SR is succesfully debunked, spread the word.
josX
- Einstein is the greatest
- we don't need no evidence
- Lorentz-transformations
- relativity of simultaneity
The first door was cracked by examining Einsteins own work, it turns out
he cannot think straight (see chapter 9 of 'relativity' (1916) where he
violates his own principle of the constancy of the speed of light in order
to fuzzproof there is no such thing as absolute time and flat space).
The second door was never fully closed, because everybody knows you need
positive evidence before an hypotheses can become scientific fact. There
never was done an experiment to show that a single lightbeam has in one
direction the same speed relative to stationary and moving equipment.
The third door was cracked by investigating the hypotheses of length
contraction and timedilation, it turns out it cannot explain the constancy
of the speed of light at all, and this idea remains as impossible under
the timedilation and lengthcontraction ideas as it is under normal
straight space and absolute time.
Two more blows with the paradox axe: the twin-paradox and the
piston-on-the-rails paradox were needed. It was also needed to show that
the pseudosolving of the SRist left SR behind in order to make sense of
these paradoxes (chose a preferred frame of reference).
The final door is relativity of simulateity, and it was destroyed by
using a light measuring device which uses only one central clock, and
two lightdetectors sending a signal to the clock, where a bomb goes off
if there is any doppler shift in the signal traveling to the clock.
This ensures that the signal must travel at the same speed relative to
the clock in all frames. This final doppler-paradox kills off SR.
Three is the charm, and indeed, it's the doppler-paradox which brings the
total of paradox-types to three.
Goodbuy SR.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the josX monster hiding behind them:
- http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NoDiagram
- http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosXGamma
- http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NothingWrong
- http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DontEven
> Goodbuy SR.
GoodbYE josniX.
Dirk Vdm
Jan Emil Larsen
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
On what facts, deductions and experiments do you substantiate this?
josX
Glad you ask. I hope you have the stomach to do some reading on this,
with such a large theory as SR which accepts paradoxes in it's makup
as if nothing were problematic, i can't be very short. I could be, but
if that is all it takes you would not be asking *me* questions.
Fact: although the speed of light has been measured to be a constant
no matter how earth moves into space, this does only warrant a theory
that says "the speed of light is a constant with respect to the earth".
It does not warrant to say "a single lightbeam will have the same
one-way speed with respect to multiple differently moving observers".
Now we have determined there is no physical basis for the basic theory
of relativity, don't let this fact slip past you. The special relativity
theory is purely based upon mathematical derivations and assumptions
which cannot portray physical reality in the first place (for instance
the lorentz-transformations). These lorentz-transformations (time/lenght
changes because of relative speed; 'real' changes, not 'visual illusions',
nevertheless 'mutual' with 'no preferred frame to be chosen') existed
before SR came to the scene, suggesting physics was in a deliterious state
even before Einstein did his damage (if you excuse the choice of words).
Fact: Einstein makes a mistake in deducting his relativity of simultaneity
(no absolute space/time exist) argument:
Einstein "relativity", page 27:
9 The relativity of simultaneity
Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular
body of reference, which we have styled a "railway embank-
ment." We suppose a very long train traveling along the rails
with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig.
I. People travelling in this train will with advantage use the train
v train
-----> M' /
____________|________________|_________________|________/
_______________|__________________________________|_________________
| |
A M B
figure 1
as a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system); they regard
all events in reference to the train. Then every event which
takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of
the train. Also the definition of simultaneity can be given relative
to the train in exactly the same way as with respect to the
embankment. As a natural concequence, however, the following
question arises:
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B
which are simultaneous with /reference to the railway embankment/ also
simultaneous /relative to the train/? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simul-
taneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of
light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs,
meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A -> B of the
embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to posi-
tions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
A -> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning
occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it
moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the
train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not
possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M,
and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just
where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam
of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam
of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of
light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A
Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body <-
must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B <-
took place earlier then the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at <-
the important result:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the
embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and
/vice versa/ (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-
ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told
the reference-body to which the statemetn of time refers, there is
no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always
tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of
motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this
assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict
between the law of the propagation of light /in vacuo/ and the
principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section
6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we con-
cluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w
/per second/ relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also
with respect to the embankment /in each second/ of time. But,
according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by
a particular occurence with respect to the carriage must not be
considered equal to the duration of the same occurence as
judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it
cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance
w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one
second as judged from the embankment.
Moreover, the consideration of Section 6 are based on yet a
second assumption, which, in the light of a strict consideration,
appears to be arbitrary, although it was always tacitly made even
before the introduction of the theory of relativity.
<end of chapter 9>
I let you cool of with this first, more later if you can handle this. I
don't know you, but it's my feeling that it not wise to throw the lot
at someone because that would only overwhelm, not enlighten.
I draw your attention to the fact that Einstein tries to *make sense*
in what he says, he tries to present a *logical argument*. This means
that we can hold logic against Einstein if he makes logical errors.
Do i loose with you whatever i say, or are you willing to think this
thing over honestly.
--
jos
Femme Verbeek
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
schreef in bericht news:ul299.79152$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
om de reacties op zijn flames. Schoppen tegen een gevestigde theorie en
door velen bewonderde wetenschapper levert nu eenmaal altijd veel
reacties op.
Femme
Sam Wormley
"Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford M. Will
Jan Emil Larsen
> In article <ak2dh1$eui$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>, Jan Emil Larsen wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> >news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind
them:
> >
> >On what facts, deductions and experiments do you substantiate this?
> >
>
> Glad you ask. I hope you have the stomach to do some reading on this,
> with such a large theory as SR which accepts paradoxes in it's makup
> as if nothing were problematic, i can't be very short. I could be, but
> if that is all it takes you would not be asking *me* questions.
Why not?
You have taken the burden of proof, please deliver.
> Fact: although the speed of light has been measured to be a constant
> no matter how earth moves into space, this does only warrant a theory
> that says "the speed of light is a constant with respect to the earth".
> It does not warrant to say "a single lightbeam will have the same
> one-way speed with respect to multiple differently moving observers".
>
> Now we have determined there is no physical basis for the basic theory
> of relativity, don't let this fact slip past you.
I see no such determination based on facts, deduction and experiment...
<snip>
> Do i loose with you whatever i say, or are you willing to think this
> thing over honestly.
I'm not prepared to let whatever you say go; honestly nothing you've said
sofar goes with me.
Let's just look at the "4. door", where you say:
>The final door is relativity of simulateity, and it was destroyed by
>using a light measuring device which uses only one central clock, and
>two lightdetectors sending a signal to the clock, where a bomb goes off
>if there is any doppler shift in the signal traveling to the clock.
>This ensures that the signal must travel at the same speed relative to
>the clock in all frames. This final doppler-paradox kills off SR.
Could you please give a reference to such an actual measurement,
substantiated by an independent experiment.
Or was it just "destroyed" and "measured" in an (invalid)
gedankenexperiment?
Uncle Al
>
> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
>
> - Einstein is the greatest
> - we don't need no evidence
No empiricism, no science.
Go bother the Vatican or your local mental health care professional.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Eric Freeman
> monster hiding behind them:
>
> - Einstein is the greatest
> - we don't need no evidence
> - Lorentz-transformations
> - relativity of simultaneity
>
> The first door was cracked by examining Einsteins
> own work, it turns out he cannot think straight (see
> chapter 9 of 'relativity' (1916) where he violates his
> own principle of the constancy of the speed of light
> in order to fuzzproof there is no such thing as
> absolute time and flat space).
Being a little harsh on the Master, aren't you? Nobody (not even Einstein)
ever said that he was perfect. He believed things that later turned out to
be false... don't we all? In a thousand years they will look back at us
like we look back at cave men. There were discrepancies between theory and
measurement known at the time of Einstein's work, and in Einstein's defense,
some of his "mistakes" were where he got a few things correct but didn't
believe what relativity was telling him for a long time (if at all).
> The second door was never fully closed, because
> everybody knows you need positive evidence before
> an hypotheses can become scientific fact. There
> never was done an experiment to show that a single
> lightbeam has in one direction the same speed
> relative to stationary and moving equipment.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. We've been bouncing light, radio
waves, x-rays, and every other kind of wave we can generate off of
everything we can bounce them off of, every way we can think of to bounce
them, and detecting the waves every way we can think of to detect them and
examining what we detect every way we can think of to examine them for quite
a while (my grammar-checker just crashed... intentionally... it was
suicide).
> The third door was cracked by investigating the
> hypotheses of length contraction and timedilation...
[snip for length]
If a new theory is closer to measurable observation than an old theory, by
all means look into it further.
Eric
---------------------------
http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree
---------------------------
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"
--George W. Bush - Florence, SC, Jan. 11, 2000.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:ak2f6o$fcn$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>In article <ak2dh1$eui$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>, Jan Emil Larsen wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
>>>
>>>On what facts, deductions and experiments do you substantiate this?
>>
>> Glad you ask. I hope you have the stomach to do some reading on this,
>> with such a large theory as SR which accepts paradoxes in it's makup
>> as if nothing were problematic, i can't be very short. I could be, but
>> if that is all it takes you would not be asking *me* questions.
>
>Why not?
>You have taken the burden of proof, please deliver.
No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
For the same reason, SR has to proof it's right to exist with physical
evidence upon which it can be based. There is none.
As someone who realizes this theory is therefore unscientific, the only
burden upon me is to make sense, and to argue my point. I do not
need to produce counter evidence against a theory which has no positive
evidence. It is enough to say "there is no positive evidence, so whatever
you're doing, it is fantasy". And it is -- fantasy.
>> Fact: although the speed of light has been measured to be a constant
>> no matter how earth moves into space, this does only warrant a theory
>> that says "the speed of light is a constant with respect to the earth".
>> It does not warrant to say "a single lightbeam will have the same
>> one-way speed with respect to multiple differently moving observers".
>>
>> Now we have determined there is no physical basis for the basic theory
>> of relativity, don't let this fact slip past you.
>
>I see no such determination based on facts, deduction and experiment...
deduction
><snip>
>
>> Do i loose with you whatever i say, or are you willing to think this
>> thing over honestly.
>
>I'm not prepared to let whatever you say go; honestly nothing you've said
>sofar goes with me.
Science can say whatever it wants without the need for physical evidence ?
>Let's just look at the "4. door", where you say:
>
>>The final door is relativity of simulateity, and it was destroyed by
>>using a light measuring device which uses only one central clock, and
>>two lightdetectors sending a signal to the clock, where a bomb goes off
>>if there is any doppler shift in the signal traveling to the clock.
>>This ensures that the signal must travel at the same speed relative to
>>the clock in all frames. This final doppler-paradox kills off SR.
>
>Could you please give a reference to such an actual measurement,
>substantiated by an independent experiment.
>Or was it just "destroyed" and "measured" in an (invalid)
>gedankenexperiment?
Ofcourse it is done in a gedanken-experiment.
The test about if you are a liar came out positive: you snipped the
paradox you were given, that means you realize you cannot solve it.
If you were honest you would either have given an obviously stupid/wrong
answer to it, exposing your misunderstanding of SR or your utter
stupidity, or you would have come to your senses and realize SR=wrong.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
"josX" is a nutcase who thinks his TV is a mindcontrol device:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
Marco Nelissen
> thing over honestly.
You lose whatever you say:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
(the mindcontrol episode was pretty funny)
Marco Nelissen
> If a new theory is closer to measurable observation than an old theory, by
> all means look into it further.
So far Jos' new theory consists of "SR is wrong". Obviously this revolutionary
new theory needs some more work to bring it closer to measurable observation.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR
>> monster hiding behind them:
>>
>> - Einstein is the greatest
>> - we don't need no evidence
>> - Lorentz-transformations
>> - relativity of simultaneity
>>
>> The first door was cracked by examining Einsteins
>> own work, it turns out he cannot think straight (see
>> chapter 9 of 'relativity' (1916) where he violates his
>> own principle of the constancy of the speed of light
>> in order to fuzzproof there is no such thing as
>> absolute time and flat space).
>
> Being a little harsh on the Master, aren't you? Nobody (not even
> Einstein) ever said that he was perfect.
SRist claim he is perfect: if you disagree, then you must not understand
it yet. Einstein is always on top, by definition, not by making sense.
> He believed things that
> later turned out to be false... don't we all? In a thousand years
> they will look back at us like we look back at cave men. There were
> discrepancies between theory and measurement known at the time of
> Einstein's work, and in Einstein's defense, some of his "mistakes"
> were where he got a few things correct but didn't believe what
> relativity was telling him for a long time (if at all).
Einstein is just an example of the crazyness that has physics in it's
clutches. Lorentz completely insane transformations already existed
when Einstein still had to publish his papers. It's like putting two
crazy people together, you only end up with crazyness^2.
>> The second door was never fully closed, because
>> everybody knows you need positive evidence before
>> an hypotheses can become scientific fact. There
>> never was done an experiment to show that a single
>> lightbeam has in one direction the same speed
>> relative to stationary and moving equipment.
>
>I'm not quite sure what you mean here. We've been bouncing light, radio
>waves, x-rays, and every other kind of wave we can generate off of
>everything we can bounce them off of,
That will all be two-way ligthspeed measurements wouldn't you agree?
> every way we can think of to bounce
>them, and detecting the waves every way we can think of to detect them and
>examining what we detect every way we can think of to examine them for quite
>a while (my grammar-checker just crashed... intentionally... it was
>suicide).
All two way, while SR is a one-way theory (that's where it's true insanity
lies).
>> The third door was cracked by investigating the
>> hypotheses of length contraction and timedilation...
>
>[snip for length]
>
>If a new theory is closer to measurable observation than an old theory, by
>all means look into it further.
If an old theory, already almost 100 years old, has no basis in fact or
in rationality, then it must be scrapped.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> If an old theory, already almost 100 years old, has no basis in fact or
> in rationality, then it must be scrapped.
>
The old theory is verified thousands of times a day. Every time a high
energy particle accelerator is cranked up, SR is verified as much as an
experiment can verify a theory.
Bob Kolker
David McAnally
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR
>> monster hiding behind them:
>>
>> - Einstein is the greatest
>> - we don't need no evidence
>> - Lorentz-transformations
>> - relativity of simultaneity
>>
>> The first door was cracked by examining Einsteins
>> own work, it turns out he cannot think straight (see
>> chapter 9 of 'relativity' (1916) where he violates his
>> own principle of the constancy of the speed of light
>> in order to fuzzproof there is no such thing as
>> absolute time and flat space).
>Being a little harsh on the Master, aren't you? Nobody (not even Einstein)
>ever said that he was perfect.
You've missed the point here. Einstein *didn't* violate the principle of
the invariance of c in the passage under discussion, contrary to the
mental dribblings of Jos (who had to throw in university physics wihin six
months of staring university). As has been explained to Jos, ad nauseum,
Einstein was discussing the difference in velocity between light and a
moving object in a specific inertial frame. No amount of pointing out
where he has made his mistake and the fact that Einstein did not violate
the principle in the passage under discussion makes a dent on his wilful
ignorance. Jos is firmly of the opinion that because the difference in
velocity does not have magnitude c in the inertial frame in question, then
the light will not have speed c in the frame of the moving object. He has
stubbornly adopted the Galilean law for addition of velocities, and
refuses to give up his delusion that, because special relativity is
inconsistent with the Galiean law, then it is internally inconsistent (an
argument which is completely invalid. Pointing out that internal
inconsistency of special relativity is not a necessary consequence of the
inconsistency of special relativity with the Galilean law (according to
even the most fundamental principles of logic) has absolutely no effect on
Jos, who therefore refuses to accept even the principles of logic.
The long and the short of it is that, in the same Chapter 9 which Jos
quotes above, Einstein did not violate his principle of the invariance of
c. Velocities do not add according to the old Galilean law, and any
assumption that they do will lead to predictions which are not made by the
genuine theory. In other words, no nonsensical prediction which is made
under the assumption of Galilean addition of velocities along with special
relativity is a logical consequence of relativity alone, and so cannot be
used as a counterexample to the validity of relativity. The difference in
velocity between moving objects is frame-dependent, and certainly an
invariant. That Jos continues to assume that the difference in velocities
is an invariant in spite of being informed that it is not an invariant
demonstrates a wilful disregard, on the part of Jos, with respect to all
the laws of logic (no wonder Jos was kicked out after six months - he
refuses to learn the laws of logic).
David McAnally
---------
Eric Freeman
>
> In article <ak2dh1$eui$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>, Jan Emil Larsen wrote:
> >
> > "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >>
> >> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster
> >> hiding behind them:
> >
> > On what facts, deductions and experiments do you
> > substantiate this?
>
> be a constant no matter how earth moves into space,
> this does only warrant a theory that says "the speed of
> light is a constant with respect to the earth". It does not
> warrant to say "a single lightbeam will have the same
> one-way speed with respect to multiple differently moving
> observers".
Different points on the Earth's surface are moving differently at the same
time, so experiments of that sort are possible. We also have space craft,
extending light experiments into near-space. My specific knowledge of this
area of research is at a mass-audience science magazine or t.v. documentary
level, so I'm no expert, but why do the "real experts" keep saying that the
properties of light observed from positions of non-uniform acceleration
agree with SR to an incredibly high degree?
> Now we have determined there is no physical basis for the
> basic theory of relativity...
Have we? Or have we just proven that Einstein wasn't perfect and neither
are the machines we make to measure things? That was known at the time (see
my other post in the thread). And it wasn't just Einstein. When
Schrodinger heard of Max Born interpretation of his 'Schrodinger wave'
theory, he commented that he might not have written the paper if he had
thought more about what it implied. But (unless an experiment took place
when I wasn't looking) the theory (and Born's interpretation) has been shown
to agree with measurement.
> ...don't let this fact slip past you. The special relativity
> theory is purely based upon mathematical derivations
> and assumptions which cannot portray physical reality in
> the first place...
Niels Bohr said it better: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is
to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."
Theories were adopted because they predicted the outcome of observation
(such as the rate of advance of the perihelion of Mercury) better than
Newton's theories. SR has been tweaked along the way... most theories are
and if something agrees with measurement ***perfectly***, it's likely that
you've exceeded your ability to measure accurately.
> ...(for instance the lorentz-transformations).
> These lorentz-transformations (time/lenght changes
> because of relative speed; 'real' changes, not 'visual
> illusions', nevertheless 'mutual' with 'no preferred frame
> to be chosen') existed before SR came to the scene,
> suggesting physics was in a deliterious state even before
> Einstein did his damage (if you excuse the choice of
> words).
I'm not sure what this means.
> Fact: Einstein makes a mistake in deducting his relativity of
> simultaneity (no absolute space/time exist) argument:
>
> Einstein "relativity", page 27:
[snip]
This is too long for a ten-second analysis, so I'll skip it for now.
Eric Freeman
> >
> > "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >>
> >> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster
> >> hiding behind them:
> >
> > On what facts, deductions and experiments do you
> > substantiate this?
>
> be a constant no matter how earth moves into space,
> this does only warrant a theory that says "the speed of
> light is a constant with respect to the earth". It does not
> warrant to say "a single lightbeam will have the same
> one-way speed with respect to multiple differently moving
> observers".
Different points on the Earth's surface are moving differently at the same
time, so experiments of that sort are possible. We also have space craft,
extending light experiments into near-space. My specific knowledge of this
area of research is at a mass-audience science magazine or t.v. documentary
level, so I'm no expert, but why do the "real experts" keep saying that the
properties of light observed from positions of non-uniform acceleration
agree with SR to an incredibly high degree?
> Now we have determined there is no physical basis for the
> basic theory of relativity...
Have we? Or have we just proven that Einstein wasn't perfect and neither
are the machines we make to measure things? That was known at the time (see
my other post in the thread). And it wasn't just Einstein. When
Schrodinger heard of Max Born interpretation of his 'Schrodinger wave'
theory, he commented that he might not have written the paper if he had
thought more about what it implied. But (unless an experiment took place
when I wasn't looking) the theory (and Born's interpretation) has been shown
to agree with measurement.
> ...don't let this fact slip past you. The special relativity
> theory is purely based upon mathematical derivations
> and assumptions which cannot portray physical reality in
> the first place...
Niels Bohr said it better: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is
to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."
Theories were adopted because they predicted the outcome of observation
(such as the rate of advance of the perihelion of Mercury) better than
Newton's theories. SR has been tweaked along the way... most theories are
and if something agrees with measurement ***perfectly***, it's likely that
you've exceeded your ability to measure accurately.
> ...(for instance the lorentz-transformations).
> These lorentz-transformations (time/lenght changes
> because of relative speed; 'real' changes, not 'visual
> illusions', nevertheless 'mutual' with 'no preferred frame
> to be chosen') existed before SR came to the scene,
> suggesting physics was in a deliterious state even before
> Einstein did his damage (if you excuse the choice of
> words).
I'm not sure what this means.
> Fact: Einstein makes a mistake in deducting his relativity of
> simultaneity (no absolute space/time exist) argument:
>
> Einstein "relativity", page 27:
[snip]
Eric Freeman
>
> For the same reason, SR has to proof it's right to
> exist with physical evidence upon which it can be
> based. There is none.
Are you sure? In another post to the thread, I mentioned the advance of the
perihelion of Mercury (which was predicted more accurately using Einstein's
math than it was using Newton's). The discrepancy between Newton's
predictions and actual measurement had been one of the thorns in the side of
physics for decades.
josX
Since when accelerate particle accelerators light?
--
jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:ak2f6o$fcn$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>In article <ak2dh1$eui$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>, Jan Emil Larsen wrote:
>>>
>>> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>> news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster
>>>> hiding behind them:
>>>
>>> On what facts, deductions and experiments do you
>>> substantiate this?
>>
>>Fact: although the speed of light has been measured to
>>be a constant no matter how earth moves into space,
>>this does only warrant a theory that says "the speed of
>>light is a constant with respect to the earth". It does not
>>warrant to say "a single lightbeam will have the same
>>one-way speed with respect to multiple differently moving
>>observers".
>
>Different points on the Earth's surface are moving differently at the same
>time, so experiments of that sort are possible. We also have space craft,
>extending light experiments into near-space. My specific knowledge of this
>area of research is at a mass-audience science magazine or t.v. documentary
>level, so I'm no expert, but why do the "real experts" keep saying that the
>properties of light observed from positions of non-uniform acceleration
>agree with SR to an incredibly high degree?
Because they know that as long as they push relativity, their place as
"real experts" is virtually guarenteed because no bright or honest person
can ever understand relativity because of it's ambiguity ?
>> Now we have determined there is no physical basis for the
>> basic theory of relativity...
>
>Have we? Or have we just proven that Einstein wasn't perfect and neither
>are the machines we make to measure things?
Fine, whichever suits you best.
> That was known at the time (see
>my other post in the thread). And it wasn't just Einstein.
no it wasn't
> . When
>Schrodinger heard of Max Born interpretation of his 'Schrodinger wave'
>theory, he commented that he might not have written the paper if he had
>thought more about what it implied. But (unless an experiment took place
>when I wasn't looking) the theory (and Born's interpretation) has been shown
>to agree with measurement.
I'm no expert of QM, i only know it smells like a scam because Heisenbergs
principle is nothing but classical error margins on a measuring device of
choice, and this principle is i believe an intricate part of the theory
which is tauted as 'revolutionary'.
>> ...don't let this fact slip past you. The special relativity
>> theory is purely based upon mathematical derivations
>> and assumptions which cannot portray physical reality in
>> the first place...
>
>Niels Bohr said it better: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is
>to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."
>Theories were adopted because they predicted the outcome of observation
>(such as the rate of advance of the perihelion of Mercury) better than
>Newton's theories. SR has been tweaked along the way... most theories are
>and if something agrees with measurement ***perfectly***, it's likely that
>you've exceeded your ability to measure accurately.
>
>> ...(for instance the lorentz-transformations).
>> These lorentz-transformations (time/lenght changes
>> because of relative speed; 'real' changes, not 'visual
>> illusions', nevertheless 'mutual' with 'no preferred frame
>> to be chosen') existed before SR came to the scene,
>> suggesting physics was in a deliterious state even before
>> Einstein did his damage (if you excuse the choice of
>> words).
>
>I'm not sure what this means.
You know about the Lorentz-transformations ?
>> Fact: Einstein makes a mistake in deducting his relativity of
>> simultaneity (no absolute space/time exist) argument:
>>
>> Einstein "relativity", page 27:
>
>[snip]
>
>This is too long for a ten-second analysis, so I'll skip it for now.
ok
--
jos
josX
>"Eric Freeman" <wed...@wantnostinkingspam.com> writes:
>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR
>>> monster hiding behind them:
>>>
>>> - Einstein is the greatest
>>> - we don't need no evidence
>>> - Lorentz-transformations
>>> - relativity of simultaneity
>>>
>>> The first door was cracked by examining Einsteins
>>> own work, it turns out he cannot think straight (see
>>> chapter 9 of 'relativity' (1916) where he violates his
>>> own principle of the constancy of the speed of light
>>> in order to fuzzproof there is no such thing as
>>> absolute time and flat space).
>
>>Being a little harsh on the Master, aren't you? Nobody (not even Einstein)
>>ever said that he was perfect.
>
>You've missed the point here. Einstein *didn't* violate the principle of
>the invariance of c in the passage under discussion, contrary to the
>mental dribblings of Jos (who had to throw in university physics wihin six
>months of staring university). As has been explained to Jos, ad nauseum,
>Einstein was discussing the difference in velocity between light and a
>moving object in a specific inertial frame.
And then Einstein suddenly violates his own principle by jumping to the
train-observers and concluding that they *must* see one flash before the
other as his earlier analyses in teh track-frame had concluded they should.
It's black on white David.
> No amount of pointing out
>where he has made his mistake and the fact that Einstein did not violate
>the principle in the passage under discussion makes a dent on his wilful
>ignorance. Jos is firmly of the opinion that because the difference in
>velocity does not have magnitude c in the inertial frame in question, then
>the light will not have speed c in the frame of the moving object.
Which is also correct, and SRists even agree to this: in a given frame,
the speed of light with respect to moving objects is not c at all. With
math-tricks they try to squeeze c out again, but it just won't work for
them the way they had hoped for (it leads to a doppler-shift paradoxe).
> He has
>stubbornly adopted the Galilean law for addition of velocities, and
>refuses to give up his delusion that, because special relativity is
>inconsistent with the Galiean law,
...with reality, where 'reality' means 'non-paradoxical view on reality'...
> then it is internally inconsistent (an
>argument which is completely invalid. Pointing out that internal
>inconsistency of special relativity is not a necessary consequence of the
>inconsistency of special relativity with the Galilean law (according to
>even the most fundamental principles of logic) has absolutely no effect on
>Jos, who therefore refuses to accept even the principles of logic.
Strawman: my gripe is not between normal addition and bogus SR addition,
it's between frames inside SR itself.
Here an example:
For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
of it is over the gap.
>The long and the short of it is that, in the same Chapter 9 which Jos
>quotes above, Einstein did not violate his principle of the invariance of
>c. Velocities do not add according to the old Galilean law, and any
>assumption that they do will lead to predictions which are not made by the
>genuine theory. In other words, no nonsensical prediction which is made
>under the assumption of Galilean addition of velocities along with special
>relativity is a logical consequence of relativity alone, and so cannot be
>used as a counterexample to the validity of relativity. The difference in
>velocity between moving objects is frame-dependent, and certainly an
>invariant. That Jos continues to assume that the difference in velocities
>is an invariant in spite of being informed that it is not an invariant
>demonstrates a wilful disregard, on the part of Jos, with respect to all
>the laws of logic (no wonder Jos was kicked out after six months - he
>refuses to learn the laws of logic).
'The laws of logic', that certainly is a tautology (double-speak).
Anyway, it is obvious to all who read the quote of Einstein what is the
matter here, i don't care to comment on the above smear.
For the stupids however, i will: the problem is not addition of velocities,
the problem is constancy of c, it should work in the train-frame as well,
and the train-observers, being in the middle at the moment that the
flashes happen (this is BEFORE relativity of simultaneity is proven to us,
so you cannot use it now, the book is a sequential indoctrination into SR),
the distance to both flashes should be the same, and the train-observers
should notice not what Einstein says they will see (nonsimultaneous flashes,
which is exactly classical mechanics), but they should see the flashes
simultaneously, destroying Einsteins argument against absolute time and
space. Don't forget that Einstein *tries to make sense*, that is the whole
joke of it.
--
jos
Randy Poe
> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
Have you done this experiment yourself? Did you confirm
it was hydrogen and oxygen you were working with?
Or are you just blindly following the high priests who told
you that these experiments were done.
They're lying, you know. There's no positive proof that hydrogen
and oxygen go together to make water, and everyone who claims
there is, is part of the Big Lie. They're just protecting their
jobs. Water is wet. Hydrogen and oxygen are not. It's preposterous.
It falls apart at the seams from common sense.
You better pray nobody trustworthy ever performs the experiment,
because the whole of chemistry will fall down around your ears.
And by the way, if *YOU* claim to perform the experiment, it
will be obvious to me that you are lying.
- Randy
Randy Poe
> > Einstein) ever said that he was perfect.
>
> SRist claim he is perfect
Nobody claims he is perfect.
The claims on the table are "the theory called SR makes
correct predictions in all experiments to date."
There is no claim to perfection either for the person who
formulated SR or for the performance of this theory in future
experiments.
> if you disagree, then you must not understand
> it yet. Einstein is always on top, by definition, not by making sense.
No, by agreeing with experiment.
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> news:ak33e7$i13$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> > For the same reason, SR has to proof it's right to
> > exist with physical evidence upon which it can be
> > based. There is none.
>
> Are you sure? In another post to the thread, I mentioned the advance of the
> perihelion of Mercury (which was predicted more accurately using Einstein's
> math than it was using Newton's). The discrepancy between Newton's
> predictions and actual measurement had been one of the thorns in the side of
> physics for decades.
JosX can't be bothered with experimental evidence in
declaring that "there is no experimental evidence". He
believes all such papers are lying. In this specific case,
he "knows" that it's ridiculous to think there's some
connection between relativity and the precession of
a planetary orbit.
- Randy
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
>> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
>> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
>> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
>
>Have you done this experiment yourself? Did you confirm
>it was hydrogen and oxygen you were working with?
No, i have no reason to distrust this, the experiment has been done,
it has been done all over the world many times by many people, it's
a triviality.
>Or are you just blindly following the high priests who told
>you that these experiments were done.
No such highpriest required here.
>They're lying, you know. There's no positive proof that hydrogen
>and oxygen go together to make water, and everyone who claims
>there is, is part of the Big Lie. They're just protecting their
>jobs. Water is wet. Hydrogen and oxygen are not. It's preposterous.
>It falls apart at the seams from common sense.
Wrong analogy: many people can claim it has been done, but noone
claims the experiment needed to base SR on was done.
>You better pray nobody trustworthy ever performs the experiment,
>because the whole of chemistry will fall down around your ears.
>
>And by the way, if *YOU* claim to perform the experiment, it
>will be obvious to me that you are lying.
Your analogy was off.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> nothing.
You claim SR is wrong. Experiments confirm SR, no experiments contradict SR.
The burden of (dis)proof is on you: conduct an experiment that contradicts SR.
Randy Poe
Since when does "relativistic" only refer to light?
Accelerators take particles to energy regimes where
classical and relativistic physics predict different
behavior, trajectories, etc.
Guess which one the accelerator agrees with?
- Randy
Marco Nelissen
>>josX wrote:
>>
>>> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
>>> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
>>> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
>>> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
>>
>>Have you done this experiment yourself? Did you confirm
>>it was hydrogen and oxygen you were working with?
>
> No, i have no reason to distrust this, the experiment has been done,
> it has been done all over the world many times by many people, it's
> a triviality.
Same is true for SR. Why do you accept that hydrogen and oxygen form
water, but reject all the thousands of experiments that are completely
in line with relativity?
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >
> >> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
> >> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
> >> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
> >> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
> >
> >Have you done this experiment yourself? Did you confirm
> >it was hydrogen and oxygen you were working with?
>
> No, i have no reason to distrust this, the experiment has been done,
> it has been done all over the world many times by many people, it's
> a triviality.
You have no idea of your hypocrisy here, do you?
When other people make exactly the same statement you just
made, you say that the people who did the experiment are
liars.
Here, I'll make the statement, using your words.
Jos: Have you measured the constancy of c yourself?
Me: No, I have no reason to distrust this, the experiment
has been done, it has been done all over the world many
times by many people, it's a triviality.
> >Or are you just blindly following the high priests who told
> >you that these experiments were done.
>
> No such highpriest required here.
You admit that you take it on faith that the experiment
has been done and has the result you've been taught.
You've chosen to believe the hydrogen-oxygen priesthood
yourself without ever doubting or verifying.
> Wrong analogy: many people can claim it has been done, but noone
> claims the experiment needed to base SR on was done.
Nobody claims that SR has been tested? What do you think
we mean when we talk about a hundred YEARS of experiments
to confirm SR?
Why do you resort to lying?
- Randy
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Since when accelerate particle accelerators light?
The calculation of the effective (or relativistic mass) of rapidly
moving particles is exactly predicted by the theory. One can measure the
amount of work done on the particles to bring them to a given speed.
The most important part of SR is not the kinamatics (which is necessary)
but the mechanics. Einstein modified Newtonian mechanics so that
mechanics and electrodynamics could be subsumed under the same laws.
That is the real importance of SR. The kinematics of Lorentz' theory
were identical to that of Einstein's but it was Einstein and not Lorentz
who wrapped up Electrodynamics and Mechanics into a nice package.
To do this, it was necessary to reformulate mechanics so it was Lorentz
invariant. Einstein did this before there were machines that routinely
accelerated particles to a good percentage of the speed of light. It was
an intellectual coup. Einstein's theory also explained why J.J.
Thompson get anomalous measurements in connection with his measurement
of the mass and charge of electrons. It turns out electrons go very fast
in Thompson's device (about 70,000 mps) and the increase in mass must be
figured in. Thompson was unaware of this at the time he did his
experiments.
See -The Discovery of Sub Atomic Particles- by Steven Weinberg.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
>>Niels Bohr said it better: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is
>>to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."
>>Theories were adopted because they predicted the outcome of observation
>>(such as the rate of advance of the perihelion of Mercury) better than
>>Newton's theories. SR has been tweaked along the way...
What parameters have been tweaked? The only parameter in the theory is
the speed of light. Once you have that, you have the Lorentz transform
SR is a highly untweakable theory.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Randy Poe wrote:
> Accelerators take particles to energy regimes where
> classical and relativistic physics predict different
> behavior, trajectories, etc.
>
> Guess which one the accelerator agrees with?
One cannot reason with Josx, since he will claim anything contrary to
his view is either a lie or an error. It a a futile attempt at vertical
micturation with respect of a rope, contragradient to the gravity field.
The only place you cannot piss up a rope is in a free falling space
capsule or some such like it.
Bob Kolker
TB
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> >news:ak2f6o$fcn$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >>In article <ak2dh1$eui$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>, Jan Emil Larsen wrote:
> >>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> >>>news:ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >>>> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind
them:
> >>>
> >>>On what facts, deductions and experiments do you substantiate this?
> >>
> >> Glad you ask. I hope you have the stomach to do some reading on this,
> >> with such a large theory as SR which accepts paradoxes in it's makup
> >> as if nothing were problematic, i can't be very short. I could be, but
> >> if that is all it takes you would not be asking *me* questions.
> >
> >Why not?
> >You have taken the burden of proof, please deliver.
>
> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
But I can combine hydrogen and oxygen and make hydrogen peroxide. Doesn't
this disprove your theory that hydrogen and oxygen make water??
Perhaps there are conditions (very high pressure, very high temperature)
where your "theory" that hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water, break
down and fail and you'll have to either modify the theory or find a better
one.
Don't you see that all the experiments that show hydrogen and oxygen
combining to make water merely validate and strengthen the theory but can't
possibly prove *beyond a shadow of a doubt* that it always happens? A
*single* counter example blows your theory away.
>
> For the same reason, SR has to proof it's right to exist with physical
> evidence upon which it can be based. There is none.
Like your hydrogen and oxygen theory, SR is continually validated by
experiment. But, it could be that someone will come up with an experiment
that proves SR (in it's current form) wrong. That someone will become very
well known. Perhaps you should try.
>
> As someone who realizes this theory is therefore unscientific, the only
> burden upon me is to make sense, and to argue my point.
You've got the latter, but not the former.
> I do not
> need to produce counter evidence against a theory which has no positive
> evidence. It is enough to say "there is no positive evidence, so whatever
> you're doing, it is fantasy". And it is -- fantasy.
Nope, here you are completely wrong. Your unwillingness to concede the
basics of scientific reasoning and method here points clearly to your being
a crackpot.
-- TB
Xaonon
wrote:
> For the stupids however, i will: the problem is not addition of velocities,
> the problem is constancy of c, it should work in the train-frame as well,
> and the train-observers, being in the middle at the moment that the
> flashes happen (this is BEFORE relativity of simultaneity is proven to us,
> so you cannot use it now, the book is a sequential indoctrination into SR),
> the distance to both flashes should be the same, and the train-observers
> should notice not what Einstein says they will see (nonsimultaneous flashes,
> which is exactly classical mechanics), but they should see the flashes
> simultaneously, destroying Einsteins argument against absolute time and
> space.
No, they shouldn't see the flashes simultaneously, because in the train's
frame they don't *occur* simultaneously. What about this is hard to
understand?
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"Saruman the White does not stand for this treatment. Showed Gandalf my
Wizard Wrestling Federation moves. Have delivered smackdown. Go me."
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Eric Freeman wrote:
>> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>> > Being a little harsh on the Master, aren't you? Nobody (not even
>> > Einstein) ever said that he was perfect.
>>
>> SRist claim he is perfect
>
>Nobody claims he is perfect.
>
>The claims on the table are "the theory called SR makes
>correct predictions in all experiments to date."
No, that's just how far you think you can go and get away with it.
By accepting SR as the theory about light, science says it firmly believes
the speed of light to be the same for everyone in a vacuum, no matter
what his relative motion, even if we are talking about the same lightbeam.
Just plain SR, that's what scientists/the-scientific-community honestly
believe about light. Well, that's what they claim, if they actually believe
it themselves appears to be qeustionable, the sheer number of errors in
SR should at leats give some phycisist pause, even if they were sufficiently
indoctrinated into it at an early age during their studies.
>There is no claim to perfection either for the person who
>formulated SR or for the performance of this theory in future
>experiments.
There is. Maybe not in your head, but in society in general this picture
is given all the time, Einstein the Great Genius.
>> if you disagree, then you must not understand
>> it yet. Einstein is always on top, by definition, not by making sense.
>
>No, by agreeing with experiment.
But the experiment needed to base it on, and the only one it actually
does predict anything about (one ligthbeam, multiple observers moving
at different rates) is never done. I don't wonder why. It would come
out disproving SR obviously.
--
jos
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> Randy Poe wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>
>>>> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
>>>> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
>>>> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
>>>> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
>>>
>>>Have you done this experiment yourself? Did you confirm
>>>it was hydrogen and oxygen you were working with?
>>
>> No, i have no reason to distrust this, the experiment has been done,
>> it has been done all over the world many times by many people, it's
>> a triviality.
>
>Same is true for SR.
Not at all, not at all. Why do you think i try to debunk SR and not
hydrogen combustion.
> Why do you accept that hydrogen and oxygen form
>water, but reject all the thousands of experiments that are completely
>in line with relativity?
Your analogy is flawed. It would be a correct analogy if the actual
experiment with hydrogen was never done, and there be absolutely every
reason to believe that hydrogen would not burn with oxygen, but yet
an insane theory roamed the face of the earth that it would burn. But
nobody actually tries (or can try). And then this theory about hydrogen
predicts who was going to be this president of the USA before the election.
Hydrogen doesn't mean actual hydrogen here, but some other substance
that highly likely (read certainly) would not burn with oxygen.
Is this difficult to follow for you Marco ?
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>
>>>> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
>>>> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
>>>> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
>>>> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
>>>
>>>Have you done this experiment yourself? Did you confirm
>>>it was hydrogen and oxygen you were working with?
>>
>>No, i have no reason to distrust this, the experiment has been done,
>>it has been done all over the world many times by many people, it's
>>a triviality.
>
>You have no idea of your hypocrisy here, do you?
No hypocrasy.
>When other people make exactly the same statement you just
>made, you say that the people who did the experiment are
>liars.
They would be wouldn't they.
>Here, I'll make the statement, using your words.
>
>Jos: Have you measured the constancy of c yourself?
>Me: No, I have no reason to distrust this, the experiment
>has been done, it has been done all over the world many
>times by many people, it's a triviality.
'the experiment' has not been done, as you know.
>> >Or are you just blindly following the high priests who told
>> >you that these experiments were done.
>>
>> No such highpriest required here.
>
>You admit that you take it on faith that the experiment
>has been done and has the result you've been taught.
Yes. I don't have the 100% certainty of having it done myself.
Likelyhood of this being a lie is (virtually) zero though.
>You've chosen to believe the hydrogen-oxygen priesthood
>yourself without ever doubting or verifying.
No such priesthood involved, no highpriests like in physics that i
am aware off (like Einstein or Hawkings, they High-priests of physics,
amen, amen, may they live long and prosper in their immortal geniusness).
>> Wrong analogy: many people can claim it has been done, but noone
>> claims the experiment needed to base SR on was done.
>
>Nobody claims that SR has been tested?
Correct in the way that i said it.
> What do you think
>we mean when we talk about a hundred YEARS of experiments
>to confirm SR?
You are trying to brainwash the ones reading these posts, or you are
exhibiting symptoms of brainwashing/stupidity/malice.
>Why do you resort to lying?
I don't.
For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
of it is over the gap.
--
jos
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
>> nothing.
>
>You claim SR is wrong. Experiments confirm SR, no experiments contradict SR.
Those are off-topic experiments, they don't deal with SR's core: the
lightspeed-insanity.
>The burden of (dis)proof is on you: conduct an experiment that contradicts SR.
No, the burden of proof is on the theory making the claims: SR.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> >josX wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If an old theory, already almost 100 years old, has no basis in fact or
>> >> in rationality, then it must be scrapped.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The old theory is verified thousands of times a day. Every time a high
>> >energy particle accelerator is cranked up, SR is verified as much as an
>> >experiment can verify a theory.
>>
>> Since when accelerate particle accelerators light?
>
>Since when does "relativistic" only refer to light?
We are talking about SR if you hadn't noticed.
>Accelerators take particles to energy regimes where
>classical and relativistic physics predict different
>behavior, trajectories, etc.
>
>Guess which one the accelerator agrees with?
biggest money ?
This is relevant to the lightspeed-insanity how ?
--
jos
josX
>In article <ak387k$p3h$3...@news1.xs4all.nl>, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>wrote:
>
>> For the stupids however, i will: the problem is not addition of velocities,
>> the problem is constancy of c, it should work in the train-frame as well,
>> and the train-observers, being in the middle at the moment that the
>> flashes happen (this is BEFORE relativity of simultaneity is proven to us,
>> so you cannot use it now, the book is a sequential indoctrination into SR),
>> the distance to both flashes should be the same, and the train-observers
>> should notice not what Einstein says they will see (nonsimultaneous flashes,
>> which is exactly classical mechanics), but they should see the flashes
>> simultaneously, destroying Einsteins argument against absolute time and
>> space.
>
>No, they shouldn't see the flashes simultaneously, because in the train's
>frame they don't *occur* simultaneously. What about this is hard to
>understand?
I'm sure you get good grades at schools, for parroting the teachers, they
just love it.
The problem is that this is a proof that simultaneity is relative. The
proof PRE-SUPPOSES the flashes ARE AT THE SAME MOMENT IN BOTH FRAMES,
they JUST APPEAR AT DIFFERENT MOMENT BECAUSE THE MOVING OBSERVER MOVED
INTO AND AWAY-FROM THE LIGHT, and THIS IS EINSTEINS VERY OWN EXAMPLE.
You can run from this all you like, but i got it here in black and white:
Einstein "relativity" (1916), page 27:
9 The relativity of simultaneity
Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular
body of reference, which we have styled a "railway embank-
ment." We suppose a very long train traveling along the rails
with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig.
I. People travelling in this train will with advantage use the train
v train
-----> M' /
____________|________________|_________________|________/
_______________|__________________________________|_________________
| |
A M B
figure 1
as a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system); they regard
all events in reference to the train. Then every event which
takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of
the train. Also the definition of simultaneity can be given relative
to the train in exactly the same way as with respect to the
embankment. As a natural concequence, however, the following
question arises:
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B
which are simultaneous with /reference to the railway embankment/ also
simultaneous /relative to the train/? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simul-
taneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of
light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs,
meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A -> B of the
embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to posi-
tions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
A -> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning
occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it
moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the
train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not
possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M,
and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just
where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam
of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam
of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of
light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A
Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body <--
must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B <--
took place earlier then the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at <--
the important result:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the
embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and
/vice versa/ (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-
ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told
the reference-body to which the statemetn of time refers, there is
no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always
tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of
motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this
assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict
between the law of the propagation of light /in vacuo/ and the
principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section
6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we con-
cluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w
/per second/ relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also
with respect to the embankment /in each second/ of time. But,
according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by
a particular occurence with respect to the carriage must not be
considered equal to the duration of the same occurence as
judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it
cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance
w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one
second as judged from the embankment.
Moreover, the consideration of Section 6 are based on yet a
second assumption, which, in the light of a strict consideration,
appears to be arbitrary, although it was always tacitly made even
before the introduction of the theory of relativity.
<end of chapter 9>
Be my guest, destroy your own credibility by refuting this.
He uses the classical facts about this, to argue that the ACTUAL
flashes happen not at the same time, while the time-difference is
merely due to different signal-distances. Einstein is a crackpot,
as you can clearly see. Read the anti-brainwashing file:
This is an anti brainwashing file, use it to get rid of SR-infections
in your mind. You are expected to already know a bit about SR.
First we examine the Great Man. It turns out he can't think straight
and makes very simple errors. Einstein violates his principle of
the speed of light being a constant (he tries to argue there is no
defined simultaneity of certain events, and that different observers
can live in a world where things happen at different moments (this
is not supposed to be about mere visual illusions)):
Einstein "relativity" (1916), page 27:
9 The relativity of simultaneity
Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular
body of reference, which we have styled a "railway embank-
ment." We suppose a very long train traveling along the rails
with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig.
I. People travelling in this train will with advantage use the train
v train
-----> M' /
____________|________________|_________________|________/
_______________|__________________________________|_________________
| |
A M B
figure 1
as a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system); they regard
all events in reference to the train. Then every event which
takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of
the train. Also the definition of simultaneity can be given relative
to the train in exactly the same way as with respect to the
embankment. As a natural concequence, however, the following
question arises:
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B
which are simultaneous with /reference to the railway embankment/ also
simultaneous /relative to the train/? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative.
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simul-
taneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of
light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs,
meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A -> B of the
embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to posi-
tions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-point of the distance
A -> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning
occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it
moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the
train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not
possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M,
and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B
would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just
where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference
to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam
of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam
of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of
light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A
Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body <--
must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B <--
took place earlier then the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at <--
the important result:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the
embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and
/vice versa/ (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-
ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told
the reference-body to which the statemetn of time refers, there is
no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always
tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of
motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this
assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict
between the law of the propagation of light /in vacuo/ and the
principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section
6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we con-
cluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w
/per second/ relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also
with respect to the embankment /in each second/ of time. But,
according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by
a particular occurence with respect to the carriage must not be
considered equal to the duration of the same occurence as
judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it
cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance
w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one
second as judged from the embankment.
Moreover, the consideration of Section 6 are based on yet a
second assumption, which, in the light of a strict consideration,
appears to be arbitrary, although it was always tacitly made even
before the introduction of the theory of relativity.
<end of chapter 9>
Accompanying paradoxes:
1. What if the lightningstrikes were but two branches of the same strike.
2. What if the engine of the train would fail if it was struck with 2
lightning strikes simultaneously, but not when it is hit by two after
one another. In the embankment frame the lightning is simultaneously,
so the engine must fail, but in the train-frame they are not simultaneously
so the engine must not fail ?
In chapter 11 of the same book, Einstein introduces the Lorentz
transformations:
<Quote 'relativity' authored by Albert Einstein...chapter 11 "The Lorentz
transformation>
(...)
z z'
| | -->
| | v y'
| y | /
| / | /
| / | /
| / | /
| / |/___________x'
|/__________________________x
/Figure 2/
Obviously our problem can be exactly formulated in the fol-
lowing manner. What are the values x', y', z', t', of an event with
respect to K', when the magnitudes x, y, z, t, of the same event
with respect to K are given? The relations must be so chosen that
the law of the transmission of light /in vacuo/ is satisfied for one and
the same ray of light (and of course for every ray) with respect to
K and K'. For the relative orientation in space of the co-ordinate
systems indicated in the diagram (Fig. 2), this problem is solved
by means of the equations:
x - vt
x' = ---------------------------
( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 ) )^.5
y' = y
z' = z
v
t - ----- x
c^2
t' = ---------------------------
( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 ) )^.5
This system of equations is known as the "Lorentz
transformation."
</quote>
These are suposed to make sense of the constancy of c requirenment. Let's
see if they really do:
Investigation into length contraction and time dilation, K is a coordinate
system, K' is a coordinate system in movement with respect to K in the
direction of Ks positive x axis with a speed of 1 unit distance per 1
unit time. First we investigate the problem without using SR, then
we involve SR and see if it resolves the issues.
One note in advance: the 'object' we are dealing with is a lightbeam,
and it's measured using the following type of device:
+light detector light detector+
|\____________________________________________________________/|
|______________________________O_______________________________|
clock ^liquid filled tube
You can imagine this device accross all diagrams, spanning the
distance the light has traveled, so it travels in effect from
detector to detector. The device works on soundwaves, if a detector
detects light, it sends a soundpulse through the liquid to the
clock. The distance between the clock and both detectors is the
same and of the same shape.
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
To make this incoherency mathematically (seemingly) right, you might do
this, contract the length-measure in K', the famous length contraction
i presume:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----------^
Speeds are the same numerically in both coordinate systems: 3 ticks
per time.
That's one solution, but it doesn't work:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^--------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------*
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^-----------------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------------------*
Which is 3 ticks in K per time, but (15-3=12)/2=6 ticks per time in K'.
Therefore length-contraction doesn't work and will never work to make
c a constant in all frames of reference, because it produces the oposite
results depending on whether the direction of the light was along or
head-on with the translation of the moving coordinate system. Like
time dilation, it is also in contradiction with the principle of relativity,
because you can't take one of the coordinate systems to be the preferred
frame, which produces the impossible *mutual* length-contraction, producing
paradoxes like the car which does or doesn't fall through a hole in the
road depending on your frame of reference.
Then there is time-dilation (well there isn't, but there is the hypotheses):
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|--======v
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2|-----============v
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
For K 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
For K' 4 distance for 1 3/9 time tick = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
So this works out, so it SEEMS.
But it doesn't because:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1| v=========---
||
||
||
|| distance>
00--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2| v==================------
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
K -> (10-4=6) distance / 2 time = 3 distance per 1 time
K' -> (10-2=8) distance / 1 3/9 time = 6 distance per 1 time
3 <> 6
So time dilation produces oposite results for beams in the oposite
direction of the translation of the moving coordinate system, and
can therefore not make the speed of light a constant generally accross
reference frames which are moving with respect to one another.
A combination of the above two solutions to constancy of c (timedilation
lengthcontraction) will not work for the same reason that they don't work
in isolation either:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
0*----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|----==========v
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16-
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2|---------====================v
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K' -> 5 distance for 1 4/6 time = 3 distance for 1 time
So far so good, but:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1| v===============-----
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10--11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2| v==============================----------
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> (10-4=6) / 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K'-> (12 1/2 - 2 1/2 = 10) / 1 4/6 = 6 distance for 1 time
For a speed of the moving coordinate-system of '1' per '1'
time and a lightspeed of '3' per '1' time: 1 distance=100,000km, 1
time=1 sec. The Lorentz transformations give then a lengthcontraction of:
<quote Einstein>
x(beginning of the rod) = 0 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
x(end of the rod) = 1 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
</quote>
x' = x * (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
Which comes out as:
x' = x * 0.942809041
Then the Lorentz timedilation effect:
<quote Einstein>
As judged from K, the clock is moving with teh velocity v; as
judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a con-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly thean when at
rest.
</quote>
Which comes out as
t' = t * 1/(1 - 100,000^2/300,000^2)^.5 = t * 1.060660172
Because of the constraints of usenet linelength we can only do t0 and t1
(the below is on scale):
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 300,000,000 meter per 1 second = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2 2/14th * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second =
2.2556 * 100,000,000 = 225563.9098 km/sec, 75% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 2 / .942809041 = 2.121320344, * 100,000,000 meter per 1 / 1.060660172 =
.942809041 second = 2.25 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 2.25 *
100,000,000 meter = 225,000 km/sec, 75% of lighspeed.)
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v==========================================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 400,000,000 - 100,000,000 = 300,000,000 meter per 1 second
= 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 4 4/14 *100,000,000 - 0=4 2/7 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second,
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter = 451,127.8 km/sec = 150% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 4 * 100,000,000) / .942809041 = 4.242640687, * 100,000,000 per
1 / 1.060660172 = 0.942809041 seconds =
4.5 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 4.5 * 100,000,000 meter
= 450,000 km/sec, 150% of lightspeed
If we force lightspeed in both frames, we get light which is at multiple
points in space:
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v--------v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2.85 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second, 2.85/19/20 =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
(Exactly: 2.828427 * 100,000,000 meter per .94280 second =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec)
The difference in position of both hypothetical light wavefronts is,
written as a position in K:
light-1(x) = 3 * 100,000,000 meter = 300,000,000 meter
light-2(x) = 3 * .942809041 + 1 = 3.82842712, * 100,000,000
= 382,842,712.5 meter
300,000,000<>382,842,712.5 -> the light has splitted into multiple discrete
beams.
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v--------------v===========================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
Same story, you can compute yourself what the difference in position of
both hypothetical lightbeams is under the Lorentz-transformations.
If you do, you have disproved the validity of the Lorentz-transformations
yourself! (unless you subscribe to a world-splitting solution to SR, which
is not endorsed officially).
More diagrams:
Suppose 1/3rd of lightspeed movement for the moving coordinate system,
light starts at t,x=0,0
KK' . .
|1^time (sec) . .*t'=1
1| *t=1 .
|| . . Lorentz time
|| . . dilation and
|| . . length contraction
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| ..
00*t=0,t'=0 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0............1............2............3............4....K'(t'=0)
0............1............2............3...K'(t'=1)
KK' . .
|1^time (sec) . *t'=1
1| t=1* .
|| . . Lorentz time
|| . . dilation and
|| . . length contraction
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
00 *t=0,t'=0
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0............1............2............3............4...|K'(t'=0)
0............1............2............3...K'(t'=1)
Assortment of paradoxes:
1a.
Car on the road with a gap in the road: will the car fall into the
gap or not: according to the car the road is length-contracted,
according to the road the car is lengthcontracted.
For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
of it is over the gap.
2.
Two spaceships equiped with chainsaws do battle with eachother, according
to mutual timedilation, they both should win:
We suppose that when one ship is ahead of the other, the saw of the other
is pressed out of it's hinges and angles slowly back, otherwise none
of them really could get ahead because it would press against the other
saw.
,------.
| |
| |
| | OOOOOOOOo
| []OOOOO / \
\ / / \
oOOOOOOOOOOOOO[] |
\/ | |
| | View from this ship, other saw runs slower, less
| | cutting speed.
`------'
,------. View from this ship, other saw runs slower, less
| | cutting speed.
| |
| |
| []OOOOOOOOOOOOOo
\ / / \
\ / OOOOO[] |
oOOOOOOOO | |
| |
| |
`------'
1/3c relative motion
chainsaw runs at 6000rpm, which cuts 6*10^6 meter spaceship per minute
gamma = 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 = 1.060660172
timedilation: * 1.060660172
In 1 second of stationary-spaceship, the own chainsaw does 100 revolutions
One minute of stationary time is 63.639 moving time: the moving saw does
6000revolutions per 63.639 stationary seconds, is 94.28 revolutions per
stationary second.
Stationary saw: cuts 100,000,000 meter per second
Moving saw: cuts 94,280,904 meter per second
Then there is another problem: while the chainsaw is happily spinning
in the home coordinate system, in the moving coordinate system at 6000rpm,
the part of the chainsaw going with the relative motion of the spaceship
can't get up to speed (relativistic addition of velocities). The chain
would break! (in the moving coordinate system).
3.
Suppose a spaceship is flying at .999% of the speed of light from
Jupiter to Earth, suppose Jupiter is high in the sky at midnight
from Earth. Suppose there is a base on Io (a moon of Jupiter),
perhaps a titanium mining operation.
In the frame of reference (coordinate system) of the spaceship, any
messages from IO to Earth will take about twice as little time to get
to Earth as normally, since light has to have the velocity of light
relative to the spacecraft. Any messages from Earth to IO though,
are going to take very very long to get to earth, at a relative speed
of .001% of the speed of light as a matter of fact.
Now suppose the mining operation is at war with Earth, and the both
sides use giant lasars to wipe each other out. The IO mining operation
would have twice the speed on their lasars, and the Earth lasars are
only going at a fraction giving IO ample time to deploy chaff deflecting
the lasar beams which only travel at 300 km/h, that is if the beams don't
miss IO entirely because they were aimed at IO using a calculation of
300,000 km/sec through space, but now these lasers only travel at
300 km/sec.
4.
Two twins, one stays at home, the other goes away. They both compute
the other's clock as running slow (this is not doppler shift, it also
runs slow when coming back in SR), so the other must be younger.
When the moving twin retuns, why do they expect eachother to be younger
(which is not possible) ?
5.
Setup:
I. Crossection of a valley (on the moon):
___
___ ____/...\
...\ /.........
....\ /..........
.....\ /...........
......\ /\ /............
........\___________________ ____||___________________/..............
............................\_/........................................
.......................................................................
top view
OOOO\\\\\oooooooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooo/////OOOOO/000\
OOO\\\\\\ooooooooooooooooooooo\./ooooooooooooooooooooooo//////OOOO/000\
OOO\\\\\\oooooooooooooooooooo\./ooo/\ooooooooooooooooooo//////OOOO/000\
OOO\\\\\\ooooooooooooooooooo\./oooo/\ooooooooooooooooooo//////OOOO/000\
OO\\\\\\\oooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooooooo///////OOO/000\
II. Lightspeed detector aboard a spacecraft:
Lightspeed detector is like this (have to make it explicit to make
things bullit proof against SRist obfuscations dealing with clock
nonsense):
-------------------------------------------------------light-------->
<------------------------------------------------------light--------
+detector +detector
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /iron rod, passing soundwave to clock
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
Clock
So as you see, contrary to the SR faith, we only need one clock in theory
to determine the speed of light.
III. Equipment placement:
___
a_c f_d_/...\
...\ /.........
....\ /..........
.....\ /...........
......\ /\ /............
........\___________________ ____||___________________/..............
............................\_/........................................
.......................................................................
top view
OOOO\\\\\oooooooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooo/////OOOOO/000\
b \\\\\ooooooooooooooooooooo\./ooooooooooooooooooooooo///// e /000\
a \\\\\oooooooooooooooooooo\./ooo/\ooooooooooooooooooo///// d /000\
c \\\\\ooooooooooooooooooo\./oooo/\ooooooooooooooooooo///// f /000\
OO\\\\\\\oooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooooooo///////OOO/000\
What we are going to do is generate a laser beam at a, and split it
towards b and c, at b and c are mirrors which reflect the light to
e and f (b to e and c to f), at e and f are also mirrors, reflecting
the light towards d which is a light detector which can determine if
the light reached it simultaneously or not:
a-c---------------------------->------------------------------f-d_/...\
...\ /.........
....\ /..........
.....\ /...........
......\ /\ /............
........\___________________ ____||___________________/..............
............................\_/........................................
.......................................................................
top view
OOOO\\\\\oooooooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooo/////OOOOO/000\
/b------------------------------->---------------------------e\ /000\
a d /000\
\c------------------------------->---------------------------f/ /000\
OO\\\\\\\oooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooooooo///////OOO/000\
IV. Spacecraft:
A spacecraft will pass between b and e, measuring the speed of light
with his onboard lightspeed detector of the above mentioned type.
/<-path of spacecraft
\ /
\ / ___
a_c \ _ _ _ Spacecraft->_ _ - f_d_/...\
...\ /.........
....\ /..........
.....\ /...........
......\ /\ /............
........\___________________ ____||___________________/..............
............................\_/........................................
.......................................................................
top view
OOOO\\\\\oooooooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooo/////OOOOO/000\
b >>>>>----------Spacecraft->----->>>>>>>>>ooooooooooo///// e /000\
a \\\\\oooooooooooooooooooo\./ooo/\ooooooooooooooooooo///// d /000\
c \\\\\ooooooooooooooooooo\./oooo/\ooooooooooooooooooo///// f /000\
OO\\\\\\\oooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooooooo///////OOO/000\
V. The problem:
Without length-contraction and/or timedilation, the spacecraft cannot
measure the speed of the laser to be c, while the light still arrives
at d simultaneously with the light from the a-c-f-d track.
Either:
the spacecraft doesn't measure the light going at c, and the light
can arrive simultaneously at d, which is a violation of SR (constancy
of the speed of light for everybody)
or
the spacecraft does measure the light at c by dragging the light along
with his movement, but then the light arrives early at d, which is
a violation of SR because the light over the a-b-e-d track has moved
faster then lightspeed to arrive early at d.
In order to solve this, special relativity introduces the Lorentz
transformations for lengthcontraction and timedilation: adjust the
distance measure on the spacecraft, and it can measure c while not
affecting the arrival of the laserbeam in d, adjust the time measure
and it can measure c while not affecting arrival of the laserbeam in
d, thus suggesting the lightspeed's constancy is agreed upon by both
the spacecraft and the detector d.
If you shorten your measuring stick while moving, you will measure
a higher velocity for anything that comes from behind you.
If you lengthen your timetick while moving, you will measure a higher
velocity for anything that comes from behind you.
So all seems right, and any SR book will not explore this problem any
further, trusting that the reader has been fooled enough.
However, timedilation and lengthcontraction only work for light which
comes from behind.
If we put a laser in d too, and a detector in a too, and have them
both fire on the same passage of the spacecraft, then the spacecraft
will have to lengthen it's measure of distance to adjust for the higher
relative velocity of the light coming from d->e->b->a to make sure
it measures the speed of light and the light from both tracks arrives
at a simultaneously. This is contrary to what it needs to do for a beam
from behind. So, the spacecraft needs to /contract/ it's length, and
/expand/ it's length at the same pass to account for both beams.
With timedilation it is no different: it has to slow it's time to
account for the light coming from a, while it has to speed it's time
up to account for the light coming from d.
A spacecraft can obviously not lengthen and expand at the same moment.
Hence SR is disproven, lightspeed cannot be a constant with respect to
everybody.
They made the mistake of overstepping the bounds of the experimental
evidence, which only supports the assertion that the speed of light
has the same speed relative to the earth, not relative to every
observer (MMX).
VI. Conclusion:
It's time for the book on SR to close and for physicist to cut the crap.
The problem with SR is that it devides the world up into "frames" which
presumably have no effect on eachother. The SRists fail to realize that
their treasured "frames" are nothing else then simply and arbitrary
coordinate systems, in which the same objects play out their motions,
and one of those objects is light. The basic pathological problem of
the SRist is that it has forgotten that we are dealing with real
phenomena here and not with an 'assumption'. And we are not dealing here
with a world which can be understood selectively or be fractured up
into views which somehow satisfie constancy of c. Both spacecraft and
valley are in the same world, light is in the same world. Timedilation
and lengthcontraction even when assumed correct do not help making
c a constant.
You cannot just 'assume' something as 'correct' in science, you need
direct evidence to /support/ your assertion, you also need to investigate
where your claims might run into trouble such as the claim that timedilation
and lengthcontraction somehow explain constancy of lightspeed. They may
to the uninterested mind, but they don't explain anything after a short
examination of the proposition.
VII. Additional problems:
We now put a measuring device over the entire valley from a to d:
a_c C f_d_/...\
\..\ l /../......
.\..\ o /../.......
..\..\ c /../........
...\..\ k /\ /../.........
....\---------------------------+---------------------------/..........
............................\_/........................................
.......................................................................
top view
OOOO\\\\\oooooooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooo/////OOOOO/000\
b \\\\\ooooooooooooooooooooo\./ooooooooooooooooooooooo///// e /000\
a-------------------------------+-------------------------------d /000\
c \\\\\ooooooooooooooooooo\./oooo/\ooooooooooooooooooo///// f /000\
OO\\\\\\\oooooooooooooooooo\./oooooooooooooooooooooooooo///////OOO/000\
It's a tube filled with some fluid, distance a-clock and clock-d have
the same shape and distance. A pulse travels through the liquid
to the clock when a pulse is send or recieved at a and d. We now use
this to measure the lightspeed over the tracks. It's a quadruple tube,
one tube for the a-b-e-d track from left to right, one for the same
track from right to left, one for the a-c-f-d track from left to right
and one for the same track from right to left.
The spacecraft comes along. In his "frame of reference" according to SR,
the light goes faster from a to d then from d to a. So in his frame of
reference, the clock on the tubes must measure a faster speed of light
from a to d, and a slower speed of light from d to a in order to satisfy
his requirement for constancy of lightspeed relative to him. A complete
lengthcontraction or timedilation of the entire valley doesn't help
him because if the distance is shorter between a and d, or if time runs
slower in the entire valley, the discrepency that he requires between
the a to d light and the d to a light still exists. If the clock on
the tubes does not measure any speed difference between both directions,
constancy of lightspeed is violated in his frame of reference.
However, if the clock on the tubes does show a speed difference, the
speed of ligh constancy is violated for the valley. You can't have it
both ways unless you make the world split into multiple universes
where in one universe the tubes give the required faster speed from
a to d and the slower speed from d to a. But then still, the constancy
of c is violated on the valley floor.
6.
Picture a train running along a track, a conductor is on it setting
clocks in each carriage. If he walks from the back to the front of
the train, the last clock(s) will run behind as computed from the
train frame, because every time the conductor moved, his watch
started running more behind, but from the conductor frame the last
clock(s) will run ahead of the first clocks because the other
clocks he already did were going slower every time he moved.
7....
There are endless paradoxes to be invented with the erroneous theory
of relativity.
*
Regarding our lightspeed measuring device:
In relativity, the extra speed of a molecule
to bumb into the next molecule if that next
molecule is in the direction of motion might
be harder to attain because of (bogus) addition
of velocity laws. However, a complete soundwave
consists of molecules moving back and forth:
| . . . .
| . . . .
|. . . . .
| . . . .
| . . . .
| . . . .
|
That means that sound moving in the direction
of motion might have, if it starts with a pressure
zone, a slower moving pressure zone, then sound
which goes against the direction of motion.
However, the pressure zone is followed by a depressure
zone, where the molecules move in the oposite direction
then with the pressure zone. A depressure zone, where
the molecules travel in the direction oposite then
before will have the oposite relativistic problem:
the soundpressure wave which went slow because it went
in the direction of travel and had to come closer to
c (as computed from a moving frame), will be followed
by a sounddepressure wave which goes fast (the molecules
find it easy to get sucked back to position with the
depressure wave if that direction is oposite the direction
of travel). So, you will end up on sound traveling in
the direction of motion with a pressure wave that goes
slow, which is followed by a depressure wave which brings
the molecules back to their original position rather
quickly:
^higher pressure of liquid
| . .
| . .t=1
| .t=0
| . .
| .
| . .
|
The Sound going against the direction of motion may have
another shape, the pressure wave going easy, and the
lowpressure wave going difficult, because the moleculs
start getting more speed direction motion:
^higher pressure of liquid
| ..t=1
| .
| . .t=0
|. .
| .
| .. .
|
For one molecule to go back and forth one time would take
the same time though, so the /entire/ soundwave would travel
at equal speeds with or against the relative motion of the
entire frame, the shape of the wave would just be different.
If the listening observer would therefore press his timer
at a moment the pressure has equalized again (between wave
crests), he will make a good timing. If he used wavecrests,
he would not make a good timing: the wavecrest from one
side in this measuring device:
+lightdetector lightdetector+
|\____________________________/|
|______________O_______________|
^clock ^liquid tube
might reach him earlier as computed from a moving frame (sic),
then the wavecrest from the other side. For a device as above
moving to the right, this would produce for light being measured
going with the direction of motion to go faster, because the first
pressure pulse would take a long time to reach the clock, while
the pressure pulse from the other side would be fast. Using not
the pressure-wave crest, but the balancing zero pressure point
in a wave (when a molecule has traveled back and forth one time)
resolves this potential problem. Waiting one complete back and forth
and back movement of a molecule is best as this is symetrical on
both sides. One last thing about our device: it has a bomb at the
midpoint which blows if the pitch of one sound-signal was higher
then the pitch of the other sound-signal coming from the other
direction, this is to make sure the soundsignals travel at the
same speed in all frames of reference, and if they somehow don't,
the frames start behaving in different ways making aparent an error
occured. If someone insists that the speed of sound does not behave
this way relativistically, and soundsignal travel times *are*
different depending on direction, then we can have him/her produce
a paradox by assuming not sound, but use light in an vacuum tube:
+lightdetector lightdetector+
|\____________________________/|
|=>____________O_____________<=|laser
^laser ^clock ^vacuum tube
If signal travel-times are different depending upon direction of
the lightsignal, they will be doppler-shifted. We can mount a bomb
at the central location which will keep track of doppler-change and
go off if any is detected, to make this a more apparent paradox:
+lightdetector lightdetector+
|\___________/TNT\____________/|
|=>____________O_____________<=|laser
^laser ^clock ^vacuum tube
Now you can't have it both ways: and have the bomb not explode (as in
the homeframe of the measuring device, where there will be no doppler
shift), and have the light travel at different speeds to the central
clock.
BTW, there never was any hard physical evidence for this theory (SR),
it was all derived mathematically assuming some formula's to stay
the same accross reference frames. The experiment to proof one single
lightbeam can have the same velocity for every observer (or even two)
was never done. They have only measured the speed of light to be
constant with respect to the earth, on earth, which is not enough to
base SR on.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >Jos: Have you measured the constancy of c yourself?
> >Me: No, I have no reason to distrust this, the experiment
> >has been done, it has been done all over the world many
> >times by many people, it's a triviality.
>
> 'the experiment' has not been done, as you know.
I know no such thing. The experiment has been done.
Here are the references from the relativity FAQ
(http://www.weburbia.com/physics/experiments.html#VII)
Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, p.1297-1298
(1913)
and
Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, p.395 - 396
(1913)
written by de Sitter It is not difficult to get these papers. They are
available via WWW:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/p_sitt01.htm
This experiment was criticized by
J.G. Fox Am. Journal of Physics 30,297 (1962); 33, 1 (1964)
Experiments:
1.Alvager F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters
12, 260 (1964)
2.Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, p. 147
(1964)
3.Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135, 1071 B (1964)
4.K. Brecher, Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of
the Source? Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977)
Don't lie about statements which are so easy to check.
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>
> >> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >> >josX wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> If an old theory, already almost 100 years old, has no basis in fact or
> >> >> in rationality, then it must be scrapped.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >The old theory is verified thousands of times a day. Every time a high
> >> >energy particle accelerator is cranked up, SR is verified as much as an
> >> >experiment can verify a theory.
> >>
> >> Since when accelerate particle accelerators light?
> >
> >Since when does "relativistic" only refer to light?
>
> We are talking about SR if you hadn't noticed.
Yes. And SR makes predictions about the behavior of anything
close to the speed of light, not just light itself.
> >Accelerators take particles to energy regimes where
> >classical and relativistic physics predict different
> >behavior, trajectories, etc.
> >
> >Guess which one the accelerator agrees with?
>
> biggest money ?
Huh?
> This is relevant to the lightspeed-insanity how ?
Let me walk you through it again.
Lightspeed postulate leads to predictions about particles
near c.
Newtonian assumptions lead to different predictions about
particles near c.
Effect predicted by lightspeed postulate observed. This
invalidates Newton at high velocity, when describing
particles. Not just light, but anything moving fast.
Newton gives wrong answer. Newton wrong. Particles not
Newtonian.
That's an indirect check. Elsewhere, I gave the citations
from the relativity FAQ about direct checks of the velocity
of light vs. motion of source.
Relativity is the only theory we have that correctly predicts
what happens when we accelerate particles to high energy.
OK? There is currently NO ALTERNATIVE ON THE TABLE.
- Randy
Marco Nelissen
> Not at all, not at all. Why do you think i try to debunk SR and not
> hydrogen combustion.
Because you're a crackpot who thinks his TV is a mindcontrol device.
> Is this difficult to follow for you Marco ?
Not at all, not at all. It is perfectly clear you're a moron.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message news:3D65535F...@atl.lmco.com...
Randy, you don't get the point: De Sitter, Farley, Kjellman,
Wallin, Babcock, Bergman, Filipas, Fox, Brecher, etc etc....
*they* were all lying.
In fact, the whole world is lying. Except of course for this
85 posters who happen to turn up green on my system.
They are telling the truth.
They are so smart.
They get so much attention.
They must be right.
After all... there's 85 of them.
Dirk Vdm
Marco Nelissen
Based on the postulate of "lightspeed insanity", SR makes predictions that
have been experimentally confirmed. We therefore conclude that SR is valid,
and we will continue to conclude this until an experiment is performed that
contradicts one of the predictions of SR. If you want to prove SR wrong,
all you have to do is perform an experiment that contradicts it. My bet is
that you will not succeed. People have tried for almost a hundred years,
and SR has been confirmed over and over again. The fact that you don't
like the postulate does not change the fact that the theory works.
Nature doesn't care what you think of it. Deal with it.
Marco Nelissen
>>classical and relativistic physics predict different
>>behavior, trajectories, etc.
>>
>>Guess which one the accelerator agrees with?
>
> biggest money ?
Particles cannot be bribed. I think you should spend a few
more hours in front of the mindcontrol device, Jos.
Eric Freeman
news:3D653ABC...@attbi.com...
>
> josX wrote: [actually, Eric Freeman wrote:]
As originally visioned, relativity did not allow for the randomness of
sub-atomic process. Eventually, relativity **required** randomness. Bohr,
Born, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, de Broglie and others refined the theory over
a period of almost 20 years... to the point that Einstein eventually argued
(wrongly) against what his theory implied.
Eric
---------------------------
http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree
---------------------------
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"
--George W. Bush - Florence, SC, Jan. 11, 2000.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marco Nelissen" <mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:ak3m6i$gtv$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
His mind has been controlled by the Guvviment!
"I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little had changed
I am the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I am the slime oozin' out
From your TV set
You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help...no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold
That's right, folks.. Don't touch that dial
Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livingroom floor
I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go"
Frank Zappa - "I'm the Slime"
Dirk Vdm
Eric Freeman
>
> Eric Freeman wrote:
> >
> > Different points on the Earth's surface are moving
> > differently at the same time, so experiments of
> > that sort are possible. We also have space craft,
> > extending light experiments into near-space. My
> > specific knowledge of this area of research is at a
> > mass-audience science magazine or t.v.
> > documentary level, so I'm no expert, but why do the
> > "real experts" keep saying that the properties of
> > light observed from positions of non-uniform
> > acceleration agree with SR to an incredibly high
> > degree?
>
> Because they know that as long as they push relativity,
> their place as "real experts" is virtually guarenteed
So how do you account for the difference between predicting the precession
of Mercury's orbit with Newton's math and the actual observation of the
orbit?
> because no bright or honest person can ever
> understand relativity because of it's ambiguity ?
Ambiguity? Where? Once you get used to it, it makes perfect sense.
> >> Now we have determined there is no physical basis
> >> for the basic theory of relativity...
> >
> > Have we? Or have we just proven that Einstein wasn't
> > perfect and neither are the machines we make to
> > measure things?
>
> Fine, whichever suits you best.
Every point you bring up was brought up before 1920, examined, experimented
with, and put to rest.
> > That was known at the time (see my other post in the thread).
> > And it wasn't just Einstein.
>
> no it wasn't
Practically the whole world of physics stopped what it was doing and took up
the challenges that Einstein gave it. Reputations were made and destroyed
picking the nits of relativity. You could fill a tractor-trailer with the
papers published challenging (sometimes with success) Einstein's early view.
Visit a good library.
> > Schrodinger heard of Max Born interpretation of
> > his 'Schrodinger wave' theory, he commented
> > that he might not have written the paper if he had
> > thought more about what it implied. But (unless
> > an experiment took place when I wasn't looking)
> > the theory (and Born's interpretation) has been
> > shown to agree with measurement.
>
> I'm no expert of QM, i only know it smells like a scam...
That's it???? "I'm no expert of QM, i only know it smells like a scam??????"
See above... visit a good library.
> because Heisenbergs principle is nothing but
> classical error margins on a measuring device of
> choice, and this principle is i believe an intricate
> part of the theory which is tauted as 'revolutionary'.
Just because measurements aren't perfect doesn't make the theory invalid.
I'll stop believing in QM when every microwave oven on Earth stops working
at the same time.
> >> ...don't let this fact slip past you. The special relativity
> >> theory is purely based upon mathematical derivations
> >> and assumptions which cannot portray physical reality in
> >> the first place...
> >
> >Niels Bohr said it better: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics
is
> >to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about
Nature."
> >Theories were adopted because they predicted the outcome of observation
> >(such as the rate of advance of the perihelion of Mercury) better than
> >Newton's theories. SR has been tweaked along the way... most theories
are
> >and if something agrees with measurement ***perfectly***, it's likely
that
> >you've exceeded your ability to measure accurately.
> >
> >> ...(for instance the lorentz-transformations).
> >> These lorentz-transformations (time/lenght changes
> >> because of relative speed; 'real' changes, not 'visual
> >> illusions', nevertheless 'mutual' with 'no preferred frame
> >> to be chosen') existed before SR came to the scene,
> >> suggesting physics was in a deliterious state even before
> >> Einstein did his damage (if you excuse the choice of
> >> words).
> >
> >I'm not sure what this means.
>
> You know about the Lorentz-transformations ?
Yes, but I don't see how they disprove relativity... unless you're talking
about an early feature of relativity that has been tweaked?
Hey... I'd like to see the next revolution in physics just as much as the
next guy (and I know it's out there waiting to happen) but you don't make a
good defense of your position.
David McAnally
>In article <ak387k$p3h$3...@news1.xs4all.nl>, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>wrote:
>> For the stupids however, i will: the problem is not addition of velocities,
>> the problem is constancy of c, it should work in the train-frame as well,
>> and the train-observers, being in the middle at the moment that the
>> flashes happen (this is BEFORE relativity of simultaneity is proven to us,
>> so you cannot use it now, the book is a sequential indoctrination into SR),
>> the distance to both flashes should be the same, and the train-observers
>> should notice not what Einstein says they will see (nonsimultaneous flashes,
>> which is exactly classical mechanics), but they should see the flashes
>> simultaneously, destroying Einsteins argument against absolute time and
>> space.
>No, they shouldn't see the flashes simultaneously, because in the train's
>frame they don't *occur* simultaneously. What about this is hard to
>understand?
With regard to this, I hadn't thought that Einstein had introduced any
suggestion that they were simultaneous in the frame of the train. In
fact, the whole argument was intended to show that the flashes were not
simultaneous in the frame of the train. Why would anyone, Jos included,
make an extraneous assumption when reading the particular passage????
Jos has made an assumption that is just not there, and he expects us to
declare relativity invalid merely on the basis that it is inconsistent
with his extraneous assumption. According to the laws of classical logic
that comes to us all the way from ancient Greece, the invalidity of
relativity is not a consequence of Jos's conclusion of inconsistency.
The necessary consequence is EITHER the invalidity of relativity OR the
incorrectness of Jos's extraneous assumption. I imagine that most people
will pick the latter alternative. Interestingly, I suspect that Jos's
extraneous assumption is behind most if not all of his so-called
paradoxes.
David McAnally
----------
beda pietanza
> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
.......The final door is relativity of simulateity, and it was destroyed by
using a light measuring device which uses only one central clock, and
two lightdetectors sending a signal to the clock, where a bomb goes off
if there is any doppler shift in the signal traveling to the clock.
This ensures that the signal must travel at the same speed relative to
the clock in all frames. This final doppler-paradox kills off SR.....
beda reply:
You don't have to spend words with me about the inconsistency
of the SR assumptions.
I agree that the relativity of simultaneity is a result of the way clocks
are syncronized in the SR frames; in nature there is a intrinsic
absolute simultaneity.
I'm interested in your light mesuring device, see if I got it straight:
the set is that there is a central detector, from both sides there two are
sources of identical light, if the detector detects a doppler shift it
means that the transit time is different, so light is not isotropic ???
If the set is so, it doesn't work because :
the source -detector right side and the source-detector left side
are travelling at a constant speed and remaining the distances unchanged,
there would never be any doppler shift regardless the one ways speed
of light.
This is a kind of MMx, in order to make it work you must
compare the phases of the incoming light waves, so you have
to have the sources in phase to start with, then rotate the devise
of 90°, then compare the phases again, if there is any shift, then the
transit time has changed, but this with the MMx is done better.
Please tell me if I took all wrong.
regards
beda pietanza
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3D653ABC...@attbi.com...
>>
>> josX wrote: [actually, Eric Freeman wrote:]
>> >>
>> >>Niels Bohr said it better: "It is wrong to think that
>> >>the task of physics is to find out how Nature is.
>> >>Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."
>> >>Theories were adopted because they predicted
>> >>the outcome of observation (such as the rate of
>> >>advance of the perihelion of Mercury) better than
>> >>Newton's theories. SR has been tweaked along
>> >>the way...
>>
>> What parameters have been tweaked? The only
>> parameter in the theory is the speed of light. Once
>> you have that, you have the Lorentz transform
>>
>> SR is a highly untweakable theory.
>
>As originally visioned, relativity did not allow for the randomness of
>sub-atomic process.
It has nothing to do with this.
> Eventually, relativity **required** randomness.
Wrong.
> Bohr, Born, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, de Broglie and others refined
>the theory over a period of almost 20 years...
More wrong
> to the point that Einstein eventually argued
>(wrongly) against what his theory implied.
>
And more wrong yet.
Did you work on becoming so ignorant, or is it just a natural talent?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
David McAnally
>> Eventually, relativity **required** randomness.
>Wrong.
>More wrong
I wouldn't have been quite as direct as this if I had written a direct
response to Eric (I was so staggered at Eric's claims that I was still
trying to work out how to respond). It is interesting that Eric is
confusing the history of Relativity with the history of Quantum Mechanics.
I wonder how this confusion arose in his mind.
David McAnally
----------
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> This is relevant to the lightspeed-insanity how ?
Every correct prediction about relativistic mass -follows- from the
light speed insanity. Every one. And no experiment has refuted SR in
this regard. Not one. Maybe there will be some, as yet, unknown
condition under which SR will fail, but that condition has not be
encountered. Not yet.
Bob Kolker
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Yes, exactly.
>I wonder how this confusion arose in his mind.
>
I don't know, but he'll better correct it.
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> No, the burden of proof is on the theory making the claims: SR.
Millions of successful experiments supporting SR. It bears the burden
well. And there is not another theory in sight that can replace it, at
this juncture.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
Eric Freeman wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D653ABC...@attbi.com...
> >
> > josX wrote: [actually, Eric Freeman wrote:]
> > >>
> > >>Niels Bohr said it better: "It is wrong to think that
> > >>the task of physics is to find out how Nature is.
> > >>Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."
> > >>Theories were adopted because they predicted
> > >>the outcome of observation (such as the rate of
> > >>advance of the perihelion of Mercury) better than
> > >>Newton's theories. SR has been tweaked along
> > >>the way...
> >
> > What parameters have been tweaked? The only
> > parameter in the theory is the speed of light. Once
> > you have that, you have the Lorentz transform
> >
> > SR is a highly untweakable theory.
>
> As originally visioned, relativity did not allow for the randomness of
> sub-atomic process.
In what way?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
David McAnally wrote:
> Interestingly, I suspect that Jos's
> extraneous assumption is behind most if not all of his so-called
> paradoxes.
>
> David McAnally
>
> ----------
But Jos is NOT a detached, objective participant
on this NG. What is behind all of his "misconceptions"
is his intense hatred of relativity. I wonder if he hates
Galilean relativity just as much.
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> But Jos is NOT a detached, objective participant
> on this NG. What is behind all of his "misconceptions"
> is his intense hatred of relativity. I wonder if he hates
> Galilean relativity just as much.
He loves Galilean relativity to pieces because the velocities add like
numbers.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
beda pietanza wrote:
> josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> ak2bc3$929$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> > 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
>
> .......The final door is relativity of simulateity, and it was destroyed by
> using a light measuring device which uses only one central clock, and
> two lightdetectors sending a signal to the clock, where a bomb goes off
> if there is any doppler shift in the signal traveling to the clock.
> This ensures that the signal must travel at the same speed relative to
> the clock in all frames. This final doppler-paradox kills off SR.....
>
> beda reply:
> You don't have to spend words with me about the inconsistency
> of the SR assumptions.
> I agree that the relativity of simultaneity is a result of the way clocks
> are syncronized in the SR frames; in nature there is a intrinsic
> absolute simultaneity.
How do you know that "in nature there is a intrinsic
absolute simultaneity"? How would you prove it
to us?
Patrick
Gregory L. Hansen
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>Marco Nelissen wrote:
>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> Randy Poe wrote:
>>>>josX wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
>>>>> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
>>>>> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
>>>>> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
>>>>
>>>>Have you done this experiment yourself? Did you confirm
>>>>it was hydrogen and oxygen you were working with?
>>>
>>> No, i have no reason to distrust this, the experiment has been done,
>>> it has been done all over the world many times by many people, it's
>>> a triviality.
>>
>>Same is true for SR.
>
>Not at all, not at all. Why do you think i try to debunk SR and not
>hydrogen combustion.
Because you're comfortable with the concept of hydrogen combustion, but SR
bugs you.
>> Why do you accept that hydrogen and oxygen form
>>water, but reject all the thousands of experiments that are completely
>>in line with relativity?
>
>Your analogy is flawed. It would be a correct analogy if the actual
>experiment with hydrogen was never done, and there be absolutely every
>reason to believe that hydrogen would not burn with oxygen, but yet
>an insane theory roamed the face of the earth that it would burn. But
>nobody actually tries (or can try). And then this theory about hydrogen
You've never looked for experimental testing of special relativity. I
know that because it's easy to find, but you think there is none. You've
never looked for studies of hydrogen combustion, either, so you're only
guessing that it exists. So how are the two cases really different?
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Jan Bielawski
> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
>
> - we don't need no evidence
> - Lorentz-transformations
> - relativity of simultaneity
>
> The first door was cracked by examining Einsteins own work, it turns out
> he cannot think straight (see chapter 9 of 'relativity' (1916) where he
> violates his own principle of the constancy of the speed of light in order
> to fuzzproof there is no such thing as absolute time and flat space).
Over last several months you have managed to post practically ZERO
articles that would describe any aspect of relativity correctly.
Why should anybody believe you now?
Jan Bielawski
Gregory L. Hansen
Eric Freeman <wed...@wantnostinkingspam.com> wrote:
>"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:3D653ABC...@attbi.com...
>>
>> josX wrote: [actually, Eric Freeman wrote:]
>> SR is a highly untweakable theory.
>
>As originally visioned, relativity did not allow for the randomness of
>sub-atomic process. Eventually, relativity **required** randomness. Bohr,
>Born, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, de Broglie and others refined the theory over
>a period of almost 20 years... to the point that Einstein eventually argued
>(wrongly) against what his theory implied.
You're confusing relativity with quantum mechanics.
A system of mechanics needs kinematics and dynamics. The kinematics is
the description of position and motion, and rules for transforming between
reference frames. It's strictly geometrical. The dynamics is the cause
of motion, and introduces momentum, energy, F=ma, and so on. The
difference between Newtonian and relativistic mechanics is strictly in the
kinematics, it's just geometrical.
Quantum mechanics introduces new notions of what can be said about the
state of a particle. Instead of a variable indicating position, x, it has
a position operator acting on a wavefunction, X|psi>, for instance. The
connection to the real world is made by the probability density for
something to happen being the squared magnitude of the wavefunction.
But quantum mechanics still needs a kinematics and a dynamics, and
virtually any will do. The dynamics is still Newton's laws; conservation
of momentum and F=ma. Except F=ma is put in an energy form rather than a
force form, but they're equivalent. So quantum mechanics begins, for
instance, with
E = p^2/2m + V(x)
Look familiar? That's the energy of a system in Newtonian mechanics. But
promote the variables to operators,
E = i hbar d/dt
p = -i hbar d/dx
and multiply both sides by a wavefunction for the operators to act on.
That's the non-relativistic quantum mechanics taught to undergrads and
used by the majority of physicists. But you could as easily start with
relativistic energy,
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
Same rules for quantization applies; promote variables to operators and
multiply by a wavefunction so the operators have something to operate on.
The skinny: the Lorentz transformations can be used in quantum
mechanics, but quantum mechanics is in no way a part of relativity.
Arfur Dogfrey
> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
>
> - Einstein is the greatest
> - we don't need no evidence
> - Lorentz-transformations
> - relativity of simultaneity
>
> The first door was cracked by examining Einsteins own work, it turns out
> he cannot think straight (see chapter 9 of 'relativity' (1916) where he
> violates his own principle of the constancy of the speed of light in order
> to fuzzproof there is no such thing as absolute time and flat space).
>
> positive evidence before an hypotheses can become scientific fact. There
> never was done an experiment to show that a single lightbeam has in one
> direction the same speed relative to stationary and moving equipment.
>
> The third door was cracked by investigating the hypotheses of length
> contraction and timedilation, it turns out it cannot explain the constancy
> of the speed of light at all, and this idea remains as impossible under
> the timedilation and lengthcontraction ideas as it is under normal
> straight space and absolute time.
> Two more blows with the paradox axe: the twin-paradox and the
> piston-on-the-rails paradox were needed. It was also needed to show that
> the pseudosolving of the SRist left SR behind in order to make sense of
> these paradoxes (chose a preferred frame of reference).
>
> The final door is relativity of simulateity, and it was destroyed by
> using a light measuring device which uses only one central clock, and
> two lightdetectors sending a signal to the clock, where a bomb goes off
> if there is any doppler shift in the signal traveling to the clock.
> This ensures that the signal must travel at the same speed relative to
> the clock in all frames. This final doppler-paradox kills off SR.
>
> total of paradox-types to three.
>
> Goodbuy SR.
The "doppler shift" argument is an obfuscation tha JosX uses so that he can
ignore my relativistic analysis of his "light measuring device" He claimed
that the device killed the relativity of simultaneity. I did as he had asked.
I "got out my calculator" and ran the numbers. It turned out that the
device did NOT behave as JosX believed it would.
His response is a vague, handwaving argument involving doppler shift. He
claims (out of thin air as far as I can see) that relativity predicts a
doppler shift leading to different frequencies being detected from one side
than from the other by the central "clock/observer/listener" of his device.
I have challenged him to show the calculations that lead to this. It has
only been a day or so but no calculations have been forthcoming. If I have
the time in the week ahead I just might do the frequency calculations and
show that JosX is wrong in his claim of anomalous doppler shift.
Until then the claims of having "refuted" my analysis are, as Mark Twain
characterized reports of his death, "greatly exaggerated."
Arf!
Arfur
Jan Emil Larsen
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ak33e7$i13$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> The test about if you are a liar came out positive: you snipped the
> paradox you were given, that means you realize you cannot solve it.
> If you were honest you would either have given an obviously stupid/wrong
> answer to it, exposing your misunderstanding of SR or your utter
> stupidity, or you would have come to your senses and realize SR=wrong.
LOL
Eric Freeman
news:ak3r3f$ufj$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
> I wouldn't have been quite as direct as this if I
> had written a direct response to Eric (I was
> so staggered at Eric's claims that I was still
> trying to work out how to respond). It is
> interesting that Eric is confusing the history of
> Relativity with the history of Quantum Mechanics.
> I wonder how this confusion arose in his mind.
No confusion. QM is that part of relativity that Einstein refused to
believe. It was required to answer the questions brought up by relativity,
and was inevitable. It was the missing piece of the puzzle and has been
used to prove that Einstein was right (except for that "God doesn't play
dice" bit). A history of relativity should include QM to be complete,
because QM has implications for relativity (and vice versa) and relativity
opened the floodgate that gave us a whole new view of physics.
Eric Freeman
news:3D657605...@asu.edu...
>
> Eric Freeman wrote:
> >
> > As originally visioned, relativity did not allow for the
> > randomness of sub-atomic process.
>
> In what way?
Einstein was the last of the determinists. He didn't believe in random
processes, even when others were coming up with very convincing evidence.
Eric Freeman
news:ak427i$5q9$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <ak3m18$ru1$1...@news.datasync.com>,
> Eric Freeman <wed...@wantnostinkingspam.com> wrote:
> >"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:3D653ABC...@attbi.com...
> >>
> >> josX wrote: [actually, Eric Freeman wrote:]
>
> >> SR is a highly untweakable theory.
> >
> > As originally visioned, relativity did not allow for the
> > randomness of sub-atomic process. Eventually,
> > relativity **required** randomness. Bohr, Born,
> > Schrodinger, Heisenberg, de Broglie and others
> > refined the theory over a period of almost 20 years...
> > to the point that Einstein eventually argued
> >(wrongly) against what his theory implied.
>
> You're confusing relativity with quantum mechanics.
No... I'm saying that QM has a lot to say about relativity and if Einstein
had seen that relativity and determinism were incompatible, we wouldn't be
making such a big distinction between relativity and QM. Relativity implied
(practically demanded) QM... it was in there all the time but Einstein
didn't see it and wouldn't believe it. His mistake wasn't that he got it
wrong, it's that he got it right and didn't see it. They overlap and QM
shows that Einstein was right even when he thought he was wrong.
Oriel36
> >
> > For the same reason, SR has to proof it's right to
> > exist with physical evidence upon which it can be
> > based. There is none.
>
> Are you sure? In another post to the thread, I mentioned the advance of the
> perihelion of Mercury (which was predicted more accurately using Einstein's
> math than it was using Newton's). The discrepancy between Newton's
> predictions and actual measurement had been one of the thorns in the side of
> physics for decades.
Newton's partial use of forces would never have explained the
perihelion directly,they can't for the observational anomaly that
applies to the anomalous orbit of Io applies also to the perihelion.
That Einstein explained away the perihelion by warping space in the
locality to account for the perihelion is truly shocking.Imagine if he
tried to explain the hugely anomalous orbit of Io away locally while
keeping the conservation laws intact,that would be one helluva
elliptical orbit of Io of a severe bending of space in the locality
don't you think ?.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>news:ak3r3f$ufj$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>> had written a direct response to Eric (I was
>> so staggered at Eric's claims that I was still
>> trying to work out how to respond). It is
>> interesting that Eric is confusing the history of
>> Relativity with the history of Quantum Mechanics.
>> I wonder how this confusion arose in his mind.
>
>believe.
QM is not part of relativity.
>It was required to answer the questions brought up by relativity,
>and was inevitable.
No, it was required to answer questions brought by statistical
mechanics, atomic spectra, photoelectric effect etc. *Not*
relativity. There is *nothing* in relativity that leads to QM.
> It was the missing piece of the puzzle and has been
>used to prove that Einstein was right (except for that "God doesn't play
>dice" bit).
You're confused here. Einstein worked on other topics, besides
relativity. His three seminal papers from 1905 included one on
relativity, one on the photoelectric effect (which gave the push to
QM) and one on Brownian motion (which is related to neither QM nor
relativity). Thus Einstein was also right in his photoelectric effect
paper, but this has *nothing* to do with relativity.
> A history of relativity should include QM to be complete,
No, dead wrong.
>because QM has implications for relativity (and vice versa)
Newtonian mechanics has implication for mechanical engineering, but
this doesn't mean that mechanical engineering is part of Newtonian
mechanics.
>and relativity opened the floodgate that gave us a whole new view
>of physics.
Relativity opened one floodgate, QM opened another. These two are
separate.
Being wrong is not necessarily a problem. Refusing to learn, is.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:ak427i$5q9$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <ak3m18$ru1$1...@news.datasync.com>,
>> Eric Freeman <wed...@wantnostinkingspam.com> wrote:
>> >"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3D653ABC...@attbi.com...
>> >>
>> >> josX wrote: [actually, Eric Freeman wrote:]
>>
>> >> SR is a highly untweakable theory.
>> >
>> > As originally visioned, relativity did not allow for the
>> > randomness of sub-atomic process. Eventually,
>> > relativity **required** randomness. Bohr, Born,
>> > Schrodinger, Heisenberg, de Broglie and others
>> > refined the theory over a period of almost 20 years...
>> > to the point that Einstein eventually argued
>> >(wrongly) against what his theory implied.
>>
>> You're confusing relativity with quantum mechanics.
>
>No... I'm saying that QM has a lot to say about relativity and if Einstein
>had seen that relativity and determinism were incompatible, we wouldn't be
>making such a big distinction between relativity and QM. Relativity implied
>(practically demanded) QM... it was in there all the time but Einstein
>didn't see it and wouldn't believe it.
No, not in the least. You could have relativity without QM, as well
as QM without relativity. Neither one implies the other.
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>
>> >Jos: Have you measured the constancy of c yourself?
>> >Me: No, I have no reason to distrust this, the experiment
>> >has been done, it has been done all over the world many
>> >times by many people, it's a triviality.
>>
>
>I know no such thing. The experiment has been done.
>
>Here are the references from the relativity FAQ
>(http://www.weburbia.com/physics/experiments.html#VII)
>Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, p.1297-1298
>(1913)
>and
>Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, p.395 - 396
>(1913)
>written by de Sitter It is not difficult to get these papers. They are
>available via WWW:
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eric_baird/p_sitt01.htm
>
>This experiment was criticized by
>J.G. Fox Am. Journal of Physics 30,297 (1962); 33, 1 (1964)
>
>Experiments:
>
> 1.Alvager F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters
>12, 260 (1964)
> 2.Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, p. 147
>(1964)
> 3.Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135, 1071 B (1964)
> 4.K. Brecher, Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of
>the Source? Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977)
>
>Don't lie about statements which are so easy to check.
This was an experiment where one-way-lightspeed was measured using fast
moving and stationary measuring equipment ?
--
jos
[Look them all work together to keep the word down, 27 posts in all
this morning against 1 person -- does a person stand an honest chance,
or do the hordes of SR come out and supress the word with a flood of
posts any case, right or wrong.]
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>>>josX wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If an old theory, already almost 100 years old, has no basis in fact or
>>>>>> in rationality, then it must be scrapped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The old theory is verified thousands of times a day. Every time a high
>>>>>energy particle accelerator is cranked up, SR is verified as much as an
>>>>>experiment can verify a theory.
>>>>
>>>>Since when accelerate particle accelerators light?
>>>
>>>Since when does "relativistic" only refer to light?
>>
>> We are talking about SR if you hadn't noticed.
>
>Yes. And SR makes predictions about the behavior of anything
>close to the speed of light, not just light itself.
Alright, true.
>>>Accelerators take particles to energy regimes where
>>>classical and relativistic physics predict different
>>>behavior, trajectories, etc.
>>>
>>>Guess which one the accelerator agrees with?
>>
>>biggest money ?
>
>Huh?
>
>> This is relevant to the lightspeed-insanity how ?
>
>Let me walk you through it again.
>
>Lightspeed postulate
BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPP P P
postulate? go home. Go to another group, philosophy something for ya ?
> leads to predictions about particles
>near c.
>
>Newtonian assumptions lead to different predictions about
>particles near c.
>
>Effect predicted by lightspeed postulate observed. This
>invalidates Newton at high velocity, when describing
>particles. Not just light, but anything moving fast.
>Newton gives wrong answer. Newton wrong. Particles not
>Newtonian.
Bullshit. You do experiments, you get results, you model the results,
you have a classical model. Just as light is going at c in a vacuum
in the complete-physical medium (what else), so do these particles.
It may be that they are affected by something that makes it hard for
them to go faster then light, who knows. SR is just equations at this
point, they are not qualitative with regard to what effect might stop
particles to go fast. And then we have the trust problem, we can't
trust phycisists anymore. And then we have the even bigger theoretical
problem that particle-accelerators didn't exist at Einsteins time, so
it doesn't provide a basis for SR, while at the same time producing a
motive for the phycisist to get answers in accordance with SR, who else
but a few will really know what happens in particle-accelerators.
Particle-accelerators do you no good, because they did not exist at
Einsteins time, so their results cannot be used to base SR on, or the
belief in this theory. It is obvious that phycisist had already lost
their minds before the first particle-accelerator was build, what makes
them suddenly come to their senses after they were build ? Even before
Einstein, physics was a giant lie in many respects (see lorentz-
-transformations)
>That's an indirect check. Elsewhere, I gave the citations
>from the relativity FAQ about direct checks of the velocity
>of light vs. motion of source.
>
>Relativity is the only theory we have that correctly predicts
>what happens when we accelerate particles to high energy.
>OK? There is currently NO ALTERNATIVE ON THE TABLE.
Fast moving particles are a new phenomena.
--
jos
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> Marco Nelissen wrote:
>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
>>>> nothing.
>>>
>>
>> Those are off-topic experiments, they don't deal with SR's core: the
>> lightspeed-insanity.
>>
>>>The burden of (dis)proof is on you: conduct an experiment that contradicts SR.
>>
>> No, the burden of proof is on the theory making the claims: SR.
>
>have been experimentally confirmed.
But not the experiment which should be central to SR.
> We therefore conclude that SR is valid,
Not good enough!
>and we will continue to conclude this until an experiment is performed that
>contradicts one of the predictions of SR. If you want to prove SR wrong,
>all you have to do is perform an experiment that contradicts it.
I only have to show it's a baseless theory, and therefore not scientific,
which i do, and you even agree with me it's baseless.
> My bet is
>that you will not succeed. People have tried for almost a hundred years,
>and SR has been confirmed over and over again. The fact that you don't
>like the postulate does not change the fact that the theory works.
Because of hacking on the theory, what else.
>Nature doesn't care what you think of it. Deal with it.
i do
--
jos
josX
>>Eric Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> Different points on the Earth's surface are moving
>>> differently at the same time, so experiments of
>>> that sort are possible. We also have space craft,
>>> extending light experiments into near-space. My
>>> specific knowledge of this area of research is at a
>>> mass-audience science magazine or t.v.
>>> documentary level, so I'm no expert, but why do the
>>> "real experts" keep saying that the properties of
>>> light observed from positions of non-uniform
>>> acceleration agree with SR to an incredibly high
>>> degree?
>>
>>Because they know that as long as they push relativity,
>>their place as "real experts" is virtually guarenteed
>
>So how do you account for the difference between predicting the precession
>of Mercury's orbit with Newton's math and the actual observation of the
>orbit?
New effects are discovered all the time, you can't predict them before they
are found. SR is not a physical theory, it's a math-construct which is
thoroughly irrational and not about reality. Mathematicians do not care
in the least about reality as their stupid/wrong axiom system shows. They
think they are the gods who can do without reality and define math all
on their own, believing it is the most 'true' of all science, perhaps even
a priori true (as Kant believes). What do mathematicians care if phenomena
cannot behave as they predict, as long as they can play with the algebra
and get payed doing it.
>> because no bright or honest person can ever
>> understand relativity because of it's ambiguity ?
>
>Ambiguity? Where? Once you get used to it, it makes perfect sense.
That's called brainwashing, or fuzzzapping your mind.
>> >> Now we have determined there is no physical basis
>> >> for the basic theory of relativity...
>> >
>> > Have we? Or have we just proven that Einstein wasn't
>> > perfect and neither are the machines we make to
>> > measure things?
>>
>> Fine, whichever suits you best.
>
>Every point you bring up was brought up before 1920, examined, experimented
>with, and put to rest.
So the SR gang was in full swing by that time, interesting.
>> > That was known at the time (see my other post in the thread).
>> > And it wasn't just Einstein.
>>
>> no it wasn't
>
>Practically the whole world of physics stopped what it was doing and took up
>the challenges that Einstein gave it. Reputations were made and destroyed
>picking the nits of relativity. You could fill a tractor-trailer with the
>papers published challenging (sometimes with success) Einstein's early view.
>Visit a good library.
Truth and rationality don't always win aparently. Sad.
>> > Schrodinger heard of Max Born interpretation of
>> > his 'Schrodinger wave' theory, he commented
>> > that he might not have written the paper if he had
>> > thought more about what it implied. But (unless
>> > an experiment took place when I wasn't looking)
>> > the theory (and Born's interpretation) has been
>> > shown to agree with measurement.
>>
>> I'm no expert of QM, i only know it smells like a scam...
>
>That's it???? "I'm no expert of QM, i only know it smells like a scam??????"
>See above... visit a good library.
Yes that's it, call it intuition, something mathematicians are without.
>> because Heisenbergs principle is nothing but
>> classical error margins on a measuring device of
>> choice, and this principle is i believe an intricate
>> part of the theory which is tauted as 'revolutionary'.
>
>Just because measurements aren't perfect doesn't make the theory invalid.
>I'll stop believing in QM when every microwave oven on Earth stops working
>at the same time.
priest: "I'll stop believing in the earth in the center if the sun falls
in the ocean".
It's happened before that everybody was wrong you know.
You are on the wrong side.
>>>> ...don't let this fact slip past you. The special relativity
>>>> theory is purely based upon mathematical derivations
>>>> and assumptions which cannot portray physical reality in
>>>> the first place...
>>>
>>>Niels Bohr said it better: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is
>>>to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."
>>>Theories were adopted because they predicted the outcome of observation
>>>(such as the rate of advance of the perihelion of Mercury) better than
>>>Newton's theories. SR has been tweaked along the way... most theories are
>>>and if something agrees with measurement ***perfectly***, it's likely that
>>>you've exceeded your ability to measure accurately.
>>>
>>>> ...(for instance the lorentz-transformations).
>>>> These lorentz-transformations (time/lenght changes
>>>> because of relative speed; 'real' changes, not 'visual
>>>> illusions', nevertheless 'mutual' with 'no preferred frame
>>>> to be chosen') existed before SR came to the scene,
>>>> suggesting physics was in a deliterious state even before
>>>> Einstein did his damage (if you excuse the choice of
>>>> words).
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what this means.
>>
>>You know about the Lorentz-transformations ?
>
>Yes, but I don't see how they disprove relativity... unless you're talking
>about an early feature of relativity that has been tweaked?
>
>Hey... I'd like to see the next revolution in physics just as much as the
>next guy (and I know it's out there waiting to happen) but you don't make a
>good defense of your position.
I do, but you have accepted paradox as fact, there isn't a whole lot that
can help you personally at that stage of devolution.
--
jos
josX
>Xaonon <xao...@hotpop.com> writes:
>>In article <ak387k$p3h$3...@news1.xs4all.nl>, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>>wrote:
>>> For the stupids however, i will: the problem is not addition of velocities,
>>> the problem is constancy of c, it should work in the train-frame as well,
>>> and the train-observers, being in the middle at the moment that the
>>> flashes happen (this is BEFORE relativity of simultaneity is proven to us,
>>> so you cannot use it now, the book is a sequential indoctrination into SR),
>>> the distance to both flashes should be the same, and the train-observers
>>> should notice not what Einstein says they will see (nonsimultaneous flashes,
>>> which is exactly classical mechanics), but they should see the flashes
>>> simultaneously, destroying Einsteins argument against absolute time and
>>> space.
>
>>No, they shouldn't see the flashes simultaneously, because in the train's
>>frame they don't *occur* simultaneously. What about this is hard to
>>understand?
>
>With regard to this, I hadn't thought that Einstein had introduced any
>suggestion that they were simultaneous in the frame of the train. In
>fact, the whole argument was intended to show that the flashes were not
>simultaneous in the frame of the train. Why would anyone, Jos included,
>make an extraneous assumption when reading the particular passage????
>Jos has made an assumption that is just not there, and he expects us to
>declare relativity invalid merely on the basis that it is inconsistent
>with his extraneous assumption. According to the laws of classical logic
There are no laws of classical logic, it's a tautology. Either you can
think while making sense (logic), or you can't (illogic).
Mathematician, get out of your fake tower of arrogance.
>that comes to us all the way from ancient Greece, the invalidity of
>relativity is not a consequence of Jos's conclusion of inconsistency.
>The necessary consequence is EITHER the invalidity of relativity OR the
>incorrectness of Jos's extraneous assumption. I imagine that most people
>will pick the latter alternative. Interestingly, I suspect that Jos's
>extraneous assumption is behind most if not all of his so-called
>paradoxes.
What a pathetic reasoning attitude you have.
Einstein tries to PROOF, MAKE SENSE (make *solid*, unavoidable), that
simultaneity is relative. You just /assume/ simultaneity relative, that
is not good enough, it must be shown to exist. Einstein's example is
easily explained classically, under absolute simultaneity, so there is
no point that he is making. Classical explains the example. If he wants
to proof relativity of simultaneity, he is FORCED to show a paradox in
the classical absolute relativity of simultaneity.
--
jos
josX
>> 4 doors had to be kicked down to kill the SR monster hiding behind them:
>
>using a light measuring device which uses only one central clock, and
>two lightdetectors sending a signal to the clock, where a bomb goes off
>if there is any doppler shift in the signal traveling to the clock.
>This ensures that the signal must travel at the same speed relative to
>
>beda reply:
use normal quoting please
>You don't have to spend words with me about the inconsistency
>of the SR assumptions.
>I agree that the relativity of simultaneity is a result of the way clocks
>are syncronized in the SR frames; in nature there is a intrinsic
>absolute simultaneity.
>I'm interested in your light mesuring device, see if I got it straight:
>the set is that there is a central detector, from both sides there two are
>sources of identical light, if the detector detects a doppler shift it
>means that the transit time is different, so light is not isotropic ???
isotropic? use normal english, no need to pretend to be smart by being
incomprehensible to real people.
>If the set is so, it doesn't work because :
>the source -detector right side and the source-detector left side
>are travelling at a constant speed and remaining the distances unchanged,
>there would never be any doppler shift regardless the one ways speed
>of light.
>
>This is a kind of MMx, in order to make it work you must
>compare the phases of the incoming light waves, so you have
>to have the sources in phase to start with, then rotate the devise
>of 90°, then compare the phases again, if there is any shift, then the
>transit time has changed, but this with the MMx is done better.
>
>Please tell me if I took all wrong.
No, i got this one wrong. Since the aether-medium is moving with the
stanionary observer, there is a doppler shift which is then canceled
out by the movement of the central clock in this aether.
--
jos
josX
Maybe Einstein has seen too many irrational machines working as a patent
office clerk, that he began to think that nature is irrational too.
It isn't, because it's the source of such things as reason and logic,
these things are developed through experience in the world. Mathematicians
however are so arrogant, they think they don't need the physical world
anymore.
Relativistic-mass is just another paradox: how can the mass of a particle
depend upon what your movement relative to it is. Should it have infinite
amount of 'real' masses, just like it has infinite amount of 'real'
length and infinite amounts of 'real' clockrates?
I don't think so, sadly you do. But you are a lost case anyway, it's just
a matter of trying to quarantine you so you won't infect too many others
with your nonsense.
--
jos
josX
SR is not a theory because it doesn't work, any prediction that it does
accurately is hacked into it.
The experiments only allow for the statement that light travels at the
same speed relative to the earth, and that is not the same beam and
multiple observers at all.
Come down from your high horse, arrogant mathematician.
--
jos
josX
go away troll
josX
>In article <ak3jbs$dj5$4...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>Marco Nelissen wrote:
>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>> Randy Poe wrote:
>>>>>josX wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
>>>>>> nothing. It's science which for instance claims "put hydrogen and
>>>>>> oxygen together and it burns and you end up with water". It also
>>>>>> has to deliver the proof for this, and does so easily.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you done this experiment yourself? Did you confirm
>>>>>it was hydrogen and oxygen you were working with?
>>>>
>>>> No, i have no reason to distrust this, the experiment has been done,
>>>> it has been done all over the world many times by many people, it's
>>>> a triviality.
>>>
>>>Same is true for SR.
>>
>>Not at all, not at all. Why do you think i try to debunk SR and not
>>hydrogen combustion.
>
>Because you're comfortable with the concept of hydrogen combustion, but SR
>bugs you.
Ofcourse it does, it is irrational. SRists even taut the irraitonality
of SR as something that is good, under the guise of that it's not
'intuitive'. What an embarisment!
>>> Why do you accept that hydrogen and oxygen form
>>>water, but reject all the thousands of experiments that are completely
>>>in line with relativity?
>>
>>Your analogy is flawed. It would be a correct analogy if the actual
>>experiment with hydrogen was never done, and there be absolutely every
>>reason to believe that hydrogen would not burn with oxygen, but yet
>>an insane theory roamed the face of the earth that it would burn. But
>>nobody actually tries (or can try). And then this theory about hydrogen
>
>You've never looked for experimental testing of special relativity. I
>know that because it's easy to find, but you think there is none. You've
>never looked for studies of hydrogen combustion, either, so you're only
>guessing that it exists. So how are the two cases really different?
Chemists claim to have done the crusial experiment, phycisits don't.
FYI, we will get 10% hydrogen in our local gass here soon.
--
jos
josX
Because you used relativistic addition of velocities on the soundsignal,
which is bogus because the molecule in a soundsignal behaves identical
over an entire wave for both directions of sound.
You also had a bogus argument about doppler-shift, and you made an pretty
nice blunder with your observer moving away and into the sound, only
making the doppler-shift worse.
> His response is a vague, handwaving argument involving doppler shift.
> He claims (out of thin air as far as I can see) that relativity
> predicts a doppler shift leading to different frequencies
> being detected from one side than from the other by the central
> "clock/observer/listener" of his device.
>
> I have challenged him to show the calculations that lead to this.
> It has only been a day or so but no calculations have been forthcoming.
> If I have the time in the week ahead I just might do the frequency
> calculations and show that JosX is wrong in his claim of anomalous
> doppler shift.
>
> Until then the claims of having "refuted" my analysis are, as Mark
> Twain characterized reports of his death, "greatly exaggerated."
My light-doppler-shift was wrong.
--
jos
josX
I don't hate relativity, i just dislike irrationality having taken over
in science and indoctrinating and destroying minds all over.
I like rational relativity, because it works and is true, just like i
like rational space and usable straight coordinate systems and a time
which is defined as absolute, and simultaneity which is absolute. I
like these because they correspond to reality and are rational and
usable. I dislike the destruction of these things because of a postulate
which is never and will never be proven, that's all. Einstein was a
criminal, Lorentz was another, bad things happen. Even cops can be
corrupted, scientists most certainly too. It is very inviting to scam
in science, because the true answers are not known yet.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ak51g2$9td$8...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> jos
> [Look them all work together to keep the word down, 27 posts in all
> this morning against 1 person -- does a person stand an honest chance,
> or do the hordes of SR come out and supress the word with a flood of
> posts any case, right or wrong.]
All of them, except one, having fun ;-)
Does that one person *need* an honest chance?
Does he *deserve* it?
Even if he would deserve it, he won't *get* it.
We are all liars, remember?
And we vastly outnumber you. So you lose.
Hehe.
Dirk Vdm
Jan Emil Larsen
>
> I only have to show it's a baseless theory, and therefore not scientific,
> which i do, and you even agree with me it's baseless.
As a proper scientific theory, SR is falsifiable.
Whether baseless or not, all you have to do is to show - by experiment -
that it is in fact false.
You cannot debunk it by your ignorance of the theory, it's premises and
correct application.
Deliver or shut up.
R. Srinivasan
> beda pietanza wrote:
>
> > beda reply:
> > You don't have to spend words with me about the inconsistency
> > of the SR assumptions.
> > I agree that the relativity of simultaneity is a result of the way clocks
> > are syncronized in the SR frames; in nature there is a intrinsic
> > absolute simultaneity.
>
> absolute simultaneity"? How would you prove it
> to us?
>
Suppose it is "true-but-unprovable"?
Sincerely,
R. Srinivasan srad...@in.ibm.com
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:ak51gg$9td$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> I only have to show it's a baseless theory, and therefore not scientific,
>> which i do, and you even agree with me it's baseless.
>
>As a proper scientific theory, SR is falsifiable.
You don't know what's proper anymore.
>Whether baseless or not, all you have to do is to show - by experiment -
>that it is in fact false.
Not good enough, then anybody can claim whatever, and it'll be true scientific
knowledge until disproven by experiment. That's not good enough to be
knowledge. What if i postulate some theory that can't be provenn or
disproven within my lifetime, for instance: "i postulate there exist
ants on other extrasolar planets that if you asked them nicely, would
come to earth and do our dishes". It does predict something: go there,
ask, and they come. Therefore this is now scientific knowledge. But
you know it ain't, so you are now going to pseudosolve this to not lose
credibility aren't you.
>You cannot debunk it by your ignorance of the theory, it's premises and
>correct application.
>Deliver or shut up.
SR says first and foremost: "the speed of light in one way is
the same for every observer no matter what it's relative velocity is".
It cannot say this, because it's not tested.
Deliver science or go to another group/profession.
--
jos
Jan Emil Larsen
> Deliver science or go to another group/profession.
Now I understand. You are talking to yourself.
Patrick Reany
Eric Freeman wrote:
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D657605...@asu.edu...
> >
> > Eric Freeman wrote:
> > >
> > > As originally visioned, relativity did not allow for the
> > > randomness of sub-atomic process.
> >
> > In what way?
>
> Einstein was the last of the determinists. He didn't believe in random
> processes, even when others were coming up with very convincing evidence.
>
> Eric
> -
Well, you're telling us Einstein's personal viewpoint,
not the formal content of SR.
Have you ever heard of David Bohm's view of QM?
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html
Also, David Hestenes has some interesting ideas on
interpreting the Dirac equation deterministically.
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/html/STC.html
Patrick
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
How does one recognize the "true answers" in science?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
"R. Srinivasan" wrote:
If so, what good is that to the physicist?
Patrick
island
Ah, Filosofeeeeee...
The physicist with the most clear, least prejudiced concept for physics
will prevail, regardless of of whether or not some aspect of his concept
is proven, since (s)he will have a "REAL" clue as to what they are
dealing with.
There's no philosopy in truth.
keith stein
"Marco Nelissen" <mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:ak3ak7$scl$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> > No i have not the burden of proof. I say nothing positively, i claim
> > nothing.
>
SR.
SR.
Here is such an experiment for you Mr. Nelissen. TRY IT eh!
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
which surely contradicts SR eh!
keith stein
josX
The world is true. If what is said corresponds closely with the world,
it is true.
It is unscientific to say something for which you have no proof, for instance
the lightspeed-insanity. Absolutism of simultaneity isn't something that
is without basis: some things happen before others, this gives the posibility
that things happen at the same time. You can observe this phenomena when
things happen over a stretch of time, for instance when two vulcano's
start blowing, you have them blowing simultaneously. Relativity of simultaneity
on the other hand is without basis, and it's derivation is nothing but a
stupid and redicilous flaw (mistaking the signal for the real thing, and even
on top of that contradicting the lightspeed-constancy that was postulated
only pages earlier).
Now quit the trolling and pretending you don't know.
--
jos
island
> Newtonian mechanics has implication for mechanical engineering, but
> this doesn't mean that mechanical engineering is part of Newtonian
> mechanics.
What about???... An object in motion over a bridge will stay in motion
over the bridge until the barge hits the piling... then it falls like an
apple into the drink.
I'm sure that I read that somewhere in the Principia
Patrick Reany
island wrote:
Describe this "most clear, least prejudiced concept
for physics."
Patrick
Gregory L. Hansen
"The crucial" experiment? Any prediction of SR is "crucial". Like
the bending radii of particles in magnetic fields, the fine structure of
the hydrogen atom, or decay times versus speed. Those and others were
derived from the postulates of special relativity, and if the postulates
are wrong then the predictions will be wrong.
As to specifically testing the speed of light with respect to various
observers, WHAT THE HELL'S THE MATTER WITH YOU? You've been given
references a number of times by a number of people. Do you cover your
eyes and shout "If I don't see it, it doesn't exist!"?
And how do you even know chemists claim to have done "the crucial
experiment"? Has any chemist told you that?
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
josX
Excellent point Keith.
Now SRists, give us S O L I D P H Y S I C A L E V I D E N C E, and
solid reasoning why it is wrong what Keith has shown you.
--
jos
David McAnally
Don't you know? The "true answers" are the ones that Jos agrees with.
David McAnally
------------