The "absolute" quality of c
Pax
Was reading Einstein's "The Theory of Relativity and Other Essays" [Hardback;
ISBN 1-56731-247-0], when something hit me HARD: What I've been saying about c
is exactly what Einstein was saying all along! And _not_ in his more convoluted
General Theory, in his Special Theory which is the foundation for his General
theory, as he states:
[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 5-6] -- The development of the theory of
relativity proceeded in two steps, "special theory of relativity" and "general
theory of relativity." The latter presumes the validity of the former as a
limiting case and is its consistent continuation.
___________________
I preface with the above because many assume that somehow SR was "done away
with" by GR, as you can see this is not the case, it was merely relegated to a
"limiting case" within the larger theory. However, the basics of SR still hold
true for GR.
Following is the passage that hit me:
[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 7] -- It is now easy to understand the
dilemma which has led to the special theory of relativity. Experience and
theory have gradually led to the conviction that light in empty space always
travels with the same velocity c independent of its color and the state of
motion of the source of light (principle of the constancy of the velocity of
light--in the following referred to as "L-principle").
It turns out, however, that this contradiction is only an apparent one which is
based essentially on the prejudice about the absolute character of time or
rather of the simultaneity of distant events. We just saw that x, y, z, and t
of an event can, for the moment, be defined only with respect to a certain
chosen system of coordinates (inertial system).
___________________
What Einstein was saying is that as our velocity increases or decreases,
intervals of time slow down or speed up accordingly and, as a result, distances
appear either shorter or longer... in other words, all of space and time "warp"
relative to us (from our point-of-view) according to our velocity. Okay,
everybody know that, don't they? (Or do they?)
But what he was _also_ saying is that the light we see, no matter at what pace
our velocity causes us to count time, will still be traveling at c. This is
tantamount to saying that the actual "speed" of light is infinite, because it is
capable of appearing to be traveling at the same velocity of c no matter what
our relative velocity might be.
[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 8-9] -- [...] From a formal point of view
one may characterize the achievement of the special theory of relativity thus:
it has shown generally the role which the universal constant c (velocity of
light) plays in the laws of nature and has demonstrated that there exists a
close connection between the form in which time on the one hand and the spatial
coordinates on the other hand enter into the laws of nature.
___________________
It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an infinite
scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative velocity! No
matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around and still
be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according to our
measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (even though
it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
accomplish that type of velocity. :)
Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
Be well - Pax
_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)
The purpose of light is to fill the darkness and travel on;
the purpose of life is to find the light and travel with it.
Ralph Hertle
You failed to include quotation marks for the passages
quoted from Einstein. I can't tell what it is that you
said, and, also, to differentiate that from what he said.
Ralph Hertle
Pax
Sorry, tried to be as clear as possible. Each quote begins with "[Essay; The
Theory of Relativity; Pp n-n] -- " and ends with "___________________"
underneath it. Hope that helps. :)
Be well - Pax
_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)
The purpose of light is to fill the darkness and travel on;
the purpose of life is to find the light and travel with it.
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D7FFB12...@verizon.net...
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an
infinite
> scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative velocity!
No
c is commonly represented as "1", but never as infinity.
> matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around and
still
> be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according to
our
> measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (even
though
> it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
> accomplish that type of velocity. :)
>
> Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
less, right? How can we be travelling "10c"?
The apparent length contracts so that great distances are travelled in what
seems a short period of time (for a rapidly moving frame).
David A. Smith
Pax
wrote in message news:EhTf9.12812$Pf7.4...@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> Dear "Pax":
>
> > It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an
> infinite
> > scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative velocity!
> No
>
> c is commonly represented as "1", but never as infinity.
No, it's not for the simple fact that it isn't. c is a fixed speed as
determined by wavelength times frequency. That's why I said c was a "fixed
slider" on an infinite scale. That's a totally different consideration.
> > matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around and
> still
> > be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according to
> our
> > measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (even
> though
> > it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
> > accomplish that type of velocity. :)
> >
> > Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
>
> We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
> less, right? How can we be traveling "10c"?
We can't outrun light but, if we can find a means of doing it, we can exceed c.
The velocity c is just a fixed number that denotes the limits of the range of
the spectrum that we can detect at any specific, relative time.
> The apparent length contracts so that great distances are traveled in what
> seems a short period of time (for a rapidly moving frame).
Yes, distance seems to contract due to velocity (the faster we go the quicker we
get there, sort of thing), but time also slows for us as well, distance wouldn't
actually, physically "contract" to us otherwise. The _entire_ spacetime
continuum relative to us "warps", time as well as space. Visualize that, then
take into account that, from our perspective, we are always "at rest". What's
real for us is what's physically real according to our perspective, basically.
If we begin to count time more slowly, as far as we're concerned, distances
contract.
We've launched and achieved a velocity of 1/2c. What's happened? According to
our clocks, nothing, everything seems normal, including light. However, if an
observer from Earth could view us, our movements have slowed down to at least
half our previous rate compared to while in the same timeframe as the observer,
in other words, we look to be moving in slow motion. (We're also flattening...
foreshortening... according to the observer, but that's another consideration.)
Okay, we're moving in slow motion to an observer (while we're zipping along at
1/2c to that same observer), but everything seems normal to us. If we're not
under a constant acceleration greater then G, we'd feel as though we were back
home on Earth. Meanwhile outside, our ship is hitting light waves half again as
fast as the observer encounters them. That means the waves that appear longer
to them would appear shorter to us. Add to that the fact that time is moving
slower for us, this would have the effect of appearing to shorten the light
waves even more.
But, according to Einstein, that's not the case (even though it is), because
everything's relative. That's what was so monumental about the Michelson-Morley
findings, c is always constant. Einstein simply took that observation to its
extreme which is, at whatever relative velocity we might be going, light will
appear to be traveling at c. This can only be possible if the actual spectrum
of light is huge (perhaps infinite).
Einstein alludes to the actual as opposed to apparent speed of light on more
than one occasion, but a lot of his stuff I find really tough to wade through.
> David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> > We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
> > less, right? How can we be traveling "10c"?
>
> We can't outrun light but, if we can find a means of doing it, we can
exceed c.
> The velocity c is just a fixed number that denotes the limits of the range
of
> the spectrum that we can detect at any specific, relative time.
So we will have to get light to travel faster than c? Don't you see a
contradiction here? Some superlumenal phenomenon have been noted, but not
for a massive body, over a significant period of time...
> We've launched and achieved a velocity of 1/2c. What's happened?
According to
> our clocks, nothing, everything seems normal, including light. However,
if an
> observer from Earth could view us, our movements have slowed down to at
least
> half our previous rate
Not quite half the rate... closer to 80% I think.
> compared to while in the same timeframe as the observer,
> in other words, we look to be moving in slow motion. (We're also
flattening...
> foreshortening... according to the observer, but that's another
consideration.)
>
> Okay, we're moving in slow motion to an observer (while we're zipping
along at
> 1/2c to that same observer), but everything seems normal to us. If we're
not
> under a constant acceleration greater then G, we'd feel as though we were
back
> home on Earth. Meanwhile outside, our ship is hitting light waves half
again as
> fast as the observer encounters them. That means the waves that appear
longer
> to them would appear shorter to us. Add to that the fact that time is
moving
> slower for us, this would have the effect of appearing to shorten the
light
> waves even more.
c = frequency * wavelength = frequency * 1/gamma * wavelemgth * gamma
> But, according to Einstein, that's not the case (even though it is),
because
> everything's relative. That's what was so monumental about the
Michelson-Morley
> findings, c is always constant. Einstein simply took that observation to
its
> extreme which is, at whatever relative velocity we might be going, light
will
> appear to be traveling at c. This can only be possible if the actual
spectrum
> of light is huge (perhaps infinite).
There are an infinte number of ways to split a number between any two finite
values, and the spectrum is not really even two finite numbers. So
inifinite is a good choice of words, I think.
> Einstein alludes to the actual as opposed to apparent speed of light on
more
> than one occasion, but a lot of his stuff I find really tough to wade
through.
You are in good company.
David A. Smith
Bilge
|........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.......|
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
>But what he was _also_ saying is that the light we see, no matter at what
>pace
>our velocity causes us to count time, will still be traveling at c. This
>is
>tantamount to saying that the actual "speed" of light is infinite, because
>it is
>capable of appearing to be traveling at the same velocity of c no matter what
>our relative velocity might be.
In a sense, that's about the size of it. There's an important difference
though. If the speed were really infinite rather than a finite number,
then the relation x = ct would leave the relation between distance and
time totally undefined. v/c would be meaningless. Being finite, however,
`c', is a scale factor.
[...]
>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 8-9] -- [...] From a formal point
>one may characterize the achievement of the special theory of relativi
>it has shown generally the role which the universal constant c (veloci
>light) plays in the laws of nature and has demonstrated that there exi
>close connection between the form in which time on the one hand and th
>coordinates on the other hand enter into the laws of nature.
>___________________
>
>It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an
>infinite scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative
>velocity!
Well, not quite. At the time, the known forces were gravity and E&M,
so it wouldn't be all that much of a stretch to conclude that there was
something fundamental about geometry and how fast forces propagate. The
weak and strong forces make the connection of electromagnetism to any
geometric quantities considerably less obvious, especially since the
only theories that treat E&M as geometry, use dimensions that aren't
one of the four in special relativity.
While there is inevitably a connection, the only one that is readily
apparent comes from observing that charge seems to be conserved. That
happens to be just an observation, though.
>No
>matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around
>be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according
>measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (eve
>it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
>accomplish that type of velocity. :)
Lose weight. Once you reduce your mass to zero, no problem.
Pax
> Dear "Pax":
>
> > > We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
> > > less, right? How can we be traveling "10c"?
> >
> > We can't outrun light but, if we can find a means of doing it, we can
> exceed c.
> > The velocity c is just a fixed number that denotes the limits of the range
> of
> > the spectrum that we can detect at any specific, relative time.
>
> So we will have to get light to travel faster than c?
No. Except for information transmission, what use would that be? It wouldn't
get us to the stars... but perhaps we could bum a ride if we sent out a request
that way. :)
c is _always_ c. c denotes the detectable spectrum. It's a set number and
can't be changed. It's the detectable spectrum that "changes" relative to us,
it extends in both directions past that we can detect. Remember the cesium
experiments? Once the beam of light exceeded c, it became invisible. But that
c300+ proved there are higher parts to light's spectrum... and it was right in
keeping with what Einstein said in SR. The light "jumped" about 300
frames-of-reference.
> Don't you see a contradiction here?
In saying we can't outrun light but we can exceed c? c is _always_ relative to
us.
When your car is stopped a bug can land on the windshield then fly away
unharmed, but what happens to it if you're cruising down the highway at a good
clip? <SPLAT!> Right? You're in the car both times. Did you feel like you
were going splat-speed the second time? No, but at highway speeds you'd do a
bug impression on the windshield if the car suddenly hit a wall. Relativity.
A gun is shot in space (no atmospheric drag). Does the bullet lose its shape in
flight? No. Past the initial firing, it stays intact until it hits something.
Why? Because, to the bullet, it's standing still and everything else is moving,
no matter its velocity as gauged by the one who shot it. What if a little man
were on the bullet and he fired a tiny little gun in the direction of flight of
the larger bullet? Would that tiny little bullet act differently due to the
velocity of the big bullet the little man is standing on? No. Because to the
tiny little man, the big bullet is standing still... he is "at rest" in his
frame-of-reference, and any action he takes is from that perspective.
Relativity.
> Some superlumenal
> phenomenon have been noted, but not
> for a massive body, over a significant period of time...
"not for a massive body, over a significant period of time"?! When did it ever
happen once? Wasn't aware it had ever been done!
> > We've launched and achieved a velocity of 1/2c. What's happened?
> According to
> > our clocks, nothing, everything seems normal, including light. However,
> if an
> > observer from Earth could view us, our movements have slowed down to at
> least
> > half our previous rate
>
> Not quite half the rate... closer to 80% I think.
Can't say on that, was just guestimating. :)
> > compared to while in the same timeframe as the observer,
> > in other words, we look to be moving in slow motion. (We're also
> flattening...
> > foreshortening... according to the observer, but that's another
> consideration.)
> >
> > Okay, we're moving in slow motion to an observer (while we're zipping
> along at
> > 1/2c to that same observer), but everything seems normal to us. If we're
> not
> > under a constant acceleration greater then G, we'd feel as though we were
> back
> > home on Earth. Meanwhile outside, our ship is hitting light waves half
> again as
> > fast as the observer encounters them. That means the waves that appear
> longer
> > to them would appear shorter to us. Add to that the fact that time is
> moving
> > slower for us, this would have the effect of appearing to shorten the
> light
> > waves even more.
>
> c = frequency * wavelength = frequency * 1/gamma * wavelength * gamma
Could you define "gamma"?
> > But, according to Einstein, that's not the case (even though it is),
> because
> > everything's relative. That's what was so monumental about the
> Michelson-Morley
> > findings, c is always constant. Einstein simply took that observation to
> its
> > extreme which is, at whatever relative velocity we might be going, light
> will
> > appear to be traveling at c. This can only be possible if the actual
> spectrum
> > of light is huge (perhaps infinite).
>
> There are an infinite number of ways to split a number between any two finite
> values, and the spectrum is not really even two finite numbers. So
> infinite is a good choice of words, I think.
Using kps, the detectable spectrum is tied to a bottom of 1*299,792,458 (where
nu=1) to a top of 299,792,458*1 (where lambda=1) in vacuo, that's the c-limit,
and it's always the same relative to _any_ frame-of-reference. What I'm talking
about is above or below those numbers as calculated from our beginning "at rest"
position... but not hopping 1c at a time, climbing in increments... as our
frame-of-reference changes.
> > Einstein alludes to the actual as opposed to apparent speed of light on
> more
> > than one occasion, but a lot of his stuff I find really tough to wade
> through.
>
> You are in good company.
It would help a lot if I had a better grasp of physics terminology. I'm working
on it. In the meantime, the ideas behind the theories are pretty
straightforward, until they degenerate into all math, which I'm incapable of
following very easily if at all, when the math gets too complex.
Pax
news:GfWf9.930$Le2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Using kps, the detectable spectrum is tied to a bottom of 1*299,792,458 (where
> nu=1) to a top of 299,792,458*1 (where lambda=1) in vacuo, that's the c-limit,
> and it's always the same relative to _any_ frame-of-reference. What I'm
talking
> about is above or below those numbers as calculated from our beginning "at
rest"
> position... but not hopping 1c at a time, climbing in increments... as our
> frame-of-reference changes.
Need to correct the above, meant to say "mps" (meters per second) not "ksp"
(kilometers per second).
Pax
news:slrnao0a3...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Pax said some stuff about
> |........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.......|
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
>
> >But what he was _also_ saying is that the light we see, no matter at what
> >pace
> >our velocity causes us to count time, will still be traveling at c. This
> >is
> >tantamount to saying that the actual "speed" of light is infinite, because
> >it is
> >capable of appearing to be traveling at the same velocity of c no matter
what
> >our relative velocity might be.
>
> In a sense, that's about the size of it. There's an important difference
> though. If the speed were really infinite rather than a finite number,
> then the relation x = ct would leave the relation between distance and
> time totally undefined. v/c would be meaningless. Being finite, however,
> `c', is a scale factor.
Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may not be.
> >It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an
> >infinite scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative
> >velocity!
>
> Well, not quite.
Why?
> At the time, the known forces were gravity and E&M,
> so it wouldn't be all that much of a stretch to conclude that there was
> something fundamental about geometry and how fast forces propagate.
There's not... at least concerning how fast forces propagate?
> The
> weak and strong forces make the connection of electromagnetism to any
> geometric quantities considerably less obvious, especially since the
> only theories that treat E&M as geometry, use dimensions that aren't
> one of the four in special relativity.
Didn't know that.
> While there is inevitably a connection, the only one that is readily
> apparent comes from observing that charge seems to be conserved. That
> happens to be just an observation, though.
>
> >Now, we just have to find some way to
> >accomplish that type of velocity. :)
>
> Lose weight. Once you reduce your mass to zero, no problem.
I don't WANT to wait until I die, I want it NOW! :)
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnao0a3...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>>
>> though. If the speed were really infinite rather than a finite number,
>> then the relation x = ct would leave the relation between distance and
>> time totally undefined. v/c would be meaningless. Being finite, however,
>> `c', is a scale factor.
>
>Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may not be.
>
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
josX
>Was reading Einstein's "The Theory of Relativity and Other Essays" [Hardback;
>ISBN 1-56731-247-0], when something hit me HARD: What I've been saying about c
>is exactly what Einstein was saying all along! And _not_ in his more convoluted
>General Theory, in his Special Theory which is the foundation for his General
>theory, as he states:
>
>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 5-6] -- The development of the theory of
>relativity proceeded in two steps, "special theory of relativity" and "general
>theory of relativity." The latter presumes the validity of the former as a
>limiting case and is its consistent continuation.
>___________________
>
>I preface with the above because many assume that somehow SR was "done away
>with" by GR, as you can see this is not the case, it was merely relegated to a
>"limiting case" within the larger theory. However, the basics of SR still hold
>true for GR.
Interesting side-note: GR cannot be correct if SR is correct because
the derivation of the equivalence principle voids SR (contains a speed
infinitely larger than lightspeed).
How? For gravity and acceleration to be the same, the acceleration must
be infinite, this crosses lightspeed, a violation of SR.
Actuall, also a violation of GR?
>Following is the passage that hit me:
>
>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 7] -- It is now easy to understand the
>dilemma which has led to the special theory of relativity. Experience and
>theory have gradually led to the conviction that light in empty space always
>travels with the same velocity c independent of its color and the state of
>motion of the source of light (principle of the constancy of the velocity of
>light--in the following referred to as "L-principle").
Relative to what does it go at c?
;)
>It turns out, however, that this contradiction is only an apparent one which is
>based essentially on the prejudice about the absolute character of time or
>rather of the simultaneity of distant events. We just saw that x, y, z, and t
>of an event can, for the moment, be defined only with respect to a certain
>chosen system of coordinates (inertial system).
Simultaneity is not merely a prejudice, it is a real experience, an artifact
of having thing happen after another is having them happen simultaneously
too.
>___________________
>
>What Einstein was saying is that as our velocity increases or decreases,
>intervals of time slow down or speed up accordingly and, as a result, distances
>appear either shorter or longer... in other words, all of space and time "warp"
>relative to us (from our point-of-view) according to our velocity. Okay,
>everybody know that, don't they? (Or do they?)
Everybody knows that is what the theory says.
>But what he was _also_ saying is that the light we see, no matter at what pace
>our velocity causes us to count time, will still be traveling at c. This is
>tantamount to saying that the actual "speed" of light is infinite, because it is
>capable of appearing to be traveling at the same velocity of c no matter what
>our relative velocity might be.
How will "infinite" help you ?
>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 8-9] -- [...] From a formal point of view
>one may characterize the achievement of the special theory of relativity thus:
>it has shown generally the role which the universal constant c (velocity of
>light) plays in the laws of nature and has demonstrated that there exists a
>close connection between the form in which time on the one hand and the spatial
>coordinates on the other hand enter into the laws of nature.
I don't think so.
How does it "demonstrate" anything else then that you have to stick close
to measurements if you want to keep making sense and do real science.
>___________________
>
>It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an infinite
>scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative velocity! No
>matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around and still
>be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according to our
>measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (even though
>it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
>accomplish that type of velocity. :)
>
>Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
And why is that "ofcourse" ?
>Be well - Pax
>
>_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)
>
>The purpose of light is to fill the darkness and travel on;
>the purpose of life is to find the light and travel with it.
This type of fella is attracted to SR.
Can't everybody see he doesn't belong in a physics group ?
Hey Pax: can you imagine v'=v for soccerballs and waterwaves?
No?
"a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
"a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
If you can't, don't bother with light.
c' = c + v is compatible with all data, you alternative to Einstein
ligth theory (ELT).
--
jos
josX
Noticing this is a physics group, i'd like to know if we have positive
confirmation of not being able to pass the speed of light. I know you
migth say "accelerators", but then i say gas-jet Quasar 3C273 which
travels at 8.3c.
c' = c + v is compatible with all known data, what is wrong with it.
--
jos
josX
>"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dee-ell-...@cox.net (use dlzc1 in beginning)>
>>
>>> on an infinite scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our
>>> relative velocity!
>> No
>>
>> c is commonly represented as "1", but never as infinity.
>
>No, it's not for the simple fact that it isn't. c is a fixed speed as
>determined by wavelength times frequency. That's why I said c was a "fixed
>slider" on an infinite scale. That's a totally different consideration.
Riddle: how does this work for water-waves and soccerballs were they
to have the v' = v proporty ?
>>> matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around
>>> and still be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along
>>> at c according to our measurements of it, while we, in the meantime,
>>> could be doing 10c (even though it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now,
>>> we just have to find some way to accomplish that type of velocity. :)
>>>
>>> Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
>>
>> We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
>> less, right? How can we be traveling "10c"?
>
>We can't outrun light but, if we can find a means of doing it, we can exceed c.
>The velocity c is just a fixed number that denotes the limits of the range of
>the spectrum that we can detect at any specific, relative time.
>
>> The apparent length contracts so that great distances are traveled in what
>> seems a short period of time (for a rapidly moving frame).
>
> Yes, distance seems to contract due to velocity (the faster we go
> the quicker we get there, sort of thing)
You talk like this is a "known phenomena".
> but time also slows for
> us as well, distance wouldn't actually, physically "contract" to us
> otherwise. The _entire_ spacetime continuum relative to us "warps",
You talk like this is a "known phenomena".
> time as well as space. Visualize that, then take into account that,
> from our perspective, we are always "at rest". What's real for us
> is what's physically real according to our perspective, basically.
> If we begin to count time more slowly, as far as we're concerned,
> distances contract.
Alright, very amuzing.
Now let me challange you understanding of SR:
Can you solve this:
Twin paradox: 0->.99999c in 1.8 sec
Tripduration: 9*10^9 years
You may define a preferred frame-of-reference during the acceleration
if you prefer, but not afterwards, because to make frames remember
their acceleration and to use that to determine a preferred frame,
is to define the "frame that never accelerated in the history of the
universe" as the de-facto preferred frame (absolute reference frame),
and you would have defined relativity as absolutism.
The twin-paradox is having a twin fly away in a spaceship and return
home.
> We've launched and achieved a velocity of 1/2c. What's happened?
> According to our clocks, nothing, everything seems normal,
> including light. However, if an observer from Earth could view us,
> our movements have slowed down to at least half our previous rate
> compared to while in the same timeframe as the observer, in other
> words, we look to be moving in slow motion. (We're also flattening...
> foreshortening... according to the observer, but that's another
> consideration.)
This is true, it's a visual illusion that will be reversed when you
turn around and head back: time speeds up, you seem elongated.
The phenomena are not compatible with the Lorentz-transformations.
At c you will be half-contracted when moving away, Lorentz predicts
full contraction (to zero length).
> Okay, we're moving in slow motion to an observer (while we're zipping
> along at 1/2c to that same observer), but everything seems normal
> to us. If we're not under a constant acceleration greater then G,
> we'd feel as though we were back home on Earth. Meanwhile outside,
> our ship is hitting light waves half again as fast as the observer
> encounters them. That means the waves that appear longer to them
> would appear shorter to us. Add to that the fact that time is moving
> slower for us, this would have the effect of appearing to shorten
> the light waves even more.
>
> But, according to Einstein, that's not the case (even though it is),
> because everything's relative. That's what was so monumental about
> the Michelson-Morley findings, c is always constant.
There is nothing monumental about MMX except it's monumental misinterpretation.
You know that MMX was a two-way lightspeed experiment ?
> Einstein simply
> took that observation to its extreme which is, at whatever relative
> velocity we might be going, light will appear to be traveling at c.
Which is not warranted by our observational data.
> This can only be possible if the actual spectrum of light is huge
> (perhaps infinite).
>
> Einstein alludes to the actual as opposed to apparent speed of light
> on more than one occasion, but a lot of his stuff I find really tough
> to wade through.
Is there hope for you?
Ofcourse, there's always hope :).
>> David A. Smith
>
>Be well - Pax
>
>_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)
>
>The purpose of light is to fill the darkness and travel on;
>the purpose of life is to find the light and travel with it.
Then search now, it's coming for ya.
--
jos
josX
<snip>
>c is _always_ c.
<snip>
So says the Holy Postulate from relativity theory.
So does not say our limited actual data.
--
jos
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may
not be.
Your point being what?
Even a sound wave can accomplish that little trick.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:alpomb$85v$6...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> Noticing this is a physics group, i'd like to know if we have positive
> confirmation of not being able to pass the speed of light. I know you
> migth say "accelerators", but then i say gas-jet Quasar 3C273 which
> travels at 8.3c.
That is truly remarkable. Please may I have the reference?
Franz Heymann
Paul F. Dietz
He's refering to an optical illusion associated with relativistic
jets that are observed nearly head on. Clumps in the jets exhibit
lateral motion that, at the distance of the source, would seem to
imply FTL motion. But there is no actual FTL motion.
Paul
josX
Sure: "Het Heelal", Patrick Moore & Iain Nicolson, Elsevier (original
"The Universe") ISBN 90-10-05447-0, page 225 chapter 25 "space, time
and gravity", 4 pictures to the right of the jet below a picture of
Einstein and Minkowski (the horrific idiot). With subtext:
... ...
.xxx. .xxx.
.xxxxx. .xxxxx..
.xX------> .xX-------->
.xxxxx. ... .xxxxx.. .
.xxx.. ... .xxx... ..
..... .. ..... ..
... ...
.
... ...
.xxx. .xxx...
.xxxxx.. .xxxxx...
.xX----------> .xX------------>
.xxxxx.... .xxxxx.....
.xxx..... .. .xxx...... ..
..... . ... ...... ...
... .. ... ..
"Faster then light?
This detailed radioimagery show a jet of gas which comes out of the core of
quasar 3C273. The jet seems to have moved itself in 3 years over a distance
of 25 lightyears. If this were to be so, the gas would have traveled about
eight times as fast as light, which is utterly in contradiction with
Einstein's theory. But this seemingly "faster then light" expansion is
almost certainly caused because the jet is moving just under the speed
of ligh at an angle which makes a small angle with the line of sight."
--
jos
(wich original josX ascii diagrams ;)
josX
But "ofcourse" there is no FTL motion, "ofcourse" this is a jet
coming head-on just below c. After all, otherwise it would disprove
Einstein and that can't happen!!
Ever.
Let me see your twin-paradox solution before i believe you optical
illusion solution.
--
jos
Paul F. Dietz
> But "ofcourse" there is no FTL motion, "ofcourse" this is a jet
> coming head-on just below c. After all, otherwise it would disprove
> Einstein and that can't happen!!
> Ever.
>
> Let me see your twin-paradox solution before i believe you optical
> illusion solution.
Fuck off, please.
Paul
Martin Hardcastle
>He's refering to an optical illusion associated with relativistic
>jets that are observed nearly head on.
See also the sci.astro FAQ.
Amusingly, the demonstration that you can get apparent
faster-than-light motions in this situation requires no results from
SR. So even the `SR is wrong' people should be able to understand it.
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol
A little learning is a dangerous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the
Pierian spring; / There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain ...
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me
josX
Paul F. Dietz
> >Fuck off, please.
>
> Why, nothing to say anymore, out of steam ?
Go screw yourself with a cheese grater, crank.
Paul
Pax
> "Pax" <sfw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dee-ell-...@cox.net (use dlzc1 in
beginning)>
> >>
> >>> It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider"
> >>> on an infinite scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our
> >>> relative velocity!
> >> No
> >>
> >> c is commonly represented as "1", but never as infinity.
> >
> >No, it's not for the simple fact that it isn't. c is a fixed speed as
> >determined by wavelength times frequency. That's why I said c was a "fixed
> >slider" on an infinite scale. That's a totally different consideration.
>
> Riddle: how does this work for water-waves and soccerballs were they
> to have the v' = v proporty ?
How many waves are in water? Are they all the same size? The possible size of
a wave in water is determined by disturbances as small as molecular in size all
the way up to the entire body as influenced by the pull of the moon on the
mantle of the Earth (which wave also effects and runs through the land masses).
> >>> matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around
> >>> and still be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along
> >>> at c according to our measurements of it, while we, in the meantime,
> >>> could be doing 10c (even though it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now,
> >>> we just have to find some way to accomplish that type of velocity. :)
> >>>
> >>> Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
> >>
> >> We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
> >> less, right? How can we be traveling "10c"?
> >
> >We can't outrun light but, if we can find a means of doing it, we can exceed
c.
> >The velocity c is just a fixed number that denotes the limits of the range of
> >the spectrum that we can detect at any specific, relative time.
> >
> >> The apparent length contracts so that great distances are traveled in what
> >> seems a short period of time (for a rapidly moving frame).
> >
> > Yes, distance seems to contract due to velocity (the faster we go
> > the quicker we get there, sort of thing)
>
> You talk like this is a "known phenomena".
Would you rather walk 100 miles or drive it?
> > but time also slows for
> > us as well, distance wouldn't actually, physically "contract" to us
> > otherwise. The _entire_ spacetime continuum relative to us "warps",
>
> You talk like this is a "known phenomena".
It should be, if you're familiar with SR and GR. Do you not subscribe to
Relativity?
> > time as well as space. Visualize that, then take into account that,
> > from our perspective, we are always "at rest". What's real for us
> > is what's physically real according to our perspective, basically.
> > If we begin to count time more slowly, as far as we're concerned,
> > distances contract.
>
> Alright, very amuzing.
> Now let me challange you understanding of SR:
>
> Can you solve this:
> Twin paradox: 0->.99999c in 1.8 sec
> Trip duration: 9*10^9 years
> You may define a preferred frame-of-reference during the acceleration
> if you prefer, but not afterwards, because to make frames remember
> their acceleration and to use that to determine a preferred frame,
> is to define the "frame that never accelerated in the history of the
> universe" as the de-facto preferred frame (absolute reference frame),
> and you would have defined relativity as absolutism.
>
> The twin-paradox is having a twin fly away in a spaceship and return
> home.
There is no such "never accelerated in the history of the universe" frame of
reference. The Earth, as starting point, is a moving frame of reference. I'm
familiar with the twin paradox. I don't have the physics math to show you. I
do think I have a basic understanding of the paradox, however.
As the velocity of the ship increases, its clocks and all its occupants will
appear to slow down relative to an observer on Earth. If the occupants could
see the occupants of the Earth, they would appear to slow down, too.
This would seem to indicate that the twins should age equally, but Minkowksi
calculations of spacetime (with which I'm unfamiliar) say that the traveling
twin, due to his velocity, has actually traveled less far than the stay-at-home
twin. This can only be if actual distance as velocity increases toward c
shortens. This would also seem to indicate that the slowing of time as regards
the traveling twin is actual. What does that mean as far as potential space
flight to somewhere like Alpha Centauri is concerned? Probably something pretty
important.
The problem we get into here, is E=Mc2. Which is why an asteroid of approx. 10
kilometers could produce a blast that wiped out the dinosaurs (they say).
Inertial mass. Inertial mass of both the asteroid and the Earth. But inertial
mass from the frame of reference of a speeding object is potential, not
realized, until it hits something, or they try to brake it. From the frame of
reference of the object it's at rest, if it's under no acceleration or constant,
not increasing, acceleration. In other words, from the POV of the asteroid, it
was the Earth that hit it.
> > We've launched and achieved a velocity of 1/2c. What's happened?
> > According to our clocks, nothing, everything seems normal,
> > including light. However, if an observer from Earth could view us,
> > our movements have slowed down to at least half our previous rate
> > compared to while in the same timeframe as the observer, in other
> > words, we look to be moving in slow motion. (We're also flattening...
> > foreshortening... according to the observer, but that's another
> > consideration.)
>
> This is true, it's a visual illusion that will be reversed when you
> turn around and head back: time speeds up, you seem elongated.
No. It is an illusion, from the point of view of the speeding object, but it's
tied to velocity as gauged by an observer, not direction of flight.
> The phenomena are not compatible with the Lorentz-transformations.
> At c you will be half-contracted when moving away, Lorentz predicts
> full contraction (to zero length).
And is this your theory? :)
> > Okay, we're moving in slow motion to an observer (while we're zipping
> > along at 1/2c to that same observer), but everything seems normal
> > to us. If we're not under a constant acceleration greater then G,
> > we'd feel as though we were back home on Earth. Meanwhile outside,
> > our ship is hitting light waves half again as fast as the observer
> > encounters them. That means the waves that appear longer to them
> > would appear shorter to us. Add to that the fact that time is moving
> > slower for us, this would have the effect of appearing to shorten
> > the light waves even more.
> >
> > But, according to Einstein, that's not the case (even though it is),
> > because everything's relative. That's what was so monumental about
> > the Michelson-Morley findings, c is always constant.
>
> There is nothing monumental about MMX except it's monumental
misinterpretation.
>
> You know that MMX was a two-way lightspeed experiment ?
It was a criss-cross set-up.
> > Einstein simply
> > took that observation to its extreme which is, at whatever relative
> > velocity we might be going, light will appear to be traveling at c.
>
> Which is not warranted by our observational data.
What observational data is that? I think it was RHIC that noted both time
dilation and foreshortening.
> > This can only be possible if the actual spectrum of light is huge
> > (perhaps infinite).
> >
> > Einstein alludes to the actual as opposed to apparent speed of light
> > on more than one occasion, but a lot of his stuff I find really tough
> > to wade through.
>
> Is there hope for you?
> Ofcourse, there's always hope :).
If there's hope for you, perhaps there's hope for me. :)
Pax
news:alps5h$rv6$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
That maximum velocity is not tied to c.
> Franz Heymann
Pax
news:DOXf9.495$a5.9...@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <6xXf9.972$Le2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Pax"
<sfw...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnao0a3...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >>
> >> In a sense, that's about the size of it. There's an important difference
> >> though. If the speed were really infinite rather than a finite number,
> >> then the relation x = ct would leave the relation between distance and
> >> time totally undefined. v/c would be meaningless. Being finite, however,
> >> `c', is a scale factor.
> >
> >Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may not be.
> >
> What does one have to do with the other?
Damnit, Mati, inspite of myself I like you and I read you... and I really don't
want to fight with you.
c is not the universal speed limit.
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Be well - Pax
Pax
Could you go into this further?
> >Following is the passage that hit me:
> >
> >[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 7] -- It is now easy to understand the
> >dilemma which has led to the special theory of relativity. Experience and
> >theory have gradually led to the conviction that light in empty space always
> >travels with the same velocity c independent of its color and the state of
> >motion of the source of light (principle of the constancy of the velocity of
> >light--in the following referred to as "L-principle").
>
> Relative to what does it go at c?
> ;)
Whatever personal frame of reference in which it's being measured. :)
> >It turns out, however, that this contradiction is only an apparent one which
is
> >based essentially on the prejudice about the absolute character of time or
> >rather of the simultaneity of distant events. We just saw that x, y, z, and
t
> >of an event can, for the moment, be defined only with respect to a certain
> >chosen system of coordinates (inertial system).
>
> Simultaneity is not merely a prejudice, it is a real experience, an artifact
> of having thing happen after another is having them happen simultaneously
> too.
But notice that Einstein said "distant events".
> >___________________
> >
> >What Einstein was saying is that as our velocity increases or decreases,
> >intervals of time slow down or speed up accordingly and, as a result,
distances
> >appear either shorter or longer... in other words, all of space and time
"warp"
> >relative to us (from our point-of-view) according to our velocity. Okay,
> >everybody know that, don't they? (Or do they?)
>
> Everybody knows that is what the theory says.
Okay. :)
> >But what he was _also_ saying is that the light we see, no matter at what
pace
> >our velocity causes us to count time, will still be traveling at c. This is
> >tantamount to saying that the actual "speed" of light is infinite, because it
is
> >capable of appearing to be traveling at the same velocity of c no matter what
> >our relative velocity might be.
>
> How will "infinite" help you ?
I really need to clarify that statement. What I meant was, "However fast you
go, there light is, and it's going c." That's the "infinite" quality I was
trying to address.
> >[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 8-9] -- [...] From a formal point of
view
> >one may characterize the achievement of the special theory of relativity
thus:
> >it has shown generally the role which the universal constant c (velocity of
> >light) plays in the laws of nature and has demonstrated that there exists a
> >close connection between the form in which time on the one hand and the
spatial
> >coordinates on the other hand enter into the laws of nature.
>
> I don't think so.
> How does it "demonstrate" anything else then that you have to stick close
> to measurements if you want to keep making sense and do real science.
You'll have to ask Einstein, since you're arguing with him now. :)
Unfortunately, I think he's out.
> >___________________
> >
> >It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an
infinite
> >scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative velocity! No
> >matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around and
still
> >be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according to our
> >measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (even
though
> >it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
> >accomplish that type of velocity. :)
> >
> >Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
>
> And why is that "of course" ?
Because I said so. That should be good enough, since it seems to be your basis
for most of your statements.
> This type of fella is attracted to SR.
> Can't everybody see he doesn't belong in a physics group ?
>
> Hey Pax: can you imagine v'=v for soccerballs and waterwaves?
> No?
> "a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
> "a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
> If you can't, don't bother with light.
"speed" yes. In fact, that's what I've been saying from my first post. That
you can't seem to realize that is a problem you have to work through, since I
can't seem to do it for you.
> c' = c + v is compatible with all data, you alternative to Einstein
> ligth theory (ELT).
>
> --
> jos
Be well - Pax
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alpomj$85v$7...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> "Pax" <sfw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dee-ell-...@cox.net (use dlzc1 in beginning)>
>>>>
>>>>> It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider"
>>>>> on an infinite scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our
>>>>> relative velocity!
>>>> No
>>>>
>>>> c is commonly represented as "1", but never as infinity.
>>>
>>>No, it's not for the simple fact that it isn't. c is a fixed speed as
>>>determined by wavelength times frequency. That's why I said c was a "fixed
>>>slider" on an infinite scale. That's a totally different consideration.
>>
>> Riddle: how does this work for water-waves and soccerballs were they
>> to have the v' = v proporty ?
>
>How many waves are in water?
irrelevant
> Are they all the same size?
irrelevant also
> The possible
>size of a wave in water is determined by disturbances as small as
>molecular in size all the way up to the entire body as influenced
>by the pull of the moon on the mantle of the Earth (which wave also
>effects and runs through the land masses).
irrelevant.
Evasion noticed, marked.
>>>>> matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around
>>>>> and still be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along
>>>>> at c according to our measurements of it, while we, in the meantime,
>>>>> could be doing 10c (even though it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now,
>>>>> we just have to find some way to accomplish that type of velocity. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
>>>>
>>>> We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
>>>> less, right? How can we be traveling "10c"?
>>>
>>>We can't outrun light but, if we can find a means of doing it, we can exceed >c.
>>>The velocity c is just a fixed number that denotes the limits of the range of
>>>the spectrum that we can detect at any specific, relative time.
>>>
>>>> The apparent length contracts so that great distances are traveled in what
>>>> seems a short period of time (for a rapidly moving frame).
>>>
>>> Yes, distance seems to contract due to velocity (the faster we go
>>> the quicker we get there, sort of thing)
>>
>> You talk like this is a "known phenomena".
>
>Would you rather walk 100 miles or drive it?
In science you walk, you don't jump.
>>> but time also slows for
>>> us as well, distance wouldn't actually, physically "contract" to us
>>> otherwise. The _entire_ spacetime continuum relative to us "warps",
>>
>> You talk like this is a "known phenomena".
>
>It should be, if you're familiar with SR and GR. Do you not subscribe to
>Relativity?
No, i am not a member of any scifi magazines.
>>> time as well as space. Visualize that, then take into account that,
>>> from our perspective, we are always "at rest". What's real for us
>>> is what's physically real according to our perspective, basically.
>>> If we begin to count time more slowly, as far as we're concerned,
>>> distances contract.
>>
>> Alright, very amuzing.
>> Now let me challange you understanding of SR:
>>
>> Can you solve this:
>> Twin paradox: 0->.99999c in 1.8 sec
>> Trip duration: 9*10^9 years
>> You may define a preferred frame-of-reference during the acceleration
>> if you prefer, but not afterwards, because to make frames remember
>> their acceleration and to use that to determine a preferred frame,
>> is to define the "frame that never accelerated in the history of the
>> universe" as the de-facto preferred frame (absolute reference frame),
>> and you would have defined relativity as absolutism.
>>
>> The twin-paradox is having a twin fly away in a spaceship and return
>> home.
>
>There is no such "never accelerated in the history of the universe" frame of
>reference.
How do you know.
A coordinate system can be anything, including "never accelerated in the
history of the universe"
> The Earth, as starting point, is a moving frame of reference. I'm
>familiar with the twin paradox. I don't have the physics math to show you. I
>do think I have a basic understanding of the paradox, however.
>
>As the velocity of the ship increases, its clocks and all its occupants will
>appear to slow down relative to an observer on Earth. If the occupants could
>see the occupants of the Earth, they would appear to slow down, too.
>
>This would seem to indicate that the twins should age equally, but Minkowksi
>calculations of spacetime (with which I'm unfamiliar) say that the traveling
>twin, due to his velocity, has actually traveled less far than the stay-at-home
>twin. This can only be if actual distance as velocity increases toward c
>shortens. This would also seem to indicate that the slowing of time as regards
>the traveling twin is actual. What does that mean as far as potential space
>flight to somewhere like Alpha Centauri is concerned? Probably something pretty
>important.
"ow my gosh" ;)
Anyway, you didn't solve it: you chose a preferred frame of reference.
Preferred frames are forbidden by postulate 1.
>The problem we get into here, is E=Mc2. Which is why an asteroid of approx. 10
>kilometers could produce a blast that wiped out the dinosaurs (they say).
>Inertial mass. Inertial mass of both the asteroid and the Earth. But inertial
>mass from the frame of reference of a speeding object is potential, not
>realized, until it hits something, or they try to brake it. From the frame of
>reference of the object it's at rest, if it's under no acceleration or constant,
>not increasing, acceleration. In other words, from the POV of the asteroid, it
>was the Earth that hit it.
So how do you explain that the spaceship occupants "see" the earth slow
down (on both going away and home-coming tracks), and the earth "see"
the spaceship slowing down (on both going awayn and home-coming trip).
They disagree with eachother about the other's time.
How do you solve this without violating timedilation in inertial
observers.
Please be to the point.
WITHOUT CHOSING A PREFERRED FRAME O REFERENCE.
(You can't do that in SR, in case you didn't know, in fact i'm sure
you don't know.)
>>> We've launched and achieved a velocity of 1/2c. What's happened?
>>> According to our clocks, nothing, everything seems normal,
>>> including light. However, if an observer from Earth could view us,
>>> our movements have slowed down to at least half our previous rate
>>> compared to while in the same timeframe as the observer, in other
>>> words, we look to be moving in slow motion. (We're also flattening...
>>> foreshortening... according to the observer, but that's another
>>> consideration.)
>>
>> This is true, it's a visual illusion that will be reversed when you
>> turn around and head back: time speeds up, you seem elongated.
>
>No. It is an illusion, from the point of view of the speeding object, but it's
>tied to velocity as gauged by an observer, not direction of flight.
No, it is nonexistant, but in SR it is "real", however "paradoxical".
>> The phenomena are not compatible with the Lorentz-transformations.
>> At c you will be half-contracted when moving away, Lorentz predicts
>> full contraction (to zero length).
>
>And is this your theory? :)
No, this is facts about classical /visual illusions/.
Do you want to figure it out with me?
Look: a starship is 1 ly long and travels away from earth.
A photon leaves it's front and goes to earth.
relative speed of spaceship/photon (image of front in fact, many
photons) is 2c
after 1/2 lightyear, that photon reaches the back of the ship and
is joined by photons from the back (image from the back)
Now the entire spaceship image is composed for that instant.
It contains photons from the front which were 1/2 lightyear further
away from earth then those of the back when they were launched.
Lengthcontraction: 50%
NOT 100% as Lorentz would say.
And for head-on spaceship, you get elongating, NOT contraction as
Lorentz says.
>>> Okay, we're moving in slow motion to an observer (while we're zipping
>>> along at 1/2c to that same observer), but everything seems normal
>>> to us. If we're not under a constant acceleration greater then G,
>>> we'd feel as though we were back home on Earth. Meanwhile outside,
>>> our ship is hitting light waves half again as fast as the observer
>>> encounters them. That means the waves that appear longer to them
>>> would appear shorter to us. Add to that the fact that time is moving
>>> slower for us, this would have the effect of appearing to shorten
>>> the light waves even more.
>>>
>>> But, according to Einstein, that's not the case (even though it is),
>>> because everything's relative. That's what was so monumental about
>>> the Michelson-Morley findings, c is always constant.
>>
>> There is nothing monumental about MMX except it's monumental
>> misinterpretation.
>>
>> You know that MMX was a two-way lightspeed experiment ?
>
>It was a criss-cross set-up.
Yes fine. Does it proof that we all carry an individual aether around
with us, cosmos wide, in which light behaves at relative speed c to us?
Did you know this is what SR says ?
>>> Einstein simply
>>> took that observation to its extreme which is, at whatever relative
>>> velocity we might be going, light will appear to be traveling at c.
>>
>> Which is not warranted by our observational data.
>
>What observational data is that? I think it was RHIC that noted both time
>dilation and foreshortening.
They claim a lot of hollow air Pax.
Which experiments, where link?
Don't forget the crucial matter (although you are not interested in
physcis but scifi, you ARE psting to a physics group): physical evidence
of 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum, postulate-2.
>>> This can only be possible if the actual spectrum of light is huge
>>> (perhaps infinite).
>>>
>>> Einstein alludes to the actual as opposed to apparent speed of light
>>> on more than one occasion, but a lot of his stuff I find really tough
>>> to wade through.
>>
>> Is there hope for you?
>> Ofcourse, there's always hope :).
>
>If there's hope for you, perhaps there's hope for me. :)
>
>> Then search now, it's coming for ya.
>
>Be well - Pax
--
jos
Pax
Jos, you're peddling your own theory, so peddle away, I'm all ears.
Spaceman
>Yes, distance seems to contract due to velocity (the faster we go the quicker
>we
>get there, sort of thing), but time also slows for us as well, distance
>wouldn't
>actually, physically "contract" to us otherwise. The _entire_ spacetime
>continuum relative to us "warps", time as well as space.
<ROFLOL>
WRONG!
time does not "slow" from fast motion"
clocks malfunction when g-forces are changed.
constant motion DOES NOT EVEN EFFECT CLOCKS!
nevermind time.
speed alone does not change time
and speed alone does not change "lengths or masses of solids"
Stop eating up all thier crap.
It will make you more sick if anything.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>We can't outrun light but, if we can find a means of doing it, we can exceed
>c.
That would be "outrunning light"
so,
We may be able to.
and this "can't shit" is for brainwashed fools only.
"Can't" means you gave up already.
so of course.
YOu will not be outrunning light soon,
whiles others that won;t use the "can't" word
since thier is no proof
will still be able to try.
josX
>Jos, you're peddling your own theory, so peddle away, I'm all ears.
c' = c + v
Actually it is Galileo's work, give him the credit.
The work has to do with coordinate systems, and calculating the speed
of an object from one coordinate system to another that is moving wrt
it.
It works beautifully, even without paradoxes, can u believ it?
--
jos
josX
Yes.
[repost]
From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein and general relativity [spot the error contest].
References: <alfot3$q79$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>
Organization: me myself and I
Followup-To:
In article <alfot3$q79$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>, josX wrote:
>Spot the errors. They will be posted in 3 hours ;).
>Now su sep 8 14:58:53 UTC 2002
>
>'relativity' Einstein, published 1916.
>
>[Part II. General Relativity.]
>(...)
>
> 20
> ---------------
> THE EQUALITY OF INERTIAL
> AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS
> AS AN ARGUMENT FOR
> THE GENERAL POSTULATE
> OF RELATIVITY
>
>We imagine a large portion of empty space, so far removed from
>stars and other appreciable masses, that we have before us
>approximately the conditions required by the fundamental law
>of Galilei. It is then possible to choose a Galilean reference-body
>for this part of space (world), relative to which points at rest
>remain at rest and points in motion continue permanently in
>uniform rectilinear motion. As reference-body let us imagine a
>spacious chest resembling a room with an observer inside who
>is equipped with apparatus. Gravitation naturally does not exist
>for this observer. He must fasten himself with strings to the floor,
>otherwise the slightest impact against the floor will cause him to
>rise slowly towards the ceiling of the room.
> To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a hook
>with rope attached, and now a ''being'' (what kind of a being is
>immaterial to us) begins pulling at this with a constant force.
>The chest together with the observer then begin to move
>''upwards'' with a uniformly accelerated motion. In course of
>time their velocity will reach unheard-of values -- provided that
>we are viewing all this from another reference-body which is
>not being pulled with a rope.
> But how does the man in the chest regard the process? The
>acceleration of the chest will be transmitted to him by the reac-
>tion of the floor of the chest. He must therefore take up this
>pressure by means of his legs if he does not wish to be laid out
>full length on the floor. He is then standing in the chest in
>exactly the same way as anyone stands in a room of a house on
>our earth. If he release a body which he previously had in his
>hand, the acceleration of the chest will no longer be transmitted
>to this body, and for this reason the body will approach the floor
>of the chest with an accelerated relative motion. The observer
>will further convince himself /that the acceleration of the body/
>/towards the floor of the chest is always of the same magnitude,/
>/whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the experiment/.
> Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational field (as it was
>discussed in the preceding section), the man in the chest will
>thus come to the conclusion that he and the chest are in a gravi-
>tational field which is constant with regard to time. Of course he
>will be puzzled for a moment as to why the chest does not fall in
>this gravitational field. Just then, however, he discovers the hook
>in the middle of the lid of the chest and the rope which is
>attached to it, and he consequently comes to the conclusion that
>the chest is suspended in a gravitational field.
> Ought we to smile at the man and say that he errs in his
>conclusion? I do not believe we ought to if we wish to remain
>consistent; we must rather admit that his mode of grasping the
>situation violates neither reason nor known mechanical laws.
>Even though it is being accelerated with respect to the ''Galilean
>space'' first considered, we can nevertheless regard the chest as
>being at rest. We have thus good grounds for extending the prin-
>ciple of relativity to include bodies of reference which are acceler-
>ated with respect to each other, and as a result we have gained a
>powerful argument for a generalized postulate of relativity.
> We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of
>interpretation rests on the fundamental property of the gravi-
>tational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what
>comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial
>and gravitational mass. If this natural law did not exist, the man
>in the accelerated chest would not be able to interpret the
>behaviour of the bodies around him on the supposition of a
>gravitational field, and he would not be justified on the grounds
>of experience in supposing his reference-body to be ''at rest.''
> Suppose that the man in the chest fixes a rope to the inner side
>of the lid, and that he attaches a body to the free end of the rope.
>The result of this will be to stretch the rope so that it will hang
>''vertically'' downwards. If we ask for an opinion of the cause of
>tension in the rope, the man in the chest will say: ''The sus-
>pended body experiences a downward force in the gravitational
>field, and this is neutralized by the tension of the rope; what
>determines the magnitude of the tension of the rope is the /gravi-/
>/tational mass/ of the suspended body.'' On the other hand, an
>observer who is poised freely in space will interpret the condi-
>tion of things thus: ''the rope must perforce take part in the
>accelerated motion of the chest, and it transmits this motion in
>the body attached to it. The tension of the rope is just large
>enough to effect the acceleration of the body. That which
>determines the magnitude of the tension of the rope is the /inertial/
>/mass/ of the body.'' Guided by this example, we see that our
>extension of the principle of relativity implies the /necessity/ of the
>law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Thus we
>have obtained a physical interpretation of this law.
> From our consideration of the accelerated chest we see that a
>general theory of relativity must yield important results on the
>laws of gravitation. In point of fact, the systematic persuit of
>the general idea of relativity has supplied the laws satisfied by the
>gravitational field. Before proceeding farther, however, I must
>warn the reader against a misconception suggested by these con-
>siderations. A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest,
>dispite the fact that there was no such field for the co-ordinate
>system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose that the exist-
>ence of a gravitational field is always only an /apparent/ one. We
>might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field
>which may be present, we could always choose another
>reference-body such that /no/ gravitational field exists with refer-
>ence to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but
>only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible
>to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the
>gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.
> We can now appreciate why that argument is not convincing,
>which we brought forward against the general principle of rela-
>tivity at the end of Section 18. It is certainly true that the obser-
>ver in the railway carriage experiences a jerk forwards as a result
>of the application of the brake, and that he recognizes in this
>the non-uniformity of motion (retardation) of the carriage. But
>he is compelled by nobody to refer to this jerk to a ''real'' acceler-
>ation (retardation) of the carriage. He might also interpret his
>experience thus: ''My body of reference (the carriage) remains
>permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists
>(during the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational
>field which is directed forwards and which is variable with
>respect to time. Under the influence of this field, the embark-
>ment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a
>manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is
>continuously reduced.''
>
></end chapter>
>(...)
mistakes:
- Man in chest can also hypothesise being accelerated, he doesn't have
to chose a gravity field "just because he doesn't know".
- Man in chest can know whether he is in acceleration or in gravity by
measuring if the gravity falls off with distance: gravity would,
acceleration would not.
theory violations:
- Relativity-violation: chest will pass lightspeed after some time as
compared with it's earlier motion (suppose a nail dropped off when
accelerating started). All the man has to do is measure his forcefield
and compute how long it takes to reach lightspeed at such acceleration,
then he can wait until that moment arrives and notice if the forcefield
drops (we are getting nearer at c which is forbidden in SR) or not
(gravity).
[/repost]
>>>Following is the passage that hit me:
>>>
>>>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 7] -- It is now easy to understand the
>>>dilemma which has led to the special theory of relativity. Experience and
>>>theory have gradually led to the conviction that light in empty space always
>>>travels with the same velocity c independent of its color and the state of
>>>motion of the source of light (principle of the constancy of the velocity of
>>>light--in the following referred to as "L-principle").
>>
>> Relative to what does it go at c?
>> ;)
>
>Whatever personal frame of reference in which it's being measured. :)
Do you think this is rational ?
>>>It turns out, however, that this contradiction is only an apparent one which is
>>>based essentially on the prejudice about the absolute character of time or
>>>rather of the simultaneity of distant events. We just saw that x, y, z, and
>t
>>>of an event can, for the moment, be defined only with respect to a certain
>>>chosen system of coordinates (inertial system).
>>
>> Simultaneity is not merely a prejudice, it is a real experience, an artifact
>> of having thing happen after another is having them happen simultaneously
>> too.
>
>But notice that Einstein said "distant events".
Einstein needs to pin himself down a bit better, but if he did that he
would be exposed. He is a whaffler, so it is our job to pin him down.
>>>What Einstein was saying is that as our velocity increases or decreases,
>>>intervals of time slow down or speed up accordingly and, as a result, distances
>>>appear either shorter or longer... in other words, all of space and time "warp"
>>>relative to us (from our point-of-view) according to our velocity. Okay,
>>>everybody know that, don't they? (Or do they?)
>>
>> Everybody knows that is what the theory says.
>
>Okay. :)
>
>>>But what he was _also_ saying is that the light we see, no matter at what pace
>>>our velocity causes us to count time, will still be traveling at c. This is
>>>tantamount to saying that the actual "speed" of light is infinite, because it is
>>>capable of appearing to be traveling at the same velocity of c no matter what
>>>our relative velocity might be.
>>
>> How will "infinite" help you ?
>
>I really need to clarify that statement. What I meant was, "However fast you
>go, there light is, and it's going c." That's the "infinite" quality I was
>trying to address.
ok
I have designed this riddle:
<>
Can you imagine it?
"a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
"a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
If not, what makes you think you can imagine it for electro-magnetic
waves.
<>
What do you think of it.
>>>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 8-9] -- [...] From a formal point of view
>>>one may characterize the achievement of the special theory of relativity thus:
>>>it has shown generally the role which the universal constant c (velocity of
>>>light) plays in the laws of nature and has demonstrated that there exists a
>>>close connection between the form in which time on the one hand and the spatial
>>>coordinates on the other hand enter into the laws of nature.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>> How does it "demonstrate" anything else then that you have to stick close
>> to measurements if you want to keep making sense and do real science.
>
>You'll have to ask Einstein, since you're arguing with him now. :)
>Unfortunately, I think he's out.
Yes, that makes it harder to kill his "work", since if he were here we
might be able to pin him to something. I know he would whaffle large
alinea's full, but with patience we could catch him. In fact we could
catch him on using postulates.
>>>It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an infinite
>>>scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative velocity! No
>>>matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around and still
>>>be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according to our
>>>measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (even though
>>>it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
>>>accomplish that type of velocity. :)
>>>
>>>Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
>>
>> And why is that "of course" ?
>
>Because I said so. That should be good enough, since it seems to be your basis
>for most of your statements.
Untrue, my basis is reality and experience.
Soccer behaves like F=m*a, so it is proven.
a+b=b+a because beans behave like so (test it), not because of axioms.
I proof what i say, or make it credible.
>> This type of fella is attracted to SR.
>> Can't everybody see he doesn't belong in a physics group ?
>>
>> Hey Pax: can you imagine v'=v for soccerballs and waterwaves?
>> No?
>> "a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
>> "a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
>> If you can't, don't bother with light.
>
>"speed" yes. In fact, that's what I've been saying from my first post. That
>you can't seem to realize that is a problem you have to work through, since I
>can't seem to do it for you.
Not into scifi sorry. Actually i am, but not as scientific "truth", i
like scifi movies :).
Franz Heymann
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:3D8075D7...@dls.net...
Thanks, Paul. I know. But as sure as eggs is eggs, JosX doesn't, and
I wanted to see how he sidesteps the issue.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Are you trying to tell us you don't rvrn understand that you have been
asked to fuck off?
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Oh. that oldie? That is an optical illusion. For one moment I thought
you were on to something good.
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
josX
"optical illusion" just like "photons are massless particles" so you won't
be caught in your own traps.
--
jos
Sam Wormley
Quasar radio maps Courtesy John Biretta/Space Telescope Science Institute
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter24/24f08.html
Superluminal motion
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter24/24f09.html
Superluminal speed
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter24/24f10.html
Pax
In other words: "Down with Einstein, back to Newton!"? Or was Newton primarily
wrong, too?
I must ask you... HOW can you be so against a theory that has (thus far) stood
up to every test thrown at it, to the point of toppling many of the foundations
of Newtonian physics? Isn't it possible that in some areas under question those
interpreting the theory could be in error? Why are you so certain all of
Relativity is wrong, against all evidence to the contrary?
> --
> jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alq4ro$5o$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>"Pax" <sfw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Jos, you're peddling your own theory, so peddle away, I'm all ears.
>>
>>c' = c + v
>>Actually it is Galileo's work, give him the credit.
>>
>>The work has to do with coordinate systems, and calculating the speed
>>of an object from one coordinate system to another that is moving wrt
>>it.
>>
>>It works beautifully, even without paradoxes, can u believe it?
>
>In other words: "Down with Einstein, back to Newton!"? Or was Newton primarily
>wrong, too?
Newton had proof, Einstein didn't, figure it out.
> I must ask you... HOW can you be so against a theory that has (thus
> far) stood up to every test thrown at it, to the point of toppling
> many of the foundations of Newtonian physics?
That is what you believe, but Newton was'nt toppled.
Have you heard anything how it went in the beginning of this century ?
Hysterical press, almost the german physics community ripped apart over
this, then hitler came and war etc.
This isn't a pretty picture Pax.
> Isn't it possible that
> in some areas under question those interpreting the theory could
> be in error? Why are you so certain all of Relativity is wrong,
> against all evidence to the contrary?
There is no evidence for it, only circumstantial """"evidence"""".
I know it is wrong beacues it is paradoxical and postulate based.
Hypotheses containing paradoxes are falsified. It is a scam pax, and
you are falling for it.
--
jos
Pax
Okay, jos, I've printed it out and will read it tomorrow. :) Off to bed for
now.
josX
>Okay, jos, I've printed it out and will read it tomorrow. :) Off to bed for
>now.
Ok excellent, there is hope :-).
>Be well - Pax
thanks
--
jos
Franz Heymann
But it actually is an illusion. You have even been given the reference
to the explanation, but you did not get off your arse to look it up.
You are a cheapskate sham.
Franz Heymann
josX
No, i have saved it for lookin (from another thread), would like to
see the copout on this one.
After all, this is also a case against astronomy isn't it.
Well well well, i looked at it.
Looks like the astronomers are doing their bit of the bargain for Einstein
eh?
Care to /explain/ it how a movement of 25 ly to the right in 3 years is
explained by a /postulated/ *extra* angle towards the line of sight? That
would only /increase/ the speed.
The jpegs explain nothing afaics.
--
jos
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:DOXf9.495$a5.9...@news.uchicago.edu...
>> In article <6xXf9.972$Le2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Pax"
><sfw...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> >"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnao0a3...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >>
>> >> In a sense, that's about the size of it. There's an important difference
>> >> though. If the speed were really infinite rather than a finite number,
>> >> then the relation x = ct would leave the relation between distance and
>> >> time totally undefined. v/c would be meaningless. Being finite, however,
>> >> `c', is a scale factor.
>> >
>> >Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may not be.
>> >
>> What does one have to do with the other?
>
>Damnit, Mati, inspite of myself I like you and I read you... and I really don't
>want to fight with you.
>
>c is not the universal speed limit.
>
to the issue above. I was commenting on your statement, i.e.
"c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may not be."
And I'll repeat the question, what does one have to do with the other?
Hayek
dl...@aol.com (formerly) wrote:
> We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
> less, right? How can we be travelling "10c"?
Easy.
Take a star 10 light years away, travel at a speed that
in your time just one year has passed. (sqrt(0.99)c)
You traveled 10 lightyears in 1 year,
what was your speed ?
Hayek.
--
...The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ...
--Macbeth
Mike Varney
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3D80CF07...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
> dl...@aol.com (formerly) wrote:
>
>
> > We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
> > less, right? How can we be travelling "10c"?
>
>
> Easy.
>
> Take a star 10 light years away, travel at a speed that
> in your time just one year has passed. (sqrt(0.99)c)
>
> You traveled 10 lightyears
In which frame?
> in 1 year,
In which frame?
Bilge
>Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may
>not be.
How exactly does one follow from the other?
>
>> >It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an
>> >infinite scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative
>> >velocity!
>>
>> Well, not quite.
>
>Why?
Because `c' is always `c'.
>> At the time, the known forces were gravity and E&M,
>> so it wouldn't be all that much of a stretch to conclude that there was
>> something fundamental about geometry and how fast forces propagate.
>
>There's not... at least concerning how fast forces propagate?
In all likelyhood there is. It's just not very obvious why the forces
are what they are and until gravity is worked into the big picture,
no one knows for certain if anything is forced to be like it is.
>> The
>> weak and strong forces make the connection of electromagnetism to any
>> geometric quantities considerably less obvious, especially since the
>> only theories that treat E&M as geometry, use dimensions that aren't
>> one of the four in special relativity.
>
>Didn't know that.
First made famous by kaluza and klein. Now it's in the
string theory dept.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>dl...@aol.com (formerly) wrote:
>
>
>> We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
>> less, right? How can we be travelling "10c"?
>
>
>Easy.
>
>Take a star 10 light years away, travel at a speed that
>in your time just one year has passed. (sqrt(0.99)c)
>
>You traveled 10 lightyears in 1 year,
>what was your speed ?
You didn't travel 10 lightyears. Just as the time in your frame was
shorter, so was the distnace passed.
Jonathan Silverlight
<sfw...@earthlink.net> writes>wrote in message news:GQUf9.13023$Pf7.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
>
>> Dear "Pax":
>>
>> > > We can't outrun something that travels at c, then we are limited to c or
>> >
>> > We can't outrun light but, if we can find a means of doing it, we can
>> exceed c.
>> of
>> > the spectrum that we can detect at any specific, relative time.
>>
>
>No. Except for information transmission, what use would that be? It wouldn't
>get us to the stars... but perhaps we could bum a ride if we sent out a request
>that way. :)
>
>c is _always_ c. c denotes the detectable spectrum. It's a set number and
>can't be changed. It's the detectable spectrum that "changes" relative to us,
>it extends in both directions past that we can detect. Remember the cesium
>experiments? Once the beam of light exceeded c, it became invisible. But that
>c300+ proved there are higher parts to light's spectrum...
What is that supposed to mean? The fact that all electromagnetic
radiation propagates at the speed of light has been shown with very high
precision. An experiment has just been done to test if gravitational
radiation also moves at the speed of light, but no-one really expects
that it won't. "Once the beam of light exceeded c, it became invisible.
But that c300+ proved there are higher parts to light's spectrum" sounds
like something from a dodgy bit of 1920's science fiction
>and it was right in
>keeping with what Einstein said in SR. The light "jumped" about 300
>frames-of-reference.
>
>> Don't you see a contradiction here?
>
>In saying we can't outrun light but we can exceed c? c is _always_ relative to
>us.
Wow. Pax is right and everyone else is wrong. SR says that c is
_absolute_. It's a property of space.
CeeBee
<snipped very very very important discoveries about relativity>
You are absolutely totally right and Einstein is absolutely totally wrong
it's all crap what he invented and developed and you're the one holding the
answers as you know it all and it's very important you tell us why Einstein
is so wrong and you are the only lightbulb on this earth who understands why
Einstein is wrong and don't believe others who tell you that you're a
fuckwit who doesn't understand relativity and thus tells us all that if you
don't understand it it must be wrong because you're absolutely right.
Now sod off and don't crosspost your brilliancy to alt.astronomy and
sci.astro.
By now we know one time too often that you're brilliant.
--
CeeBee
----
http://geocities.com/ceebee_2/
Pax
> "Pax" <sfw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:alpolq$85v$5...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >> "Pax" <sfw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting side-note: GR cannot be correct if SR is correct because
> >> the derivation of the equivalence principle voids SR (contains a speed
> >> infinitely larger than lightspeed).
> >>
> >> How? For gravity and acceleration to be the same, the acceleration must
> >> be infinite, this crosses lightspeed, a violation of SR.
> >
> >Could you go into this further?
>
> Yes.
> [repost]
> From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
> Subject: Re: Einstein and general relativity [spot the error contest].
> References: <alfot3$q79$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>
> Organization: me myself and I
> Followup-To:
>
> In article <alfot3$q79$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>, josX wrote:
> >Spot the errors. They will be posted in 3 hours ;).
> >Now su sep 8 14:58:53 UTC 2002
> >
> >'relativity' Einstein, published 1916.
> >
> >[Part II. General Relativity.]
> >(...)
> >
>
>
> mistakes:
> - Man in chest can also hypothesise being accelerated, he doesn't have
> to chose a gravity field "just because he doesn't know".
And we men in chests, have, but that doesn't break the analogy.
> - Man in chest can know whether he is in acceleration or in gravity by
> measuring if the gravity falls off with distance: gravity would,
> acceleration would not.
Only a modern man in chest, the ancients had no way of knowing that.
> theory violations:
> - Relativity-violation: chest will pass lightspeed after some time as
> compared with it's earlier motion (suppose a nail dropped off when
> accelerating started). All the man has to do is measure his forcefield
> and compute how long it takes to reach lightspeed at such acceleration,
> then he can wait until that moment arrives and notice if the forcefield
> drops (we are getting nearer at c which is forbidden in SR) or not
> (gravity).
To the man in the chest the chest will always appear to be at rest in a
gravitational field, no matter its velocity. SR doesn't forbid travel at or
beyond c, it just forbids "catching" light.
> >>>Following is the passage that hit me:
> >>>
> >>>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 7] -- It is now easy to understand the
> >>>dilemma which has led to the special theory of relativity. Experience and
> >>>theory have gradually led to the conviction that light in empty space
always
> >>>travels with the same velocity c independent of its color and the state of
> >>>motion of the source of light (principle of the constancy of the velocity
of
> >>>light--in the following referred to as "L-principle").
> >>
> >> Relative to what does it go at c?
> >> ;)
> >
> >Whatever personal frame of reference in which it's being measured. :)
>
> Do you think this is rational ?
Yes and no. First, gut-reaction answer: No. Second, considered answer: Yes.
As far as everyday life goes, it's a counterintuitive that's been borne out by
countless testing in real world conditions, not just thought experiments and
numbers juggling.
> >>>It turns out, however, that this contradiction is only an apparent one
which is
> >>>based essentially on the prejudice about the absolute character of time or
> >>>rather of the simultaneity of distant events. We just saw that x, y, z,
and
> >t
> >>>of an event can, for the moment, be defined only with respect to a certain
> >>>chosen system of coordinates (inertial system).
> >>
> >> Simultaneity is not merely a prejudice, it is a real experience, an
artifact
> >> of having thing happen after another is having them happen simultaneously
> >> too.
> >
> >But notice that Einstein said "distant events".
>
> Einstein needs to pin himself down a bit better, but if he did that he
> would be exposed. He is a whaffler, so it is our job to pin him down.
He was pinning himself down... to distance. That wasn't a "waffle", it was a
prerequisite for many of the effects to become large enough to notice.
"Simultaneous" events happen at the same time. This can easily be seen in
occurrences that are close to each other, in more-or-less an "instantaneous"
frame of reference, but as the distance between the events increases, the
simultaneity becomes more and more questionable.
Simple example: a lightning strike. The clap of thunder from such a strike
appears to be simultaneous with the bolt when you're near it, however, the time
between the strike and the sound of the thunder as distance increases grows
longer. They tell kids to gauge how far away the thunderstorm is by counting
the seconds between when they saw a lightning flash and when they heard its
thunder, then converting the number of total seconds counted to miles.
This is a real world observation of the principle of Relativity... (accepted
pretty much universally by everyone, one would think). If simultaneity were
always the case then, no matter how far one was from the lightning strike, they
would hear the thunder from it immediately.
> >> How will "infinite" help you ?
> >
> >I really need to clarify that statement. What I meant was, "However fast you
> >go, there light is, and it's going c." That's the "infinite" quality I was
> >trying to address.
>
> ok
> I have designed this riddle:
> <>
> Can you imagine it?
> "a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
> "a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
> If not, what makes you think you can imagine it for electro-magnetic
> waves.
> <>
> What do you think of it.
I assume you're trying to equate each of the above to light.
The first example assumes mass, a singleness, a rigid uniformity of size, and an
ability for velocity that's not controlled by the players, because each player
is an unknown element for potential velocity change, as is everything with which
the ball comes in contact, including the air and gravity.
Your second example must be assuming a Galilean set-up. Each waterwave could
have the same speed as determined by the properties of its medium, which is
wavelength times frequency. In a Galilean world, the velocity of the boats
would determine frequency of interception, making the distance between the waves
seem longer or shorter, but not altering the actual speed of the individual
waves through the medium when determined by wavelength times frequency.
However, in the real world external forces at play locally upon the liquid
medium work to vary wave speed. This is also true for light that intercepts
objects, such as when in atmosphere.
And, by golly, this is what's got everyone stuck in c, the assumption of a
limitation imposed by an unknown medium, the properties of which have never
actually been determined. Science is still an aether-assumer in bold denial,
because the emperor said aether was unnecessary while at the same time still
saying light was a wave. Perhaps understanding the medium was unnecessary back
then, but time doesn't stand still.
If light is its own medium, then what are its limitations? If it has no medium
other than itself, then it has no limitations other than itself. So far we've
seen through experiment that light doesn't limit itself to c.
> >>>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 8-9] -- [...] From a formal point of
view
> >>>one may characterize the achievement of the special theory of relativity
thus:
> >>>it has shown generally the role which the universal constant c (velocity of
> >>>light) plays in the laws of nature and has demonstrated that there exists a
> >>>close connection between the form in which time on the one hand and the
spatial
> >>>coordinates on the other hand enter into the laws of nature.
> >>
> >> I don't think so.
> >> How does it "demonstrate" anything else then that you have to stick close
> >> to measurements if you want to keep making sense and do real science.
> >
> >You'll have to ask Einstein, since you're arguing with him now. :)
> >Unfortunately, I think he's out.
>
> Yes, that makes it harder to kill his "work", since if he were here we
> might be able to pin him to something. I know he would whaffle large
> alinea's full, but with patience we could catch him. In fact we could
> catch him on using postulates.
He left his legacy here, he didn't take it with him. :) His work is open to
anyone for evaluation and testing, and that's being done intensively on a daily
basis. The man isn't the product, he's merely the builder of it who, afterward,
remains someone able to give insights into its development and implications. If
his work has merit, it stands on its own.
> >>>It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an
infinite
> >>>scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative velocity! No
> >>>matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around and
still
> >>>be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according to
our
> >>>measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (even
though
> >>>it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
> >>>accomplish that type of velocity. :)
> >>>
> >>>Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
> >>
> >> And why is that "of course" ?
> >
> >Because I said so. That should be good enough, since it seems to be your
basis
> >for most of your statements.
>
> Untrue, my basis is reality and experience.
> Soccer behaves like F=m*a, so it is proven.
> a+b=b+a because beans behave like so (test it), not because of axioms.
>
> I proof what i say, or make it credible.
Okay. I need more proof.
> >> This type of fella is attracted to SR.
> >> Can't everybody see he doesn't belong in a physics group ?
> >>
> >> Hey Pax: can you imagine v'=v for soccerballs and waterwaves?
> >> No?
> >> "a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
> >> "a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
> >> If you can't, don't bother with light.
> >
> >"speed" yes. In fact, that's what I've been saying from my first post. That
> >you can't seem to realize that is a problem you have to work through, since I
> >can't seem to do it for you.
>
> Not into scifi sorry. Actually i am, but not as scientific "truth", i
> like scifi movies :).
So do I. :)
> >> c' = c + v is compatible with all data, you alternative to Einstein
> >> light theory (ELT).
> --
> jos
Pax
You're always welcome. :)
> --
> jos
Sorry, jos, I need more proof.
Pax
news:cQA3XTm3...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
Okay.
> >and it was right in
> >keeping with what Einstein said in SR. The light "jumped" about 300
> >frames-of-reference.
> >
> >> Don't you see a contradiction here?
> >
> >In saying we can't outrun light but we can exceed c? c is _always_ relative
to
> >us.
>
> Wow. Pax is right and everyone else is wrong. SR says that c is
> _absolute_. It's a property of space.
That's not what SR says, that's just what you think it says. What SR say is
that no matter what velocity you're going, light will always be going c. If you
can't understand the implications of that extremely important distinction, I can
accept that you have that inability.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> > Don't you see a contradiction here?
>
> In saying we can't outrun light but we can exceed c? c is _always_
relative to
> us.
Then lets just cut to the chase. Where is the energy going to come from to
get us close to c?
> > There are an infinite number of ways to split a number between any two
finite
> > values, and the spectrum is not really even two finite numbers. So
> > infinite is a good choice of words, I think.
>
> Using kps, the detectable spectrum is tied to a bottom of 1*299,792,458
(where
> nu=1) to a top of 299,792,458*1 (where lambda=1) in vacuo, that's the
c-limit,
> and it's always the same relative to _any_ frame-of-reference. What I'm
talking
> about is above or below those numbers as calculated from our beginning "at
rest"
> position... but not hopping 1c at a time, climbing in increments... as our
> frame-of-reference changes.
Your detection limits need work. What did you mean?
Wavelengths of hundreds of meters are used a lot, and detectable (easily) to
2,900,000,000 meters (what an antenna!). On the other "end" gamma and
cosmic radiation are detected and measured with wavlengths of less than
10^-9 meters.
> > > Einstein alludes to the actual as opposed to apparent speed of light
on
> > more
> > > than one occasion, but a lot of his stuff I find really tough to wade
> > through.
> >
> > You are in good company.
>
> It would help a lot if I had a better grasp of physics terminology. I'm
working
> on it. In the meantime, the ideas behind the theories are pretty
> straightforward, until they degenerate into all math, which I'm incapable
of
> following very easily if at all, when the math gets too complex.
I have found that working through the examples helps. If I don't work them,
I lose the meaning right away.
David A. Smith
Pax
> "Pax" <sfw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:alq4ro$5o$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >>"Pax" <sfw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>Jos, you're peddling your own theory, so peddle away, I'm all ears.
> >>
> >>c' = c + v
> >>Actually it is Galileo's work, give him the credit.
> >>
> >>The work has to do with coordinate systems, and calculating the speed
> >>of an object from one coordinate system to another that is moving wrt
> >>it.
> >>
> >>It works beautifully, even without paradoxes, can u believe it?
> >
> >In other words: "Down with Einstein, back to Newton!"? Or was Newton
primarily
> >wrong, too?
>
> Newton had proof, Einstein didn't, figure it out.
>
> > I must ask you... HOW can you be so against a theory that has (thus
> > far) stood up to every test thrown at it, to the point of toppling
> > many of the foundations of Newtonian physics?
>
> That is what you believe, but Newton wasn't toppled.
> Have you heard anything how it went in the beginning of this century ?
>
> Hysterical press, almost the german physics community ripped apart over
> this, then hitler came and war etc.
>
> This isn't a pretty picture Pax.
I know something of it. :)
> > Isn't it possible that
> > in some areas under question those interpreting the theory could
> > be in error? Why are you so certain all of Relativity is wrong,
> > against all evidence to the contrary?
>
> There is no evidence for it, only circumstantial """"evidence"""".
How can you say that?! There are forests full of trees worth of experimental
findings that back up Relativity, that's FAR from "circumstantial".
> I know it is wrong because it is paradoxical and postulate based.
Paradox:
Imagine infinite space, space with no beginning or end in any and every
direction. Now, place within it infinite mass, mass with no beginning or end as
to quantity of it in any and every direction. Now allow that space is more
abundant that mass. No... wait... How could infinite space still exist in the
presence of infinite mass? How could infinite mass exist in the presence of
infinite space? Is the infinity of space somehow "bigger" than the infinity of
mass? No, that's impossible, isn't it? Infinity is infinity. I have just
described the Universe as Newtonian physics and Einstein both envisioned it.
The Big Bang came along and suddenly... VIOLA!... finity could be applied. So
what happened to the rest of infinity? Why, it just isn't. Okay. That carries
with it its own _really_ bothersome paradoxes.
The fact is, from a purely scientific perspective, everything's impossible
because, from our understanding, physics can find no logical, progressively
provable way to explain how it all came to be. "We're here, so it's possible."
The very beginnings of everything science is based upon start from that
premise... which is a paradox.
> Hypotheses containing paradoxes are falsified. It is a scam pax, and
> you are falling for it.
It's the prevailing, workable "scam". Until someone can come along with
rigorous proof to the contrary and knock Relativity into a cocked hat, it's
going to stay right where it is as the Top Dog for figuring out how the Universe
works.
Paul F. Dietz
> > There is no evidence for it, only circumstantial """"evidence"""".
>
> How can you say that?! There are forests full of trees worth of experimental
> findings that back up Relativity, that's FAR from "circumstantial".
He can say it because he's a completely hopeless idiot.
Paul
Pax
news:Dd3g9.505$a5.9...@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <Ht%f9.2392$Os3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Pax"
<sfw...@earthlink.net> writes:
> ><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> >news:DOXf9.495$a5.9...@news.uchicago.edu...
> >> In article <6xXf9.972$Le2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Pax"
> ><sfw...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >> >"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:slrnao0a3...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> In a sense, that's about the size of it. There's an important
difference
> >> >> though. If the speed were really infinite rather than a finite number,
> >> >> then the relation x = ct would leave the relation between distance and
> >> >> time totally undefined. v/c would be meaningless. Being finite, however,
> >> >> `c', is a scale factor.
> >> >
> >> >Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may not
be.
> >> >
> >> What does one have to do with the other?
> >
> >Damnit, Mati, inspite of myself I like you and I read you... and I really
don't
> >want to fight with you.
> >
> >c is not the universal speed limit.
> >
> The point of relativity is that yes, it is.
No it's not, how can it be when c is constant while everything else is relative?
Change it around: c is relative, everything else is constant. What would that
be? Newtonian physics?
> But that's not relevant to the issue above.
Actually, it's extremely relevant, it's at the crux of the issue.
> I was commenting on your statement, i.e.
>
> "c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may not be."
>
> And I'll repeat the question, what does one have to do with the other?
Try this:
c is a round pole with prismatic, visible stripes of progressively diminishing
width running straight along it from end-to-end all around its circumference...
(I understand that all light isn't visible, this is just an exercise). It's in
the middle of absolute, empty space. All along the length of the pole are small
objects orbiting the pole at different velocities.
The pole is completely stationary, it's a fixed object that can be seen at all
times by all the objects orbiting it, but, from the reference frame of the
objects, they are stationary and the pole is spinning. From calculations, the
inhabitants of all of the orbiting objects know there are 299,792,458 stripes on
the pole (and they realize they are orbiting the pole, but that's not
important).
Are the stripes going by at the same rate for all the objects? From the
point-of-view of the slower circling objects how fast are the stripes on the
pole going by? From the point-of-view of the faster objects how fast are the
stripes on the pole going by? If time is slower at higher velocities, that
would have the effect of making the stripes appear to go by even faster. If
distance is shorter at higher velocities, that would have the effect of making
the stripes appear to go by even faster, and also further narrow the width of
each of the stripes. But, no matter the speed, there will never be any more
than 299,792,458 stripes on the pole.
To me, this is the mix-mash that it appears physics is in concerning light as
tied to c. What it overlooks is that, even though relative velocities may
differ, the same entire spectrum of light should always be detectable. As you
should see from the above thought experiment, each orbiting object would see the
stripes on the pole at a rate equal to its velocity. With light of a finite
spectrum, this would have the effect of allowing only the parts of the spectrum
corresponding to the object's velocity to be viewed... in other words, as
velocity increased, the available spectrum would narrow into the blue.
Is that what SR says? Not if relativity is true. If Relativity is correct, and
c is constant, then the spectrum available at any velocity will not be locked to
that velocity, but will be a full spectrum. The fact light itself can exceed c
adds credence to this interpretation. If c is the universal speed limit, then
that should apply universally, even to light itself, massless or not, a wall is
a wall. Light is physical, it utilizes space, boson or not. If this were not
the case, then it could not be blocked. If light can go somewhere past c, it's
traveling through something physical, in somewhere physical, that means there's
somewhere physical past c to go, somewhere that's still part of our Universe,
because light travels there.
Perhaps you might enjoy reading Ralph Sansbury's paper on his work:
Gravity,Magnetism&Light
Charge Polarization Inside Electrons & Atomic Nuclei
http://users.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Index.htm
Personally, I found Wall Thornhill's synopsis a good start to give me an idea of
what Sansbury was talking about (but I don't have the necessary physics
background):
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/WALLSAN.TXT
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Not everything, just many things.
>Change it around: c is relative, everything else is constant.
Nope, that's not what relativity says. YUour private "theory" may say
so but I've no interest in it.
...
>
>> But that's not relevant to the issue above.
>
>Actually, it's extremely relevant, it's at the crux of the issue.
>
>> I was commenting on your statement, i.e.
>>
>> "c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may not be."
>>
>> And I'll repeat the question, what does one have to do with the other?
>
>Try this:
>c is a round pole with prismatic,
c is the liniting speed of information transfer. Not a shape, not an
object, just limiting speed. That's all.
... snip gibberish ...
Pax
news:O5eg9.534$a5.9...@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <i9dg9.3719$Os3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Pax"
<sfw...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >Change it around: c is relative, everything else is constant.
>
> Nope, that's not what relativity says. YUour private "theory" may say
> so but I've no interest in it.
Your major problem is you don't listen. I was using that as the OPPOSITE, to
accent my point. I even asked : "What would that be? Newtonian physics?"
Seems you conveniently cut that part out, however, which proves your mindset.
You must be unaware of that practice as a form of negative example. Not
surprised.
My major problem is I keep crediting you with more comprehensive ability than
you apparently have. I never said that was my theory... I never claimed I _had_
a theory. SR isn't mine.
But, by all means, have it your way. I did think you might have an inkling of
an open mind, at least to examine SR, from that position of yours you tout so
readily as being "superior", and see if it did hold with what I was saying.
From who you consistently are, you are no teacher. If some school is foolish
enough to pay you to teach, and you do happen to have students, I pity those
poor children. You're one of the greatest advertisements for doing away with
tenure I've ever come across.
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
So long, Torquemada - Pax
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>> In article <i9dg9.3719$Os3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Pax"
><sfw...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> >Change it around: c is relative, everything else is constant.
>>
>> Nope, that's not what relativity says. YUour private "theory" may say
>> so but I've no interest in it.
>
It doesn't fit Newtonian physics either. This has been explained to
you, at length.
>Seems you conveniently cut that part out, however, which proves your mindset.
>You must be unaware of that practice as a form of negative example. Not
>surprised.
If you want to use a negative example, get it right.
Pax
>
> Dear "Pax":
>
> > > Don't you see a contradiction here?
> >
> > In saying we can't outrun light but we can exceed c? c is _always_
> relative to
> > us.
>
> Then lets just cut to the chase. Where is the energy going to come from to
> get us close to c?
You got me. It seems that right now we're using the greatest majority of it
just punching our way straight up through the atmosphere for no good reason. If
we're ever to accomplish real space flight, we must first change to space planes
that take off like normal airplanes, then find a more "creative" form of
acceleration once we achieve orbit.
If, from orbit, we could use a magnetic-repulsive assist, that might save a huge
chunk in both the money and the weight departments. The potential push of the
acceleration array would only be limited by its length and the type of Gs the
occupants of the ship could withstand.
> > > There are an infinite number of ways to split a number between any two
> finite
> > > values, and the spectrum is not really even two finite numbers. So
> > > infinite is a good choice of words, I think.
> >
> > Using kps, the detectable spectrum is tied to a bottom of 1*299,792,458
> (where
> > nu=1) to a top of 299,792,458*1 (where lambda=1) in vacuo, that's the
> c-limit,
> > and it's always the same relative to _any_ frame-of-reference. What I'm
> talking
> > about is above or below those numbers as calculated from our beginning "at
> rest"
> > position... but not hopping 1c at a time, climbing in increments... as our
> > frame-of-reference changes.
>
> Your detection limits need work.
I have no doubt. :)
> What did you mean?
That the climb up or down the spectrum is gradual... pick up a new "top", lose a
"bottom", and vice versa... which would result in the detectable spectrum tied
to c still "appearing" the same. What I'd like to know is if there's any way to
test this, or if it has been tested.
Looking for something along those lines, I found this, which isn't what I was
looking for, but it's still interesting:
Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html
Is this new to you?
> Wavelengths of hundreds of meters are used a lot, and detectable (easily) to
> 2,900,000,000 meters (what an antenna!). On the other "end" gamma and
> cosmic radiation are detected and measured with wavlengths of less than
> 10^-9 meters.
But, in all instances, wavelength times frequency equals 299,792,458m/ps.
> > > > Einstein alludes to the actual as opposed to apparent speed of light
> on
> > > more
> > > > than one occasion, but a lot of his stuff I find really tough to wade
> > > through.
> > >
> > > You are in good company.
> >
> > It would help a lot if I had a better grasp of physics terminology. I'm
> working
> > on it. In the meantime, the ideas behind the theories are pretty
> > straightforward, until they degenerate into all math, which I'm incapable
> of
> > following very easily if at all, when the math gets too complex.
>
> I have found that working through the examples helps. If I don't work them,
> I lose the meaning right away.
Know what you mean, that's one of the things that eats my time. My main problem
is keeping all the definitions straight.
> David A. Smith
Be well - Pax
Pax
> Pax said some stuff about
>
> >Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may
> >not be.
>
> How exactly does one follow from the other?
Perhaps, if I explain it this way:
If light is its own medium, then it has no limitations.
> >> >It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an
> >> >infinite scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative
> >> >velocity!
> >>
> >> Well, not quite.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Because `c' is always `c'.
I agree.
> >> At the time, the known forces were gravity and E&M,
> >> so it wouldn't be all that much of a stretch to conclude that there was
> >> something fundamental about geometry and how fast forces propagate.
> >
> >There's not... at least concerning how fast forces propagate?
>
> In all likelyhood there is. It's just not very obvious why the forces
> are what they are and until gravity is worked into the big picture,
> no one knows for certain if anything is forced to be like it is.
Okay... THAT was completely cryptic. :)
> >> The
> >> weak and strong forces make the connection of electromagnetism to any
> >> geometric quantities considerably less obvious, especially since the
> >> only theories that treat E&M as geometry, use dimensions that aren't
> >> one of the four in special relativity.
> >
> >Didn't know that.
>
> First made famous by kaluza and klein. Now it's in the
> string theory dept.
WOW! The math is over my head, but the rest...!
KALUZA-KLEIN THEORY IN PERSPECTIVE
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9410/9410046.pdf
josX
lol
CeeBee, i don't, it's others that enter into sci.physics with their SR
blabla crossposts.
--
jos
josX
But it breats Einsteins logical argument, point was to show Einsteins
stupidity: he should have said "man in chest doesn't know", but that
just wouldn't sound "fascinating" enough, so he does violance to the
situations and claims "man must think gravity", grabs more attention.
>> - Man in chest can know whether he is in acceleration or in gravity by
>> measuring if the gravity falls off with distance: gravity would,
>> acceleration would not.
>
>Only a modern man in chest, the ancients had no way of knowing that.
The ancients also thought the Earth was flat.
Are you an Einstein apologist ?
Don't do it, you'll crash & burn with him.
>> theory violations:
>> - Relativity-violation: chest will pass lightspeed after some time as
>> compared with it's earlier motion (suppose a nail dropped off when
>> accelerating started). All the man has to do is measure his forcefield
>> and compute how long it takes to reach lightspeed at such acceleration,
>> then he can wait until that moment arrives and notice if the forcefield
>> drops (we are getting nearer at c which is forbidden in SR) or not
>> (gravity).
>
>To the man in the chest the chest will always appear to be at rest in a
>gravitational field, no matter its velocity. SR doesn't forbid travel at or
>beyond c, it just forbids "catching" light.
Well, then our interest end here i guess, since you have invented you
own version of SR.
SR forbids explicitly relative velocities at c or above.
Why?
mutual length contraction reaches zero, and mutual timedilation too.
This means that the object at c is in a universe which has contractod
to zero diameter. Picture it.
Now, what would happen >c ?
unimaginable.
Thats why c is the speedlimit in SR.
>>>>>Following is the passage that hit me:
>>>>>
>>>>>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 7] -- It is now easy to understand the
>>>>>dilemma which has led to the special theory of relativity. Experience and
>>>>>theory have gradually led to the conviction that light in empty space always
>>>>>travels with the same velocity c independent of its color and the state of
>>>>>motion of the source of light (principle of the constancy of the velocity of
>>>>>light--in the following referred to as "L-principle").
>>>>
>>>> Relative to what does it go at c?
>>>> ;)
>>>
>>>Whatever personal frame of reference in which it's being measured. :)
>>
>> Do you think this is rational ?
>
>Yes and no. First, gut-reaction answer: No. Second, considered answer: Yes.
>As far as everyday life goes, it's a counterintuitive that's been borne out by
>countless testing in real world conditions, not just thought experiments and
>numbers juggling.
You have no idea what you are saying: the claimed behaviour of light
(V'=V) has never been observed. Are another that mistakes source
independancy for this ?
You have your "i believe this" meter too high.
>>>>>It turns out, however, that this contradiction is only an apparent one which is
>>>>>based essentially on the prejudice about the absolute character of time or
>>>>>rather of the simultaneity of distant events. We just saw that x, y, z, and t
>>>>>of an event can, for the moment, be defined only with respect to a certain
>>>>>chosen system of coordinates (inertial system).
>>>>
>>>> Simultaneity is not merely a prejudice, it is a real experience, an artifact
>>>> of having thing happen after another is having them happen simultaneously
>>>> too.
>>>
>>>But notice that Einstein said "distant events".
>>
>> Einstein needs to pin himself down a bit better, but if he did that he
>> would be exposed. He is a whaffler, so it is our job to pin him down.
>
>He was pinning himself down... to distance. That wasn't a "waffle", it was a
>prerequisite for many of the effects to become large enough to notice.
>
>"Simultaneous" events happen at the same time. This can easily be seen in
>occurrences that are close to each other, in more-or-less an "instantaneous"
>frame of reference, but as the distance between the events increases, the
>simultaneity becomes more and more questionable.
This is just a function of error bars.
>Simple example: a lightning strike. The clap of thunder from such a strike
>appears to be simultaneous with the bolt when you're near it, however, the time
>between the strike and the sound of the thunder as distance increases grows
>longer. They tell kids to gauge how far away the thunderstorm is by counting
>the seconds between when they saw a lightning flash and when they heard its
>thunder, then converting the number of total seconds counted to miles.
Yes, classical mechanics, has nothing to dooooooooooooooo with SR.
;)
boy, nobody really gets it do they.
>This is a real world observation of the principle of Relativity...
Noooooooooooooooooooooo it's not.
Dummy.
> (accepted
>pretty much universally by everyone, one would think). If simultaneity were
>always the case then, no matter how far one was from the lightning strike, they
>would hear the thunder from it immediately.
Dense.
Well, figure it out.
These are signal travel-times. Have nothing to do with the actual events.
Calculate your signals back and all observers agree in classical mechanics
where and when the events were. In SR? they are naive and don't realize
they are hearing signals and mistake the signals for the real thing, so
they think "ohoh, i saw two flashes, they "the flashes must have come
after one another".
Idiots.
Forgetting to calculate in the distance and relative speed etc.
>>>> How will "infinite" help you ?
>>>
>>>I really need to clarify that statement. What I meant was, "However fast you
>>>go, there light is, and it's going c." That's the "infinite" quality I was
>>>trying to address.
>>
>> ok
>> I have designed this riddle:
>> <>
>> Can you imagine it?
>> "a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
>> "a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
>> If not, what makes you think you can imagine it for electro-magnetic
>> waves.
>> <>
>> What do you think of it.
>
>I assume you're trying to equate each of the above to light.
>
>The first example assumes mass, a singleness, a rigid uniformity of size, and an
>ability for velocity that's not controlled by the players, because each player
>is an unknown element for potential velocity change, as is everything with which
>the ball comes in contact, including the air and gravity.
Do you not notice this is the same with light?
Has nothing to do with wave or not wave.
You don't get what this is about: coordinate system transformation laws.
If it's a ball with a given speed to a field, a wave with a given
speed to an aircraft, or a lightbeam with a given speed to the moon,
they all transform they /relative/ speed according to V'=V+v0.
>Your second example must be assuming a Galilean set-up. Each waterwave could
>have the same speed as determined by the properties of its medium, which is
>wavelength times frequency. In a Galilean world, the velocity of the boats
>would determine frequency of interception, making the distance between the waves
>seem longer or shorter, but not altering the actual speed of the individual
>waves through the medium when determined by wavelength times frequency.
>However, in the real world external forces at play locally upon the liquid
>medium work to vary wave speed. This is also true for light that intercepts
>objects, such as when in atmosphere.
So, you have absolutely no fucking clue what this is about.
No suprise.
>And, by golly, this is what's got everyone stuck in c, the assumption of a
>limitation imposed by an unknown medium, the properties of which have never
>actually been determined. Science is still an aether-assumer in bold denial,
>because the emperor said aether was unnecessary while at the same time still
>saying light was a wave. Perhaps understanding the medium was unnecessary back
>then, but time doesn't stand still.
>
>If light is its own medium, then what are its limitations? If it has no medium
>other than itself, then it has no limitations other than itself. So far we've
>seen through experiment that light doesn't limit itself to c.
Hello? Earth to Pax!
Relative speed transformations laws.
Has not a fucking thing to do with light, other then that Einstein chose
ligth for his insanity, he could have chosen waterwavens or soccer balls
instead. If you don't see why, you don't get it.
>>>>>[Essay; The Theory of Relativity; Pp 8-9] -- [...] From a formal point of view
>>>>>one may characterize the achievement of the special theory of relativity thus:
>>>>>it has shown generally the role which the universal constant c (velocity of
>>>>>light) plays in the laws of nature and has demonstrated that there exists a
>>>>>close connection between the form in which time on the one hand and the spatial
>>>>>coordinates on the other hand enter into the laws of nature.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>> How does it "demonstrate" anything else then that you have to stick close
>>>> to measurements if you want to keep making sense and do real science.
>>>
>>>You'll have to ask Einstein, since you're arguing with him now. :)
>>>Unfortunately, I think he's out.
>>
>> Yes, that makes it harder to kill his "work", since if he were here we
>> might be able to pin him to something. I know he would whaffle large
>> alinea's full, but with patience we could catch him. In fact we could
>> catch him on using postulates.
>
>He left his legacy here, he didn't take it with him. :) His work is open to
>anyone for evaluation and testing, and that's being done intensively on a daily
>basis. The man isn't the product, he's merely the builder of it who, afterward,
>remains someone able to give insights into its development and implications. If
>his work has merit, it stands on its own.
Yes it stand on his own like a work of art. But it isn't science. Science
is rooted in reality, Einstein wasn't. It is a clue for you that he call
his theory his /creation/ instead of his /discovery/.
>>>>>It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a "fixed slider" on an infinite
>>>>>scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our relative velocity! No
>>>>>matter how fast we go, the good old light we know will still be around and still
>>>>>be arrayed in all its myriad colors as it travels along at c according to our
>>>>>measurements of it, while we, in the meantime, could be doing 10c (even though
>>>>>it wouldn't seem that way to us). Now, we just have to find some way to
>>>>>accomplish that type of velocity. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Einstein said we can't outrun light, and he was right, of course.
>>>>
>>>> And why is that "of course" ?
>>>
>>>Because I said so. That should be good enough, since it seems to be your basis
>>>for most of your statements.
>>
>> Untrue, my basis is reality and experience.
>> Soccer behaves like F=m*a, so it is proven.
>> a+b=b+a because beans behave like so (test it), not because of axioms.
>>
>> I proof what i say, or make it credible.
>
>Okay. I need more proof.
Of what exactly.
The claim of Einstein is that:
given the speed of a lightwave relative to, say, the moon is V,
then it is *also* V to a rocket flying to the moon, even though the
proper relative speed transformation law is V'=V+v0.
He has no proof of his assertion. It is unimaginable and paradoxical.
So get rid of it.
>>>> This type of fella is attracted to SR.
>>>> Can't everybody see he doesn't belong in a physics group ?
>>>>
>>>> Hey Pax: can you imagine v'=v for soccerballs and waterwaves?
>>>> No?
>>>> "a soccer ball which has the same speed relative to all players"
>>>> "a waterwaven which has the same speed relative to all boats"
>>>> If you can't, don't bother with light.
>>>
>>>"speed" yes. In fact, that's what I've been saying from my first post. That
>>>you can't seem to realize that is a problem you have to work through, since I
>>>can't seem to do it for you.
>>
>> Not into scifi sorry. Actually i am, but not as scientific "truth", i
>> like scifi movies :).
>
>So do I. :)
So we got something in common, perhaps we can communicate.
This is science, not scifi, proof needed, "fascination" is not enough.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alqaib$afd$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> "Pax" <sfw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Okay, jos, I've printed it out and will read it tomorrow. :) Off to bed for
>>>now.
>>
>> Ok excellent, there is hope :-).
>>
>>>Be well - Pax
>>
>> thanks
>
>You're always welcome. :)
>
So, given an hypotheses for which there is no proof (a=g), which on the
face of it is outrageous and redicilous, and given that it's derivation
contains a direct violation of it's sister-theory of which it purports
to be a generalization, you need "more proof" that it is garbage.
hmmm...
;)
Here, let's get back to SR, and take us a look at some random paradox
in it:
Twin paradox: 0->.99999c in 1.8 sec
Tripduration: 9*10^9 years
You may define a preferred frame-of-reference during the acceleration
if you prefer, but not afterwards, because to make frames remember
their acceleration and to use that to determine a preferred frame,
is to define the "frame that never accelerated in the history of the
universe" as the de-facto preferred frame (absolute reference frame),
and you would have defined relativity as absolutism.
If this isn't solved (and it isn't), do you know what happens with SR
*and* GR ?
--
jos
josX
Then you know many people violantly oposed it.
Given the facts it should be no suprise.
>>> Isn't it possible that
>>> in some areas under question those interpreting the theory could
>>> be in error? Why are you so certain all of Relativity is wrong,
>>> against all evidence to the contrary?
>>
>> There is no evidence for it, only circumstantial """"evidence"""".
>
>How can you say that?! There are forests full of trees worth of experimental
>findings that back up Relativity, that's FAR from "circumstantial".
All circumstantial Pax, all circumstantial, and there /certainly/ aren't
mountains of that, you are being irrational.
The particle-accelerator evidence also crumbles: you can't get particles
up to speed over lightspeed because you are puhsing them forward with
the very phenomena that moves with lightspeed.
Equator pendulum clock was a cunning guess, Mercury's orbit has nothing
to do with anything and is undoubtedly hacked into the theory to add to
it's credibility.
You are looking at a scam Pax, not at a brilliant theory.
>> I know it is wrong because it is paradoxical and postulate based.
>
>Paradox:
>Imagine infinite space, space with no beginning or end in any and every
>direction. Now, place within it infinite mass, mass with no beginning or end as
>to quantity of it in any and every direction. Now allow that space is more
>abundant that mass. No... wait... How could infinite space still exist in the
>presence of infinite mass? How could infinite mass exist in the presence of
>infinite space? Is the infinity of space somehow "bigger" than the infinity of
>mass? No, that's impossible, isn't it? Infinity is infinity. I have just
>described the Universe as Newtonian physics and Einstein both envisioned it.
Still serious?
Stay on the topic please, otherwise we will have no results.
>The Big Bang came along and suddenly... VIOLA!... finity could be applied. So
>what happened to the rest of infinity? Why, it just isn't. Okay. That carries
>with it its own _really_ bothersome paradoxes.
What is the revelance of this wrt transformation laws for relative speeds
Pax.
>The fact is, from a purely scientific perspective, everything's impossible
>because, from our understanding, physics can find no logical, progressively
>provable way to explain how it all came to be. "We're here, so it's possible."
>The very beginnings of everything science is based upon start from that
>premise... which is a paradox.
Science is based up experience with reality, you are talking about philosophy,
or religion. F=m*a has no basis in a paradoxical beginings of the universe,
it has a beginning in playing soccer.
>> Hypotheses containing paradoxes are falsified. It is a scam pax, and
>> you are falling for it.
>
>It's the prevailing, workable "scam".
Absolutely not. It is a scam that is costing a lot of money and fucking
with the brains of kids like you.
> Until someone can come along with
>rigorous proof to the contrary and knock Relativity into a cocked hat, it's
>going to stay right where it is as the Top Dog for figuring out how the Universe
>works.
Well, considder it done.
Do you see your own anti-science attitude?
"Top Dog" for a theory and "use this for figuring out the universe".
Empty talk Pax, uttelry empty.
Where is your proof of SR. And that means exactly (although you probably
don't have any idea, but) 1way-1beam-*multiobserver*-lightspeed-constancy-
-in-a-vacuum.
SR is not based up evidence, Einstein even explicitly says so.
Do you have no problem with this?
--
jos
josX
Where is your proof for SR Paul.
And stay on the topic: the breakdown of the Galileian coordinate system
transformation laws.
--
jos
Pax
Yes, I know that some did. That was only natural. The war sort of "put it
under" for the duration. Then Szilard, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and the rest did
their thing, and suddenly Relativity was looked at in a whole new light.
Szilard was a "nobody" (not because of what he contributed) who happened to have
a friend named Einstein. Einstein had no idea E=Mc2 would lead to the bomb,
he'd never considered the possibility of a nuclear chain-reaction, and said so.
Szilard did, however, and patented the idea in 1934.
http://www.dannen.com/szilard.html
> Given the facts it should be no surprise.
The facts that it contradicted Newtonian physic's ideas of absolute space and
absolute time, not to mention asserting c was a constant? No, such big
contradictions were bound to be violently opposed.
> >>> Isn't it possible that
> >>> in some areas under question those interpreting the theory could
> >>> be in error? Why are you so certain all of Relativity is wrong,
> >>> against all evidence to the contrary?
> >>
> >> There is no evidence for it, only circumstantial """"evidence"""".
> >
> >How can you say that?! There are forests full of trees worth of experimental
> >findings that back up Relativity, that's FAR from "circumstantial".
>
> All circumstantial Pax, all circumstantial, and there /certainly/ aren't
> mountains of that, you are being irrational.
Am I? :) Okay. Who knows? It might subscribe to Murphy's Law of Research:
"Enough research will tend to support your theory." :)
> The particle-accelerator evidence also crumbles: you can't get particles
> up to speed over lightspeed because you are pushing them forward with
> the very phenomena that moves with lightspeed.
Magnetism? The magnets are in series.
> Equator pendulum clock was a cunning guess, Mercury's orbit has nothing
> to do with anything and is undoubtedly hacked into the theory to add to
> it's credibility.
Such statements as that weaken your credibility.
> You are looking at a scam Pax, not at a brilliant theory.
You keep saying that, but it seems brilliant to me... and I'm not alone in my
delusion. The main problem I see is that it's resulted in a growing army of
math-heads who can't think outside their numbers. Dead/live cats, for instance.
Numbers should be tools to explain the real world, not build it. They should
never be an end in themselves, that almost insures a form of stasis. But who am
I? Just a nobody with an opinion. :)
> >> I know it is wrong because it is paradoxical and postulate based.
> >
> >Paradox:
> >Imagine infinite space, space with no beginning or end in any and every
> >direction. Now, place within it infinite mass, mass with no beginning or end
as
> >to quantity of it in any and every direction. Now allow that space is more
> >abundant that mass. No... wait... How could infinite space still exist in the
> >presence of infinite mass? How could infinite mass exist in the presence of
> >infinite space? Is the infinity of space somehow "bigger" than the infinity
of
> >mass? No, that's impossible, isn't it? Infinity is infinity. I have just
> >described the Universe as Newtonian physics and Einstein both envisioned it.
>
> Still serious?
>
> Stay on the topic please, otherwise we will have no results.
I was on topic. The fact is, there's no way to get away from paradoxes. They
just are, that's part of the nature of life.
> >The Big Bang came along and suddenly... VIOLA!... finity could be applied.
So
> >what happened to the rest of infinity? Why, it just isn't. Okay. That
carries
> >with it its own _really_ bothersome paradoxes.
>
> What is the relevance of this wrt transformation laws for relative speeds
> Pax.
More on paradoxes. :)
> >The fact is, from a purely scientific perspective, everything's impossible
> >because, from our understanding, physics can find no logical, progressively
> >provable way to explain how it all came to be. "We're here, so it's
possible."
> >The very beginnings of everything science is based upon start from that
> >premise... which is a paradox.
>
> Science is based up experience with reality, you are talking about philosophy,
> or religion. F=m*a has no basis in a paradoxical beginnings of the universe,
> it has a beginning in playing soccer.
Nope, talking reality. :) If I'm not, then explain how it all came to be in the
first place.
> >> Hypotheses containing paradoxes are falsified. It is a scam pax, and
> >> you are falling for it.
> >
> >It's the prevailing, workable "scam".
>
> Absolutely not. It is a scam that is costing a lot of money and fucking
> with the brains of kids like you.
"kids like you"... :) :) :)... THANKS!! Hoping for a "catch 'em young" sort of
thing? Sorry, but I happen to be one of the original Trekkies. I cut my teeth
on Wells, Huxley, and Asimov. Problem was, in the Deep-Texacan backwoods where
I grew up, that sort of dreaming wasn't allowed for a girl, except as
recreation. Knee-deep in rednecks to this very day.
> > Until someone can come along with
> >rigorous proof to the contrary and knock Relativity into a cocked hat, it's
> >going to stay right where it is as the Top Dog for figuring out how the
Universe
> >works.
>
> Well, consider it done.
Not quite yet.
> Do you see your own anti-science attitude?
> "Top Dog" for a theory and "use this for figuring out the universe".
> Empty talk Pax, utterly empty.
Yes, because I've seen a lot of stuff come and go. Know-it-alls who wind up
knowing nothing; people constantly choosing the worst because it has the best
hypester, while the truly genius goes in the dumpster. As Murphy said:
"Everything rises to its own level of incompetence, and feces floats."
> Where is your proof of SR. And that means exactly (although you probably
> don't have any idea, but) 1way-1beam-*multiobserver*-lightspeed-constancy-
> -in-a-vacuum.
Think they did something like that using satellites... but the fact is, I'm
starting not to care.
What difference does it make, anyway? If the leaders of this idiotfest we call
humanity don't want it, it won't be. Once upon a time I couldn't understand why
IQ made any difference. Now I see that it's because you can SEE. People aren't
being purposefully obtuse and argumentative, they really don't see what you see.
That's nobody's fault. That's just the way it is.
> SR is not based up evidence, Einstein even explicitly says so.
>
> Do you have no problem with this?
I don't have a problem with your believing it. :) You can trash it all and,
through intuition alone, revolutionize the world. You don't have to have the
premise right, you just have to have a miraculous gizmo, etc. that works.
> --
> jos
Be well, kid :) I'm going back to being a tree. - Pax
PS - You might enjoy this site: http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm
josX
Actually many did. I read it almost ripped the german physics community
into two warring factions, were it not for the social skills of a few
of their leaders.
This is not "some did", this is "very many did". Please do note the difference.
> That was only natural. The war sort of "put it
>under" for the duration. Then Szilard, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and the rest did
>their thing, and suddenly Relativity was looked at in a whole new light.
Ofcourse, smart people take up on a scam that is already running.
>Szilard was a "nobody" (not because of what he contributed) who happened to have
>a friend named Einstein. Einstein had no idea E=Mc2 would lead to the bomb,
I contest that it did.
>he'd never considered the possibility of a nuclear chain-reaction, and said so.
>Szilard did, however, and patented the idea in 1934.
>http://www.dannen.com/szilard.html
There you go: "nuclear chain-reaction" has little to nothing to do with
erroneous philosophies or light or the absurd equivalence of acceleration
and gravity (which is a violation of special relativity).
Relativity is an insult to even the mind of a child, no wonder it is
violantly oposed to this very day.
>> Given the facts it should be no surprise.
>
>The facts that it contradicted Newtonian physic's ideas of absolute space and
>absolute time, not to mention asserting c was a constant? No, such big
>contradictions were bound to be violently opposed.
mutual time dilation
(start with this one)
>>>>> Isn't it possible that
>>>>> in some areas under question those interpreting the theory could
>>>>> be in error? Why are you so certain all of Relativity is wrong,
>>>>> against all evidence to the contrary?
>>>>
>>>> There is no evidence for it, only circumstantial """"evidence"""".
>>>
>>>How can you say that?! There are forests full of trees worth of experimental
>>>findings that back up Relativity, that's FAR from "circumstantial".
>>
>> All circumstantial Pax, all circumstantial, and there /certainly/ aren't
>> mountains of that, you are being irrational.
>
>Am I? :) Okay. Who knows? It might subscribe to Murphy's Law of Research:
>"Enough research will tend to support your theory." :)
Case in point for relativity. A lot of talk, but no substance.
>> The particle-accelerator evidence also crumbles: you can't get particles
>> up to speed over lightspeed because you are pushing them forward with
>> the very phenomena that moves with lightspeed.
>
>Magnetism? The magnets are in series.
This helps you how.
You don't get it.
It matters absolutely nothing if you can somehow "get away" with blaming
particle-accelerator speed limits on SR. The facts speak for themselves.
If you try to build a machine that is suposed to accelerate something
beyond the speed of sound by using sound, but you get results of only
the speed of sound, don't you think your device just fails there or do
you think God intervened and established a magical speedlimit on the
universe, exactly as a prophet had foretold earlier.
>> Equator pendulum clock was a cunning guess, Mercury's orbit has nothing
>> to do with anything and is undoubtedly hacked into the theory to add to
>> it's credibility.
>
>Such statements as that weaken your credibility.
I care more for the truth.
>> You are looking at a scam Pax, not at a brilliant theory.
>
>You keep saying that, but it seems brilliant to me... and I'm not alone in my
>delusion. The main problem I see is that it's resulted in a growing army of
>math-heads who can't think outside their numbers. Dead/live cats, for instance.
>Numbers should be tools to explain the real world, not build it. They should
>never be an end in themselves, that almost insures a form of stasis. But who am
>I? Just a nobody with an opinion. :)
In fact, you support it wholeheartedly by your unwillingness to do science.
>>>> I know it is wrong because it is paradoxical and postulate based.
>>>
>>>Paradox:
>>>Imagine infinite space, space with no beginning or end in any and every
>>>direction. Now, place within it infinite mass, mass with no beginning or end >as
>>>to quantity of it in any and every direction. Now allow that space is more
>>>abundant that mass. No... wait... How could infinite space still exist in the
>>>presence of infinite mass? How could infinite mass exist in the presence of
>>>infinite space? Is the infinity of space somehow "bigger" than the infinity of
>>>mass? No, that's impossible, isn't it? Infinity is infinity. I have just
>>>described the Universe as Newtonian physics and Einstein both envisioned it.
>>
>> Still serious?
>>
>> Stay on the topic please, otherwise we will have no results.
>
>I was on topic. The fact is, there's no way to get away from paradoxes. They
>just are, that's part of the nature of life.
In true science, there are no paradoxes.
Even in most religions there aren't many.
>>>The Big Bang came along and suddenly... VIOLA!... finity could be applied. So
>>>what happened to the rest of infinity? Why, it just isn't. Okay. That carries
>>>with it its own _really_ bothersome paradoxes.
>>
>> What is the relevance of this wrt transformation laws for relative speeds
>> Pax.
>
>More on paradoxes. :)
An hypotheses containing a paradox is discarded, a detective who has a
paradox in his explanation of a murder can start again. What is it with
you people that you even suspend baby logic.
>>>The fact is, from a purely scientific perspective, everything's impossible
>>>because, from our understanding, physics can find no logical, progressively
>>>provable way to explain how it all came to be. "We're here, so it's possible."
>>>The very beginnings of everything science is based upon start from that
>>>premise... which is a paradox.
>>
>> Science is based up experience with reality, you are talking about philosophy,
>> or religion. F=m*a has no basis in a paradoxical beginnings of the universe,
>> it has a beginning in playing soccer.
>
>Nope, talking reality. :) If I'm not, then explain how it all came to be in the
>first place.
Go to a religion group. We "don't know" here, because we haven't figured
that out yet. With Einstein in science, we may never know.
>>>> Hypotheses containing paradoxes are falsified. It is a scam pax, and
>>>> you are falling for it.
>>>
>>>It's the prevailing, workable "scam".
>>
>> Absolutely not. It is a scam that is costing a lot of money and fucking
>> with the brains of kids like you.
>
>"kids like you"... :) :) :)... THANKS!! Hoping for a "catch 'em young" sort of
>thing? Sorry, but I happen to be one of the original Trekkies. I cut my teeth
>on Wells, Huxley, and Asimov. Problem was, in the Deep-Texacan backwoods where
>I grew up, that sort of dreaming wasn't allowed for a girl, except as
>recreation. Knee-deep in rednecks to this very day.
:)
Anyway, you have been sucked into a scam, and it's not your fault, you just
were too trusting of the scientists.
>>> Until someone can come along with
>>>rigorous proof to the contrary and knock Relativity into a cocked hat, it's
>>>going to stay right where it is as the Top Dog for figuring out how the Universe
>>>works.
>>
>> Well, consider it done.
>
>Not quite yet.
I have time.
>> Do you see your own anti-science attitude?
>> "Top Dog" for a theory and "use this for figuring out the universe".
>> Empty talk Pax, utterly empty.
>
>Yes, because I've seen a lot of stuff come and go. Know-it-alls who wind up
>knowing nothing; people constantly choosing the worst because it has the best
>hypester, while the truly genius goes in the dumpster. As Murphy said:
>"Everything rises to its own level of incompetence, and feces floats."
There, the perfect charactarization of relativity and Einstein. Perfect!
>> Where is your proof of SR. And that means exactly (although you probably
>> don't have any idea, but) 1way-1beam-*multiobserver*-lightspeed-constancy-
>> -in-a-vacuum.
>
>Think they did something like that using satellites... but the fact is, I'm
>starting not to care.
Then remove your crossposts from the sci.* hierarchy, because we here care
for the truth, and therefore for evidence and non-paradoxical explanations.
>What difference does it make, anyway? If the leaders of this idiotfest we call
>humanity don't want it, it won't be. Once upon a time I couldn't understand why
>IQ made any difference. Now I see that it's because you can SEE. People aren't
>being purposefully obtuse and argumentative, they really don't see what you see.
>That's nobody's fault. That's just the way it is.
>
>> SR is not based up evidence, Einstein even explicitly says so.
>>
>> Do you have no problem with this?
>
>I don't have a problem with your believing it. :) You can trash it all and,
>through intuition alone, revolutionize the world. You don't have to have the
>premise right, you just have to have a miraculous gizmo, etc. that works.
It is not a matter of belief.
This is not a matter of intuition or no intuition, this is a matter of
logic. I can beat your ass very easily, but not if you run away and evade
the issues. Want to try ?
Here is my claim: SR=wrong. Your claim can be SR=right.
Wanna fight me?
Or already know you're lost.
--
jos
Hayek
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> You didn't travel 10 lightyears. Just as the time in your frame was
> shorter, so was the distnace passed.
Gee, I look at the sun and it is 10 lightyears away.
I look at my clock and it says 1 year has passed.
Are you going to argue with that ?
:-)
Spaceman
>You didn't travel 10 lightyears. Just as the time in your frame was
>shorter, so was the distnace passed.
<shorter time frame>
<ROFLOL>
<shorter distance...>
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>Easy.
>
>Take a star 10 light years away, travel at a speed that
>in your time just one year has passed. (sqrt(0.99)c)
>
>You traveled 10 lightyears in 1 year,
>what was your speed ?
~10 "lightyears" per year.
Spaceman
>Because `c' is always `c'.
<LOL>
sorry bilge,
no more crackers being given'
you can drop the parrot stuff.
Spaceman
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>
>> You didn't travel 10 lightyears. Just as the time in your frame was
>> shorter, so was the distnace passed.
>
>
>Gee, I look at the sun and it is 10 lightyears away.
Nope, it isn't.
>I look at my clock and it says 1 year has passed.
>
>Are you going to argue with that ?
Argue? I do not waste my time arguing with nonsense. Go read a
textbook, then come back.
Hayek
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <3D81FE55...@nospam.xs4all.nl>, Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>>
>>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You didn't travel 10 lightyears. Just as the time in your frame was
>>>shorter, so was the distnace passed.
>>>
>>
>>Gee, I look at the sun and it is 10 lightyears away.
>>
>
> Nope, it isn't
>
>
>>I look at my clock and it says 1 year has passed.
>>
>>Are you going to argue with that ?
>>
>
> Argue? I do not waste my time arguing with nonsense. Go read a
> textbook, then come back.
Maybe you should go back to primary school and learn
English. "Travel" according to The Oxford dictionary of
English Etymology "became restricted to 'journey'".
After I have travelled I am motionless at the destination.
Read your own sig and try to understand it.
Read mine and be glad you live in the post Shakespeare era.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
>
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <3D81FE55...@nospam.xs4all.nl>, Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> writes:
>>
>>>
>>>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You didn't travel 10 lightyears. Just as the time in your frame was
>>>>shorter, so was the distnace passed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Gee, I look at the sun and it is 10 lightyears away.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, it isn't
>
>>
>>
>>>I look at my clock and it says 1 year has passed.
>>>
>>>Are you going to argue with that ?
>>>
>>
>> Argue? I do not waste my time arguing with nonsense. Go read a
>> textbook, then come back.
>
>
>Maybe you should go back to primary school and learn
>English. "Travel" according to The Oxford dictionary of
>English Etymology "became restricted to 'journey'".
>
to end it.
>After I have travelled I am motionless at the destination.
>
At which time you find that by the clock of either the place you
started from or the place you ended at, your journey took more than 10
years.
Get used to the idea that both space and time intervals are frame
dependent.
Jonathan Silverlight
<sfw...@earthlink.net> writes
>"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dee-ell-...@cox.net (use dlzc1 in beginning)>
>wrote in message news:vT9g9.19796$Pf7.6...@news1.west.cox.net...
>>
>> Dear "Pax":
>>
>> > > Don't you see a contradiction here?
>> >
>> > In saying we can't outrun light but we can exceed c? c is _always_
>> relative to
>> > us.
>>
>> Then lets just cut to the chase. Where is the energy going to come from to
>> get us close to c?
>
>You got me. It seems that right now we're using the greatest majority of it
>just punching our way straight up through the atmosphere for no good
>reason. If
>we're ever to accomplish real space flight, we must first change to
>space planes
>that take off like normal airplanes, then find a more "creative" form of
>acceleration once we achieve orbit.
>
>If, from orbit, we could use a magnetic-repulsive assist, that might
>save a huge
>chunk in both the money and the weight departments. The potential push of the
>acceleration array would only be limited by its length and the type of Gs the
>occupants of the ship could withstand.
>
Are you talking about some sort of linear accelerator ? (called a mass
driver when it's used to propel things like spaceships).
If so, you have _got_ to be kidding. I'll do it if pushed, but I suggest
you sit down and work out how long it will take to reach 0.1C at an
acceleration of 100G, and hence how long the array must be.
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?
> http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html
>
> Is this new to you?
I reference it on my page:
http://hometown.aol.com/dlzc/lightspeed.html
Setterfield's work is useful as a compendium of c measurements. It shows
the variablity in the measurement standards and methods of the time. His
analysis is not well thought of (nor is mine, by the way).
Also, my page is now outdated, since c has been shown to not change by more
than 10^-12 or 10^-13 over the last several million years... this leaves
the LLR vs period anomoly as an increase in G.
> Know what you mean, that's one of the things that eats my time. My main
problem
> is keeping all the definitions straight.
Keep using them. Try and answer posts here (to your self at first). When
you understand and agree with the major hitters, you have got the
terminology down.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yUm82KBt...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> >If, from orbit, we could use a magnetic-repulsive assist, that might
> >save a huge
> >chunk in both the money and the weight departments. The potential push
of the
> >acceleration array would only be limited by its length and the type of Gs
the
> >occupants of the ship could withstand.
> >
>
> Are you talking about some sort of linear accelerator ? (called a mass
> driver when it's used to propel things like spaceships).
> If so, you have _got_ to be kidding. I'll do it if pushed, but I suggest
> you sit down and work out how long it will take to reach 0.1C at an
> acceleration of 100G, and hence how long the array must be.
I'd go for a warp to achieve E.E. "Doc" Smith's inertia-less drive...
David A. Smith
Pax
jos, I'm not running away, I just don't want to argue. :) Really don't think it
will do any good. Posted this thread just to throw out what I caught before I
left. No other real reason for it. Don't have a "theory", never did... would
never presume that far with no more than I have right now.
There are many people much better equipped to argue the pro side on Relativity,
I've just read a dozen or so books... and get bogged down in the heavy math
every time. If I'm ever going to be viable, I'll have to teach myself the math
and really get into electrodynamics... a little late, perhaps too late, tempus
keeps fugiting and life won't leave me alone. :)
You're a thinking person, and I like that. Think you're way off on many of your
assumptions, but the fact that you have them means you're not blind. Most of
those I truly like are like you, many of them think Relativity's at least
partially (if not completely) a crock. My opinion is that it's probably not
Relativity, it's the majority of the dingbats interpreting it... but I could
very well be wrong, I often am. :)
Just wanted you to know I'm climbing down off the groups, there's nothing I was
looking for here. One must wonder what _you're_ looking for in these parts? :)
I'd suggest your trying news:alt.sci.physics.new-theories if you'd like to find
some more open minds.
Be well - Pax
_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)
The purpose of light is to fill the darkness and travel on;
the purpose of life is to find the light and travel with it.
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:alsr1a$bn7$6...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Pax
"an increase in G"... sounds logical, especially when you consider the
increasing rate of expansion.
You're a nice guy, and I appreciate your time and advice. :) As to the majority
of the other posters here (but not all, I want to make clear), think I can spend
what time I have a little better if I want to actually learn something.
Have bookmarked your page. :)
Be well - Pax
_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)_.'`)
The purpose of light is to fill the darkness and travel on;
the purpose of life is to find the light and travel with it.
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dee-ell-...@cox.net (use dlzc1 in beginning)>
wrote in message news:Nwug9.23969$Pf7.9...@news1.west.cox.net...
josX
> jos, I'm not running away, I just don't want to argue. :) Really don't
> think it will do any good. Posted this thread just to throw out what
> I caught before I left. No other real reason for it. Don't have a
> "theory", never did... would never presume that far with no more than
> I have right now.
>
> There are many people much better equipped to argue the pro side on
> Relativity, I've just read a dozen or so books... and get bogged down
> in the heavy math every time.
Yup, that's how "they" work. Get things so complex that most just give
up. They just increase the math-difficulty, but it's all empty really!
> If I'm ever going to be viable, I'll
> have to teach myself the math and really get into electrodynamics... a
> little late, perhaps too late, tempus keeps fugiting and life won't
> leave me alone. :)
Perhaps you could go at it another way: look at what Einstein himself
wrote, i reccomend: 'relativity' (1916), book without math but with
the arguments. You can also read some of his old newspaper articles.
It shows that this theory is all errors and not physics but philosophy.
He even himself explicitely says so "it is a principle theory, and not
an observational theory". Here:
Einstein on his theory
-*-
Time, space, and gravitation.
The Newtonian system.
By Dr. Albert Einstein.
<snip>
Theories of principle.
But in addition to this most weighty group of
theories, there is another group consisting of
what I call theories of principle. These employ
the analytic, not the synthetic method. Their
starting-point and foundation are not hypo-
thetical constituents, but empirically observed
general properties of phenomena, principles
from which mathematical formulae are deduced
of such a kind that they apply to every case
which presents itself. Thermodynamics, for in-
stance, starting from the fact that perpetual
motion never occurs in ordinary experience,
attepmts to deduc efrom this, by analytic pro-
sesses a theory which will apply in every cas.
The merit of constructive theories is their com-
prehensiveness, adaptability, and clarity that
of the theories of principle, their logical per-
fection, and the security of their foundation.
The theory of relativity is a theory of prin-
ciple. To understand it, the principles on which
it rests must be grasped.
<snip>
</quote (date unknown, but appears to be after
acceptance of SR/GR)>
I think you are going at this from the angel of "i wanna understand it",
but as a critical scientist there is another angle "gimme the proof,
give me the physical evidence".
> You're a thinking person, and I like that. Think you're way off on
> many of your assumptions
I have no assumptions.
> but the fact that you have them means you're
> not blind.
I don't have them! :)
> Most of those I truly like are like you, many of them
> think Relativity's at least partially (if not completely) a crock.
> My opinion is that it's probably not Relativity, it's the majority
> of the dingbats interpreting it... but I could very well be wrong,
> I often am. :)
>
> Just wanted you to know I'm climbing down off the groups,
> there's nothing I was looking for here. One must wonder what
> _you're_ looking for in these parts? :) I'd suggest your trying
> news:alt.sci.physics.new-theories if you'd like to find some more
> open minds.
--
jos
George Dishman
>
> I think you are going at this from the angel of "i wanna understand it",
> but as a critical scientist there is another angle "gimme the proof,
> give me the physical evidence".
The first is a necessary step to the second. If you don't understand the
theory, you cannot apply it to find out if the observations match or not.
The moral for those who want to criticise is "know your enemy" ;-)
--
George Dishman
The arrow of time points in many directions.
Oriel36
This is what Newton wrote -
"I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by
another name is called duration:"
This is a specific system which had been used by mariners for
centuries for the underlying principles remain inviolate just as
Newton describes it.The clock refers to nothing external for the
'time' reading is a fixed coordinate,the mariners took advantage that
clocks and geometry remains fixed thereby gauging their position by
comparing clock readings.
'Gemma Frisius, in 1530, proposed a methods of finding the longitude
using a clock. Basically the clock was set on departure and kept an
absolute time which could be compared with the local time on arrival.
The east/west distance travelled could then be calculated. He wrote:-
"... while we are on our journey we should see to it that our clock
never stops. When we have completed a journey of 15 or 20 miles, it
may please us to learn the difference of longitude between where we
have reached and our place of departure. We must wait until the hand
of our clock exactly touches the point of an hour and at the same
moment by means of an astrolabe ... we must find out the time of the
place we now find ourselves."
500 years ago they understood the principles of absolute time and
relative time in a way that you and your colleagues cannot or will
not.It is truly amazing that your opponents allows the perversion of
the Newtonian distinction with barely an objection even though there
is nothing remotely mysterious in respect to clocks and absolute time
as it is fixed conceptually to geometry in terms of longitude.
Look at Einstein's description and compare it with Frisius via
Newton.-
"If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the
values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear
carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no
physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by
"time". We have to take into account that all our judgments in which
time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for
instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock", I mean
something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7
and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events"."
His 'clear' understanding of clocks is only that of a relative
measure,there is not even a hint of how a watch refers to a specific
geometry where 86 400 seconds refer to 360 degrees and that the watch
he was using was designed with that specific relationship between
clocks and geometry in mind.The real significance of this is when you
return to Newton who remarks that while relative measures (noon,
midnight,train arriving at 7 o'clock) are valid -
"Wherefore relative quantities are not the quantities themselves,
whose names they bear, but those sensible measures of them (either
accurate or inaccurate), which are commonly used instead of the
measured quantities themselves. And if the meaning of words is to be
determined by their use, then by the names time, space, place and
motion, their measures are properly to be understood; and the
expression will be unusual, and purely mathematical, if the measured
quantities themselves are meant."
You can't even begin to speak of GPS and 'time' corrections for under
the Newtonian heading backed by all the geometric principles that give
clocks their features,there is no actual quantity behind clocks except
as a convenient relative measure.
Bilge
>"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnao1m5...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Pax said some stuff about
>>
>> >Right. Exactly! :) c is finite, while light's possible spectrum may
>> >not be.
>>
>> How exactly does one follow from the other?
>
>Perhaps, if I explain it this way:
>If light is its own medium, then it has no limitations.
particles which interact with each other so that a restoring force of
some sort gives rise to wave propagation. Photons do not interact with
each other.
>> >> >It's just as I've been asserting for years, c is a
>> >> "fixed slider" on an
>> >> >infinite scale, our perception of which is manipulated by our
>> >> >velocity!
>> >>
>> >> Well, not quite.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Because `c' is always `c'.
>
>I agree.
>
>> >> At the time, the known forces were gravity and E&M,
>> >> so it wouldn't be all that much of a stretch to conclude that there was
>> >> something fundamental about geometry and how fast forces propagate.
>> >
>> >There's not... at least concerning how fast forces propagate?
>>
>> In all likelyhood there is. It's just not very obvious why the forces
>> are what they are and until gravity is worked into the big picture,
>> no one knows for certain if anything is forced to be like it is.
>
>Okay... THAT was completely cryptic. :)
So is the reason for the forces being as they are. I don't know how else
to say there is probably a reason that light propagates at c (or equiv-
alently, charge is conserved or the photon is massless, etc.), but no
one knows and a quantum theory of gravity will be probably be needed to
find out.
>
>> >> The
>> >> weak and strong forces make the connection of electromagnetism to any
>> >> geometric quantities considerably less obvious, especially since the
>> >> only theories that treat E&M as geometry, use dimensions that aren't
>> >> one of the four in special relativity.
>> >
>> >Didn't know that.
>>
>> First made famous by kaluza and klein. Now it's in the
>> string theory dept.
>
>WOW! The math is over my head, but the rest...!
>
>KALUZA-KLEIN THEORY IN PERSPECTIVE
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9410/9410046.pdf
You can get the basic idea as it applies to E&M, a lot more simply.
Quantum mechanically, the wavefunction \Psi, is invariant under changes
in phase. The change (leaving off the \hbars):
\Psi -> \Psi' = \exp(i\phi)\Psi
describes the same particle. The phase, q^{u}x_{u} = Et - p.x is a
lorentz invariant. [q^{u} is just the four-momentum and x_{u} are the
spacetime variables:
q^{u} = (E/c, p_{x}, p_{y}, p_{z})
x^{u} = (ct, x, y, z)
\phi = Et - p_{x} x - p_{y} y - p_{z} z
In the dirac equation, (\Psi*)(p/ - mc)\Psi = 0, replacing \Psi,
by \Psi' gives you a field from the derivative of the exponential.
If you now replace q and x with:
x^{u} = (t, x, y, z, w)
q^{u} = (E, p_{x}, p_{y}, p_{z}, p_{w})
and take the metric to be g_{uv} = diag(1, -1, -1, -1, -1), then do the
same thing, your phase is instead:
\theta == Et - p_{x} x - p_{y} y - p_{z} z - p_{w} w
= \phi - p_{w} w
So, for \Psi, you have:
\Psi -> \Psi' = \exp(-ip_{w})\exp(i\phi)\Psi, etc.
Rather than type in the rest and omit what I'm too lazy to include,
you should try to find a simpler article, which restricts things
somewhat to the idea gauge invariance. The article you obtained,
essentially mentions the theory as an introduction to and survey
of string theory. While the article is really good, less ambitious
descriptions exist from which you might get the general idea without
all of the details in where it goes wrong and how things get fixed
to become string theories.
Dirk Van de moortel
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:alv5m6$ldi$2$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> news:alur14$4k0$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> > I think you are going at this from the angel of "i wanna understand it",
> > but as a critical scientist there is another angle "gimme the proof,
> > give me the physical evidence".
>
> The first is a necessary step to the second. If you don't understand the
> theory, you cannot apply it to find out if the observations match or not.
> The moral for those who want to criticise is "know your enemy" ;-)
He should forget everything he thinks he knows, and have a
complete fresh start with Hewitt's "Conceptual Physics" and
after that with Taylor's "Spacetime Physics". It would take at
least 6 months. If he would manage to work his way through
those, he could become a *difficult* critic, perhaps even an
interesting one. Now he is merely marginally interesting - and
only psychology related.
But since he is so obviously afraid of getting brainwashed,
he probably won't do it.
Dirk Vdm
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alur14$4k0$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> I think you are going at this from the angel of "i wanna understand it",
>> but as a critical scientist there is another angle "gimme the proof,
>> give me the physical evidence".
>
>The first is a necessary step to the second. If you don't understand the
>theory, you cannot apply it to find out if the observations match or not.
>The moral for those who want to criticise is "know your enemy" ;-)
That is your entire trick: a contradiction can never be understood,
so you conquer your oponents (who do not wish to recognize that they
are lied to, and the world isn't as cozy and fine as the imagined and
hoped it would be) by keeping them in eternal "learning".
The theory however is fairly simple, actually there is (less then) nothing
to it: V'=V for light, without any (direct) evidence.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alv89h$8ne$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:alur14$4k0$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >> I think you are going at this from the angel of "i wanna understand it",
> >> but as a critical scientist there is another angle "gimme the proof,
> >> give me the physical evidence".
> >
> >The first is a necessary step to the second. If you don't understand the
> >theory, you cannot apply it to find out if the observations match or not.
> >The moral for those who want to criticise is "know your enemy" ;-)
>
> That is your entire trick: a contradiction can never be understood,
You still have not answered this question:
| Do you also think that the statement
| " P ==> Q is equivalent to not Q ==> not P "
| is bullshit?
Dirk Vdm
Paul F. Dietz
> That is your entire trick: a contradiction can never be understood,
> so you conquer your oponents (who do not wish to recognize that they
> are lied to, and the world isn't as cozy and fine as the imagined and
> hoped it would be) by keeping them in eternal "learning".
One wonders at what pathological condition has led you into
this maze of delusions, 'josX'.
But, in the end, you're just one more defective uninteresting
noisemaker, destined to have zero effect on the world you
won't or can't understand.
Paul
josX
We will see.
I guess *this* is what the world is learning: lies do happen, and large
scale coverups and lies do happen too. Until the world realizes, they
will be teased with the impossible V'=V for light without evidence.
That is what the people aparently need to learn. It's not science which
halt the progress of science, it is childish emotions that "this sort
of thing ofcourse don't happen in our utopia".
So, instead of seeing the light (and that their fellow human is taking
advantage of them, or stupid where he claims to be smart and educated),
they break their minds instead. In the older days they would need to
take on faith God, the unseen, now the stakes are higher (since people
are stupid enough to accept an unseen God which is angry with them until
they pay up and show up and sing in church), now they must imagine and
believe unimaginable concepts about reality without any evidence, told
them by a patent-office clerk.
A game of nature to test the stupidity of the people i guess :).
--
jos
Spaceman
>The first is a necessary step to the second. If you don't understand the
>theory, you cannot apply it to find out if the observations match or not.
>The moral for those who want to criticise is "know your enemy" ;-)
The first is a necessary step to the second. If you don't understand why the
theory is wrong , you cannot apply it to find out if the observations match or
not.
The moral for those who want to criticise is "know your enemy" ;-)
Clocks malfunction.
You lose.
theory loses with you.
GR,SR, and QM are based upon clock malfunctions
as "time changing"
They lost science long ago.
and so have you.
George Dishman
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:alur14$4k0$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >> I think you are going at this from the angel of "i wanna understand
it",
> >> but as a critical scientist there is another angle "gimme the proof,
> >> give me the physical evidence".
> >
> >The first is a necessary step to the second. If you don't understand the
> >theory, you cannot apply it to find out if the observations match or not.
> >The moral for those who want to criticise is "know your enemy" ;-)
>
> That is your entire trick: a contradiction can never be understood,
That is your entire problem, there are contradictions only in your
alternative to SR, not in the actual theory of which you seem to know
little or nothing.
> so you conquer your oponents (who do not wish to recognize that they
> are lied to, and the world isn't as cozy and fine as the imagined and
> hoped it would be) by keeping them in eternal "learning".
>
> The theory however is fairly simple, actually there is (less then) nothing
> to it: V'=V for light, without any (direct) evidence.
For direct evidence you could start by thinking about the Michelson-
Morley experiment, but reading the "Parable of the Surveyors" from Taylor
& Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics" (as Dirk recommended) would be a better
way to get a glimpse of what you are actually arguing against.
You might then see why saying "V'=V for light" is like saying a helium
balloon at a height of 100 feet above you is at an elevation of 90 degrees
for you and is also at 90 degrees for someone standing on your shoulders.
So what? That lack of understanding is why your arguments carry no weight
and are treated as irrelevant by everyone here. I am sure you could do
better.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alv89h$8ne$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:alur14$4k0$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>> I think you are going at this from the angel of "i wanna understand it",
>>>> but as a critical scientist there is another angle "gimme the proof,
>>>> give me the physical evidence".
>>>
>>>The first is a necessary step to the second. If you don't understand the
>>>theory, you cannot apply it to find out if the observations match or not.
>>>The moral for those who want to criticise is "know your enemy" ;-)
>>
>>That is your entire trick: a contradiction can never be understood,
>
>That is your entire problem, there are contradictions only in your
>alternative to SR, not in the actual theory of which you seem to know
>little or nothing.
You are saying that relativity starts with V'=V+v0 for light ?
>>so you conquer your oponents (who do not wish to recognize that they
>>are lied to, and the world isn't as cozy and fine as the imagined and
>>hoped it would be) by keeping them in eternal "learning".
>>
>>The theory however is fairly simple, actually there is (less then) nothing
>>to it: V'=V for light, without any (direct) evidence.
>
>For direct evidence you could start by thinking about the Michelson-
>Morley experiment, but reading the "Parable of the Surveyors" from Taylor
>& Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics" (as Dirk recommended) would be a better
>way to get a glimpse of what you are actually arguing against.
MMX did not test for V'=V or V'=V+v0.
To test this difference, you have to test a lightbeam from differently
moving equipment (2 equipment-sets in relative motions).
>You might then see why saying "V'=V for light" is like saying a helium
>balloon at a height of 100 feet above you is at an elevation of 90 degrees
>for you and is also at 90 degrees for someone standing on your shoulders.
>So what? That lack of understanding is why your arguments carry no weight
>and are treated as irrelevant by everyone here. I am sure you could do
>better.
V'=V versus V'=V+v0 has no bearing on your example.
The person on my shoulders jumping off would have, Einstein's concept
applied to the baloon means the baloon has the speed V for me and V'
for the jumper while V'=V. Is this possible ?
--
jos
Spaceman
>He should forget everything he thinks he knows, and have a
>complete fresh start with Hewitt's "Conceptual Physics" and
>after that with Taylor's "Spacetime Physics".
<ROFLOL>
the key "brainwashing books"
I suggest the same,
but think of one thng while you read all that crap.
think about "a clock having a malfunction"
If you remove the clock thoughts.
you may get brainwashed.
If you can hold "the true clock function"
inside your head.
the books will probably give you a few good laughs.
BTW: You should be "laughing" at the word "spacetime"
already!
cubicmetersecond!
<LOL>
josX
Space, you gave me a good idea, i'll go and by another brainwash
book, see what the nutcases have to offer. Einstein's nonsense
isn't ariving at my door (ordered book), will be fun to quote from
this "was Einstein right" book. They didn't have it and i didn't
wanted to order, but what the heck. I think there is enough nonsense
generated to keep quoting new bits for a lifetime ;).
--
jos