measurement*. You cannot measure the existence of a
god.
Boy, you are as dense as a 3-ft-thick stack of National Geographics,
you know that?
You can't even read a single sentence from beginning to end and parse
it. What's happened to you?
>
> > This is what distinguishes science from religion, you see.
>
> Not really. In science, you must have a logical conviction to soundly
> establish your conjecture. Otherwise, there is no difference between
> your “science” and religion. <shrug>
Sorry, but no. A logical conviction in the conjecture is NOT required
in science. All that is needed is a conjecture, NO MATTER HOW CRAZY IT
SOUNDS, that has testable consequences.
>
> > That, by the way, is the
> > core of the scientific method that you've been foaming and shrugging
> > about.
>
> Giving you an example, say PD pulled out of his ass and predicts the
> existence of a unicorn. It is a horse with a single thin, twisted
> horn coming out of its forehead. With that, he went out to look for
> signs (experimental evidence) of this animal. He found the horse.
Nuh-uh. The prediction of a unicorn is that there will be at least one
horse with a single, thin, twisted horn coming out of its forehead.
The discovery of a horse does not satisfy that prediction. Good
heavens, your dosage is off.
> He
> then trumpets his “science” prevails once again. The unicorn is found
> by him.
>
> > > Thus, whining about how you unscientifically accepts a conjecture as
> > > reality does not mean it abides to scientific method. <shrug>
>
> > Whether to accept a conjecture is based, in science, *entirely* on
> > whether it makes accurate predictions of measurements made in
> > experiment or observation.
>
> > That IS central to the scientific method.
>
> > Whether you find the conjectures plausible or not from the outset is
> > NOT.
>
> The self-styled physicists worshipping voodoo physics would hail PD’s
> so-called “scientific” method as a triumph. In reality, his
> “scientific method” is no more scientific than any shaman predicts
> illusions and uses other phenomena to justify his predictions. What a
> sham! <shrug>
Ah, ok, so now you confess that you didn't know what the scientific
method is, and when it's been put forward to you, you don't like it,
and so you disavow it.
That's fine. You don't like the scientific method, and you want very
much for science to be instead about convincing and intuitive
premises.
Sorry, nobody cares what you want.
>
> > > Not too many. As yours truly has said, it is very lonely at the top.
> > > Yours truly can attest to that. This is a very humble truthful
> > > opinion from yours truly. <shrug>
>
> > Not too many? I would guess one is too many.
>
> There is at least one. <ahrug>
Who, besides you?
>
> > As I said, when you can convince someone that it is internally
> > consistent, then you may be on the path to an *accepted* demonstration
> > of internal inconsistency. In the meantime, you are dwelling in a
> > delusion, as well as the surrounding delusion that you and you alone
> > can see that it is not a delusion.
>
> Well, not understanding physics is your problem and not of yours
> truly. <shrug>
There's that surrounding delusion again, exactly as described.
Exactly.
>
> > > The moral of the story is that the zealous just cannot accept the self-
> > > inconsistencies in the ideology they worship. <shrug>
>
> > > You are just oblivious to scientific method. That is all. <shrug>
>
> > Explain how the scientific method applies in the case of multiple
> > conjectures that predict the same results from a given experiment.
>
> First of all, you can start to reject the conjectures that are not
> self-consistent in math. Then, find a unique prediction that no
> others do and test for that. Is that really too much to ask?
On the first, that's done, even though you don't believe it. We've
been through that.
Secondly, yes, special relativity has been singled out among all the
other viable candidates because of unique predictions. The MMX result
is not that unique prediction. Neither is mutual time dilation.
Keep investigating, you'll pick it out.
>
> > > > > > The presence of a competitive model (and so far you haven't produced
> > > > > > one) does not discredit the incumbent one.
>
> > > > > Oh, yes. The Voigt transform satisfies both 1 and 2, and so are the
> > > > > infinite others Lorentz had discovered. <shrug>
>
> > > > > So, another very important fact must be considered. That is there are
> > > > > infinite numbers of transforms that satisfy 1 and 2. <shrug>
>
> > > > So?
>
> > > <shrug>
>
> > That's your answer? A shrug?
>
> Yes. What answer do you expect to “so?”? <shrug>
>
> > > > Relativity's competitive stance among other models does not rest on
> > > > the MMX.
>
> > > Any theory must satisfy the MMX. That is it must be derived from the
> > > null results of the MMX without any self-inconsistencies. <shrug>
>
> > Sorry, no, you don't DERIVE theories from an experiment.
>
> Yes, you do. Unexpected experimental results force you to derive new
> conjectures or mathematical model to correct the old ones. <shrug>
But you don't derive the model from them. The model's success is based
on whether it accounts for those new results as well as the old one,
plus the prediction of new testable measurements in different
circumstances.
You really have NO idea how science works, do you?
>
> > > A retard still does not get it. <shrug> Which college did you get
> > > that pile higher degree from? If you have any ethics, you ought to
> > > ask for a complete refund on your tuition. <shrug>
>
> > You seem unable to explain your position.
>
> Yours truly has explained it many times over, and you still don’t get
> it by asking the same stupid ones over and over again. <shrug>
Uh, no. You've stated that people do not understand. That isn't an
explanation, is it?
>
> > > Same as any textbooks. <shrug> Which textbooks do you have? Knowing
> > > you, you are going to ask where. Well, post the entire textbook, and
> > > yours would gladly show the retards. <shrug>
>
> > Oh, good grief. You can't explain your understanding of the scientific
> > method unless someone posts an entire textboook?
>
> Going back to the example of you predicting the existence of unicorns,
> a scientific method is to not pull out that crap out of your ass in
> the first place.
Don't be ridiculous. The existence of unicorns is a PERFECTLY
acceptable scientific premise as long as it has testable consequences.
You can build a theory on tiny little green fairies that only come out
between 2:55 and 3:10 am. If such a theory produces testable
consequences that distinguish it from other models, and which is
supported by actual measurement (even if it isn't capturing the
fairies themselves), then the proper *scientific* response is to
conclude that tiny little green fairies exist.
Good heavens, man! This is how scientific advances are MADE! Crazy
ideas like particles covering an infinite number of paths
simultaneously including paths backwards in time (like what Feynman
included in QED), multi-object states being influenced as a unit
without there being any communication between the objects (like what
is involved in quantum entanglement), like there being no need for a
sustained force for an object to keeping moving forever (like what
Galileo concluded) -- those are the BREAD and BUTTER of science.
If you look at a crazy idea, and say, "Well, that's just crazy -- no
need to test it," then you've STOPPED doing science.
> If you exist to do so, you must analyze and list the
> differences and similarities between horses and unicorns. You then
> devise experiments to distinguish between these animals. <shrug>
>
> > > Then, SR is not self-consistent. <shrug>
>
> > How so?
>
> We have gone through this many times over before. One is the mutual
> time dilation. Another is the capability to predict both a red and
> blue shift in transverse Doppler shift. <shrug>
>
> > > Mutual time dilation is inherently inconsistent?
>
> > How so? How is mutual time dilation self-inconsistent?
>
> It leads to the twin’s paradox. <shrug>
There is no mutual time dilation in the twin paradox.
And there is no internal inconsistency in the twin paradox either.
What are the two statements in the twin paradox that are in direct
contradiction with each other?
>
> > > The Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
> > Sorry, that's one statement.
>
> There are four statements in the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
And which of these are in direct contradiction with each other?
>
> > Which two statements are in direct contradiction with each other.
>
> The Lorentz transform is not self-consistent. <shrug>
Which two statements in the Lorentz transform are in direct
contradiction with each other?
master1729
>
> Those statements made are facts.
> 1. SR predicts a null result.
> 2. M-M got a null result.
> Which of these two facts do you think is incorrect?
>
good question :
the answer :
there is more than 1 type of interferometer.
in fact , the used type is one of the worst for testing the hypothesis.
( the reasons are not ' cheating ' per se , its more about technical details , money and compactness )
im not saying anyone is wrong though.
but for instance variations on yilmaz theory together with discrete energy are alternative candidate theories.
tommy1729
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c26dd208-c5d5-470e...@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 12:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS THAT SUPPORT THIS MUTUAL TIME DILATION WHICH
> IS UNIQUE TO SR AMONG ALL THE OTHER INFINTE CONJECTURES THAT ALSO
> SATISFY THE NULL RESULTS OF THE MMX?
Lorentz aether theory also predicts mutual time dilation. So?
====================================
So you are a LYING bastard.
Daryl McCullough
>> > > Mutual time dilation is inherently inconsistent?
>>
>> > How so? How is mutual time dilation self-inconsistent?
>>
>> It leads to the twin's paradox.
>
>There is no mutual time dilation in the twin paradox.
>
>And there is no internal inconsistency in the twin paradox either.
>What are the two statements in the twin paradox that are in direct
>contradiction with each other?
I asked him a couple of years ago to demonstrate an inconsistency
in SR, and he was unable to do so, and his ability has not changed
since then.
What Koobee believes is that if the stay-at-home twin (call her
Carol) uses SR to deduce that she will be older when the traveling
twin (call him Bob) returns, then Bob can use the same logic to
deduce that he will be older than Carol. That's what Koobee believes.
Nevermind that SR doesn't say that. Koobee doesn't actually know
what SR says. It keeps getting confused in his mind with his own
idiosyncratic beliefs about relativity, and he can't keep the two
straight.
What relativity actually says is, to quote Einstein:
"Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is
chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their
simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other
system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K."
It very clearly says that K' must be moving "in uniform translation
relatively to K". Koobee tries to apply the principle of relativity
to a frame that is *not* moving uniformly, namely the traveling twin.
In doing so, he is not using SR, but some other principle of relativity
that he made up. A principle of relativity that actually *is* inconsistent.
So Koobee has a proof that his own theory is inconsistent, but he doesn't
seem to realize that his theory is not Special Relativity.
Tom Roberts
> On Jan 19, 12:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS THAT SUPPORT THIS MUTUAL TIME DILATION WHICH
>> IS UNIQUE TO SR AMONG ALL THE OTHER INFINTE CONJECTURES THAT ALSO
>> SATISFY THE NULL RESULTS OF THE MMX?
>
> Lorentz aether theory also predicts mutual time dilation.
Yes. Indeed there is an infinite class of theories, of which SR and LET are the
best-known examples, which are all experimentally indistinguishable from each
other. These theories differ only in how coordinate clocks are synchronized in
frames moving relative to a putative ether frame (SR and LET are the only ones
for which any inertial frame will serve equally well as the "ether frame").
EVERY ONE of these theories predicts "mutual time dilation", when measured with
real clocks using the usual measurement procedure.
That class is also the entire class of theories that:
A) have the same domain as SR
B) are not already refuted by experiments within that domain
So they are the only theories of interest in physics, in this domain.
> The selection of special relativity among the other viable candidates
> is not based on two experimental results. It is based on the *entire
> body* of relevant experimental information.
Well, yes, except for the above class of theories. Among them there is no
possible way to select one experimentally, as they are all experimentally
indistinguishable from each other.
But there are indeed rather strong theoretical reasons to select SR:
a) it is the only one which does not contain a completely unobservable
ether
b) it is the only one with a sensible geometrical foundation
c) it is the only one with sensible and useful symmetries (Lorentz
invariance)
d) it is the only one that is extensible beyond electrodynamics in a
straightforward manner (i.e. without a series of ad hoc requirements
that each other phenomenon "just happens" to behave like E&M)
Indeed, the theoretical physics community HAS selected SR, long ago -- it is the
foundation of EVERY ONE of our theories of fundamental physics today. NONE of
the other members of that class would be suitable.
People who don't recognize and understand this are incapable of
any serious discussion of physics.
Tom Roberts
mpc755
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether.
The 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.
> b) it is the only one with a sensible geometrical foundation
> c) it is the only one with sensible and useful symmetries (Lorentz
> invariance)
> d) it is the only one that is extensible beyond electrodynamics in a
> straightforward manner (i.e. without a series of ad hoc requirements
> that each other phenomenon "just happens" to behave like E&M)
>
> Indeed, the theoretical physics community HAS selected SR, long ago -- it is the
> foundation of EVERY ONE of our theories of fundamental physics today. NONE of
> the other members of that class would be suitable.
>
> People who don't recognize and understand this are incapable of
> any serious discussion of physics.
>
Dark matter is ether.
spudnik
a "null result," it didn't refute relativity
why is it hard to see, that atoms have
internal angular momenta taht are also limited
by the speed of light -- not its velocity?
spudnik
most of the matter and antimatter is plasma (although
interstellar hydrogen may be mostly dihydrogen .-)
Peter Webb
Produce your inconsistency then.
Peter Webb
> Here we go again.
>
> The prediction of mutual time dilation is incorrect.
I asked for an experimental prediction.
Can you describe an experiment involving "mutual time dilation" where you
think the predictions of Relativity are wrong?
> Show me
> experiment that support this mutual time dilation. <shrug>
>
If you claim SR is wrong or inconsistent, it is up to you to describe some
physical experiment which shows it is wrong or inconsistent.
> The real problem lies in you and your lack of understanding in SR.
> <shrug>
>
> ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS THAT SUPPORT THIS MUTUAL TIME DILATION WHICH
> IS UNIQUE TO SR AMONG ALL THE OTHER INFINTE CONJECTURES THAT ALSO
> SATISFY THE NULL RESULTS OF THE MMX?
So, what experimental predictions of Relativity do you consider incorrect?
Or do you think they are all correct?
Koobee Wublee
> PD wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS THAT SUPPORT THIS MUTUAL TIME DILATION WHICH
> > > IS UNIQUE TO SR AMONG ALL THE OTHER INFINTE CONJECTURES THAT ALSO
> > > SATISFY THE NULL RESULTS OF THE MMX?
The question has remained unanswered for an eventual embarrassment.
<shrug>
> > Lorentz aether theory also predicts mutual time dilation.
So? Both SR and LET are indeed the same stupid conjecture that no
experiments can tell them apart, no? <shrug>
> Yes. Indeed there is an infinite class of theories, of which SR and LET are the
> best-known examples,
SR and LET both are described by the Lorentz transform. That means
they are the same stupid conjectures. <shrug>
> which are all experimentally indistinguishable from each other.
Yes, indeed. <shrug>
However, may yours truly keep remind you that the Lorentz transform is
a subset of Larmor’s original transform where all observations must be
referenced back to the absolute frame of reference as the MMX
demands. <shrug>
This means SR and LET are both illusions tossed out by shaman-like
self-styled physicists because their feeble minds cannot comprehend
the possibility of an absolute frame of reference that would
complicate their mathematics to ever so higher ends. <shrug>
> These theories differ only in how coordinate clocks are synchronized in
> frames moving relative to a putative ether frame (SR and LET are the only ones
> for which any inertial frame will serve equally well as the "ether frame").
Whatever the philosophical icing you want to add to them, in reality,
they differ in the amount of time dilations and length contractions.
All these transforms satisfy the null results of the MMX but not the
principle of relativity. The Lorentz transform, namely SR and LET,
only represents a special case to Larmor’s original transform. Thus,
both SR and LET do not represent any reality at all. <shrug>
> EVERY ONE of these theories predicts "mutual time dilation", when measured with
> real clocks using the usual measurement procedure.
Yes, that is indeed the case even with the Voigt and Larmor’s original
transforms. They all exhibit some sorts of twin’s paradox or
another. They are indeed Cookoo transforms as your psychotic Andro
has so fondly called them. <shrug> Gee, now the cat is out of the
bag. <shrug>
> That class is also the entire class of theories that:
> A) have the same domain as SR
> B) are not already refuted by experiments within that domain
> So they are the only theories of interest in physics, in this domain.
What do you mean by domains?
> > The selection of special relativity among the other viable candidates
> > is not based on two experimental results. It is based on the *entire
> > body* of relevant experimental information.
>
> Well, yes, except for the above class of theories. Among them there is no
> possible way to select one experimentally, as they are all experimentally
> indistinguishable from each other.
This is not true. Each one varies by the amount of time dilation as
referenced from the absolute frame of refeence. <shrug>
> But there are indeed rather strong theoretical reasons to select SR:
> a) it is the only one which does not contain a completely unobservable
> ether
Well, SR was conjured up by Poincare from nothing with experimental
bases. <shrug>
> b) it is the only one with a sensible geometrical foundation
What is that again? Just about everything that is tangible is
geometrical. <shrug>
> c) it is the only one with sensible and useful symmetries (Lorentz
> invariance)
Yes, it does satisfy the principle of relativity. However, no
experiments have definitively supported the principle of relativity.
<shrug>
> d) it is the only one that is extensible beyond electrodynamics in a
> straightforward manner (i.e. without a series of ad hoc requirements
> that each other phenomenon "just happens" to behave like E&M)
This is indeed nonsense. You can apply the same coordinate
transformation to each one and sculpture your bastardized Maxwell
equations to no ends. In doing so, the transformed Maxwell’s
equations still do not satisfy the principle of relativity. It is all
in the good old coordinate transformation, no? <shrug>
> Indeed, the theoretical physics community HAS selected SR, long ago
Yes, to put it more honestly, due to gross ignorance and
incompetence. <shrug>
> -- it is the
> foundation of EVERY ONE of our theories of fundamental physics today. NONE of
> the other members of that class would be suitable.
This is another piece of bullshit if one actually studies the
mathematics within more carefully. All these transformations do
nicely condense into a single spacetime equation with different
constant in the power of (1 – v^2 / c^2). That is this equation (ds^2
= (1 – v^2 / c^2)^n g_ij dq^i dq^j, for any number n) never satisfies
the principle of relativity. <shrug>
Yours truly has doubt that the self-styled physicists were that smart
100 years ago. Remember the mathematical model of the Lorentz
transform where the two observers are not necessarily moving in
parallel eluded these guys well after WWII. By that time, it was too
late. To present himself not to look stupid in front of his peers,
the self-styled physicists have to force themselves to see the
emperor’s lack of clothes. <shrug>
> People who don't recognize and understand this are incapable of
> any serious discussion of physics.
Ahahaha... The statement above indeed indicates how shallow-minded
the person utters that sentence is. This reflects what the self-
styled physicists truly are --- a bunch of _________ in science (you
fill in the blanks). Ahahaha...
Despite all that, I am truly surprised that at your advanced age you
are able to come up with these radical ideas with a step away from the
dark side of science. You never cease to amaze yours truly. All
these physical work-outs must have helped. <shrug>
Peter Webb
"spudnik" <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa34cc8b-da70-4a78...@o11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Because its wrong?
Henry Wilson DSc
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:66ad19e5-460f-469e...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> Here we go again.
>>
>> The prediction of mutual time dilation is incorrect.
>
>I asked for an experimental prediction.
>
>Can you describe an experiment involving "mutual time dilation" where you
>think the predictions of Relativity are wrong?
there has never been an experiment that involved any kind of 'time dilation'.
If there was, it would have to be carried out in fairyland...
>If you claim SR is wrong or inconsistent, it is up to you to describe some
>physical experiment which shows it is wrong or inconsistent.
It is totally unimportant whether or not SR is wrong or inconsistent because
SR is never used in anything.
Nobody except a DHR gives a stuff about Einstein's crap.
>> The real problem lies in you and your lack of understanding in SR.
>> <shrug>
>>
>> ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS THAT SUPPORT THIS MUTUAL TIME DILATION WHICH
>> IS UNIQUE TO SR AMONG ALL THE OTHER INFINTE CONJECTURES THAT ALSO
>> SATISFY THE NULL RESULTS OF THE MMX?
>
>So, what experimental predictions of Relativity do you consider incorrect?
>Or do you think they are all correct?
None has been tested.
Henry Wilson...
Henry Wilson DSc
Light is ballistic.
>
Henry Wilson...
Peter Webb
philosophical one, or that you thing Relativity is physically wrong - ie,
does not correctly predict the outcomes of physical events.
If you think it is somehow physically wrong, then it must make incorrect
predictions of physical experiments. Are there any physical experiments
where you think Relativity makes incorrect predictions, and if so what are
they?
Daryl McCullough
If you are talking to Koobee, then he, like most relativity "dissidents"
believes that it is actually inconsistent. If a theory is inconsistent,
then it can't possibly be correct, regardless of agreement with experiment.
Of course, Koobee doesn't actually know what he is talking about.
Daryl McCullough
He can't, of course, since it is in fact consistent.
Provably so.
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Jan 19, 4:12 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>> In fact, Koobee has never shown any inconsistency in Special Relativity.
>
>That is a lie.
Write it out for us: a sequence of statements such that (1) each
statement is either a postulate of SR, or is a mathematical
or logical fact, or follows from previous facts by mathematical
or logical rules of inference, and (2) the last sentence is a
logical contradiction.
You've never written such a thing, because such a thing does
not exist. SR is *provably* consistent.
Helmut Wabnig
Trains running at near lightspeed through a railway station.
Those "paradoxes" aren't physics, they are not real,
not useful, not good, they only give you the illusion
that you are capable of understanding something,
They have nothing to do with physics and with the world around us.
Not surprisingly hordes of critics are yelling at Einstein
and his dingleberries.
The German Wickypedia has a better definition of physics
than the English/American Wackypedia
>Die Physik (von altgriechisch ?????? physike- �wissenschaftliche Erforschung
> der Naturerscheinungen�, �Naturforschung�; lateinisch physica �Naturlehre�)
>[1][2] untersucht die grundlegenden Ph�nomene in der Natur in der Absicht
> deren Eigenschaften und Verhalten anhand von quantitativen Modellen und
> Gesetzm�ssigkeiten zu erkl�ren. Sie befasst sich insbesondere mit Materie
> und Energie und deren Wechselwirkungen in Raum und Zeit.
They say: "interactions in space and time"
While the English/American Wacky says
"spacetime"
>Physics (from Ancient Greek: ????? physis "nature") is a natural science that
> involves the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime, as well as all related
There is a difference, would you agree?
w.
Daryl McCullough
>Trains running at near lightspeed through a railway station.
>
>Those "paradoxes" aren't physics, they are not real,
>not useful, not good, they only give you the illusion
>that you are capable of understanding something,
>They have nothing to do with physics and with the world around us.
>
>Not surprisingly hordes of critics are yelling at Einstein
>and his dingleberries.
The "hordes of critics" are almost all idiots.
Look, relativistic physics is *NOT* about trains and light
signals and rocketships and pole vaulters. Those thought
experiments are purely for pedagogical purposes, for the
purpose of exploring the relativistic model of the universe,
which is different in some respects than the Newtonian/galilean
model. But actual relativistic physics is about understanding
the dynamics of the universe and subatomic particles, the two
regimes where the classical, Newtonian concept of physics fails
most blatantly. General Relativity describes the universe at
large, and relativistic quantum field theory describes the
universe in the small.
Helmut Wabnig
McCullough) wrote:
It is un-pedagogical to use trains etc.
Stupid trains, lightspeed rockets, stupid teachers.
With a little brainstorming one can find real world examples,
which can be demonstrated on the laboratory desk.
If you can. Modern teachers, who have been spoiled by
the attitude you described above, are incapable of
demonstrating the even simplest experiments like a pendulum.
Modern universities teach physics with the help of video clips.
(Klagenfurt, Austria)
How real is YOUTUBE?
w.
Helmut Wabnig
McCullough) wrote:
It is un-pedagogical to use trains etc.
Stupid trains, lightspeed rockets, stupid teachers.
With a little brainstorming one can find real world examples,
which can be demonstrated on the laboratory desk.
If you can. Modern teachers, who have been spoiled by
the attitude you described above, are incapable of
demonstrating the even simplest experiments like a pendulum.
Modern universities teach physics with the help of video clips.
(Klagenfurt, Austria)
I have to correct that: they use ONLY videoclips.
No experiment. No demonstration. No real physics, but "trains".
How real is YOUTUBE?
The next generation of physics teachers will be unable
to draw diagrams on the black-resp. white board.
w.
Daryl McCullough
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
The thought experiments mentioned above are not used
by physics teachers. Or at least, I never was in a
physics class that used them. They are used by students
who are puzzled by relativity and want to understand its
implications.
mpc755
>
> "Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
> of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
> galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
> somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
> water."
>
> The 'pond' consists of aether.
> The 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
> The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.
>
> > b) it is the only one with a sensible geometrical foundation
> > c) it is the only one with sensible and useful symmetries (Lorentz
> > invariance)
> > d) it is the only one that is extensible beyond electrodynamics in a
> > straightforward manner (i.e. without a series of ad hoc requirements
> > that each other phenomenon "just happens" to behave like E&M)
>
> > Indeed, the theoretical physics community HAS selected SR, long ago -- it is the
> > foundation of EVERY ONE of our theories of fundamental physics today. NONE of
> > the other members of that class would be suitable.
>
> > People who don't recognize and understand this are incapable of
> > any serious discussion of physics.
>
> Dark matter is ether.
>
> People who don't recognize and understand this are incapable of any
> serious discussion of physics.
So, how does this work?
Einstein states, "According to the general theory of relativity, space
without ether is unthinkable".
How is space without ether unthinkable for GR and there is no ether
for SR?
When you think of GR there exists an ether and when you think of SR
the ether is non-existent? Are you able to control the existence of
ether with your mind?
If you agree with the correctness of GR and SR and since Einstein
stated, "space without ether is unthinkable", then there exists an
ether.
There IS an ether.
And it has mass.
Eric Gisse
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:23:46 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
>
> >"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:66ad19e5-460f-469e...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Here we go again.
>
> >> The prediction of mutual time dilation is incorrect.
>
> >I asked for an experimental prediction.
>
> >Can you describe an experiment involving "mutual time dilation" where you
> >think the predictions of Relativity are wrong?
>
> there has never been an experiment that involved any kind of 'time dilation'.
This is a lie.
>
> If there was, it would have to be carried out in fairyland...
>
> >If you claim SR is wrong or inconsistent, it is up to you to describe some
> >physical experiment which shows it is wrong or inconsistent.
>
> It is totally unimportant whether or not SR is wrong or inconsistent because
> SR is never used in anything.
This is also a lie.
> Nobody except a DHR gives a stuff about Einstein's crap.
This is a rationalization.
>
> >> The real problem lies in you and your lack of understanding in SR.
> >> <shrug>
>
> >> ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS THAT SUPPORT THIS MUTUAL TIME DILATION WHICH
> >> IS UNIQUE TO SR AMONG ALL THE OTHER INFINTE CONJECTURES THAT ALSO
> >> SATISFY THE NULL RESULTS OF THE MMX?
>
> >So, what experimental predictions of Relativity do you consider incorrect?
> >Or do you think they are all correct?
>
> None has been tested.
Another lie.
>
> Henry Wilson...
Eric Gisse
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:40:46 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
>
> >"spudnik" <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:aa34cc8b-da70-4a78...@o11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> even though M&M emphaically did not get
> >> a "null result," it didn't refute relativity
>
> >> why is it hard to see, that atoms have
> >> internal angular momenta taht are also limited
> >> by the speed of light -- not its velocity?
>
> >Because its wrong?
>
> Light is ballistic.
>
>
>
> Henry Wilson...
Then how come all the direct experiments say it isn't?
Tom Roberts
> On Jan 19, 8:06 pm, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> But there are indeed rather strong theoretical reasons to select SR:
>> a) it is the only one which does not contain a completely unobservable
>> ether
> Dark matter is ether.
Not the ether of any of the theories in that class. Because, AS I SAID, there is
no possible way to discover or observe their ether -- it is COMPLETELY
unobservable, by any possible experiment or measurement.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> So, how does this work?
> Einstein states, "According to the general theory of relativity, space
> without ether is unthinkable".
You have an unacknowledged pun on "ether". What Einstein was referring to is NOT
AT ALL what you mean by the word. His "ether" was unobservable, and the notion
of "motion relative to the ether" does not apply. His "ether" is abstract, and
today such phrasing would not be used (indeed, even when he said that, such
phrasing was not commonly used; he was modifying his vocabulary to accommodate
people who had strong emotional investments in "ether").
Tom Roberts
mpc755
The ether is observed in the following: