Was Einstein wrong ?! Looking=knowing.
josX
Einstein's logical "analyses" goes like this:
- Maxwells laws are a complete cristalization of the math-models describing
electro-magnetic waves
- they are based upon a set speed for these waves
- all mathmodels of physics should be valid in all coordinate systems,
however they are moving in space
-> therefore, the speed of light must be a constant in all moving coordinate
systems
A second string is weaved in:
- I cannot imagine light going at a zero velocity wrt me
- Therefore, light always has the velocity c wrt me
The physical evidence for the purported behaviour of light is non-existant,
we cannot even measure the 1-way speed of light, much less if the same
lightbeam has the same speed relative to multiple differently moving
observers.
Indeed, no phenomena in nature exhibits this behaviour. Every particle
known to man, every wave known to man, they all have different relative
velocities relative to differently moving observers.
This invalidates Einsteis absurdity argument vis-a-vis the absurdity of
light moving at a zero relative velocity. This also gives rise to the
assumption that Maxwells laws might not yet be fully cristalized yet,
as any wave known changes relative speed accross observers, surely this
should be incorporatable in Maxwells laws, or in a rewrite of them.
Problems with relativity:
- fuzzbabble
- selfcontradiction as hypotheses
- no true problem that it solves
Fuzzbabble:
----------
When confronting a believer in the construction of Einstein's, one presents
him certain paradoxes, i give you two such paradoxes:
I. The twin-paradox: it is never actually solved at all, because it is solved
outside of the bounds of Special Relativity, by assuming an absolute frame
of reference.
Parameters: acceleration: 0->.99999c in 1.8 seconds
trip duration: 9*10^9 years
I'll grant, it is possible to distinguish between the two frames, and
establish a prefferance, during the acceleration, but to assume this
prefference continues accros the remainder of the trip where the spaceship
travels inertially, is to assume "the frame that never accelerated in the
history of the universe" as the de-facto preffered frame for the whole
theory: relativity would have changed into absolutism.
II.The following clock-synchronization method:
Considder a long iron rod, round, which is rolled off a long
slope with the end bending up so it throws the rod in the air,
and suppose we do this on the moon, where there is a gravity
field pulling the rod down. If one side of the rod rolls down
before the other, the rod will ofcourse roll down to one side
of the slope. We put up to blocks at the same length as the
rod from eatocher, at each end where the rod must pass through
if it went down in a straight fashion. Get it?
side: front:
\* ||************||
\ ||||||||||||||||
\ ||||||||||||||||
\ ###||||||||||||###
`-/ ###------------###
""""""""""""""""
If you like, you can coat the rubber rod with rubber, 'cause then
it'll run down better, or with wheels at the end, or you can make
the rod have a big diameter. You can also do this in space, then
the rod must be propelled down the rod with an initial velocity.
Alright, if the rod went down in a straight line, it must have
each end-of-rod pass each block simultaneously. It will fly through
the air and reach two buttons of two clocks sumiltaneously, synchronizing
them. That means you now have two clocks, perfectly synchronized in
all frames of reference, usable to measure the true speed of light!
Selfcontradiction as hypotheses:
--------------------------------
The second postulate of special relativity is unthinkable. Can you imagine
a astronaut on the moon, being shot with a laserbeam but running away, where
the laserbeam has the same speed relative to the moon and the astronaut?
The timedilation hypotheses, given it's mutual nature, is self-contradictory
from the purely theoretical perspective when one looks at the underlying
reality it presents, and not at incarnations of paradoxes.
The lengthcontraction hypotheses suffers from the same problems.
The relativity of simultaneity say that certain events shouldn't happen
at the same time for a stationary or moving observer. However, all events
are ultimately linked in a chain of causality.
No true problem solved:
----------------------
The MMX experiment showed light to be moving with Earth. Taken outside of
the narrow perspective dealing with different kinds of aethers, there exists
no actual problem that needs solving in this result. Soundwaves travel with
earth in the atmosphere, waterwaves travel on the ocean, we might as well
expect light to be no different. The name 'electro-magnetic-waves' gives
the impression that the magnetic field of the earth might be a very good
candidate for the medium of light in Maxwell (or maxwell-like) equations.
No physical evidence:
--------------------
There exists no conclusive credible evidence for lengthcontraction, time-
dilation (the muon degrading may just be another unrelated phenomena),
relativity of simultaneity, or the second postulate. To continue this
'attack' on Einstein's relativity theories: there exists an error in
reasoning in his book 'relativity' where he derives the 'relativity of
simultaneity' in a way that violates his earlier assumption of observer
dependant speed of light. It is this exact argument that bolsters his
claim that time may not be absolute, and space may not be "straight".
Conclusion:
----------
The physics-field needs to re-asses Einstein's core notions, his derivation
of Special Relativity, and possibly come up with new equations for Maxwell's
electro-magnetic waves that do not suffer from the non-Galileian proporty
they now have. The physics field cannot continue in it's demise like it
is doing currently: physical evidence is a prime requirement of a physical
theory, postulates should be all but abcent from physics, and indeed they
could be.
--
jos
Sam Wormley
>
> Einstein, the originator of Special relativity, and General relativity.
>
WAS EINSTEIN RIGHT?
Putting General Relativity to the Test
by Clifford M. Will
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers New York
QC173.6.W55 1986 530.1'1 85-73877
"Quasars. Cosmic fireball radiation. Pulsars. Black holes.
Gravitational lenses. What do these things have in common?
"First, they were all discovered after 1960, during a period of
unparalleled advances in the technology of scientific investigation,
especially in astronomy.
"Second, they have attracted intense popular interest. Just look at the
success in recent years of the books (THE FIRST THREE MINUTES). Movies
(THE BLACK HOLE), and television productions ("COSMOS") that have
presented them to the general public, to say nothing of wristwatches
(Pulsar) and television sets (Quasar) that carry some of their names.
"Third, Their existence makes us ask the question, "Was Einstein right?"
Every item in the preceding list involves Einstein's general theory of
relativity in a crucial way. Black holes, the remains of dead,
collapsed stars, are an important prediction of the theory; a black
hole is thought to be responsible for the astronomical X-ray source
Cygnus X1, and they are believed by many to power quasars, the
incredibly luminous beacons that we can see almost to the edge of the
visible universe. The cosmic fireball radiation is most likely the
afterglow of the big bang that began the universe, an event whose
understanding requires the theory of relativity. The structure of
pulsers, believed to be rapidly spinning neutron stars, is strongly
influenced by super-strong general relativistic gravitational forces.
Finally, the recently discovered gravitational lenses are galaxies that
bend and focus passing light by means of the general relativistic
warping of space-time around them.
"Modern day astronomers and astrophysicists must use general relativity
as a tool in their attempts to comprehend these phenomena. If the
theory were incorrect, they would be at a loss; an important
underpinning of their models would be weakened.
"Of course, there is more at stake in the question "Was Einstein
right?" than keeping astrophysicists happy (and employed). General
relativity is a fundamental theory of the nature of space, time, and
gravitation, and has profoundly influenced how we view the universe.
But like any theory of nature, it cannot stand on its own. It must face
the test of experiment and observation. No matter how profound it may
be, no matter how beautiful or elegant it may appear, it must be
discarded if it does not agree with observation. Unfortunately,
observations of quasars, pulsars, and the like don't in themselves tell
us much about general relativity. The reason is that these objects
involve such complex physics that we can't easily distinguish the
effects of general relativity from the other forces at work. So to find
out if Einstein was right, we look at different kinds of tests.
"This book is about those tests. It is about an intensive twenty-year
effort, beginning around 1960, to check the predictions of general
relativity accurately, and to find new predictions to check."
Chapter 1. The Renaissance of General Relativity
Chapter 2. The Straight Road to Curved Space-Time
Chapter 3. The Gravitational Red Shift of Light and Clocks
Chapter 4. The Departure of Light from the Straight and Narrow
Chapter 5. The Perihelion Shift of Mercury: Triumph or Trouble?
Chapter 6. The Time Delay of Light: Better Late Than Never
Chapter 7. Do the Earth and the Moon Fall the Same?
Chapter 8. The Rise and Fall of the Brans-Dicke Theory
Chapter 9. Is the Gravitational Constant Constant?
Chapter 10. The Binary Pulser: Gravity Waves Exist!
Chapter 11. The Frontiers of Experimental Relativity
Chapter 12. Astronomy after the Renaissance: Is General Relativity Useful?
Marco Nelissen
> Einstein, the originator of Special relativity, and General relativity.
Jos Boersema, the originator of thousands of postings containing
nothing but drivel and lies.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
Steven the Thinker
[snip rubbish]
Repeating yourself when you're wrong, and have been shown to be wrong
repeatedly, doesn't make you any righter.
Technology such as GPS uses relativity to be more accurate.
Relativity is totally logically consistent.
Relativity has an immense amount of experimental verification,
including purely terrestial experimental verification.
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/experiments.html
This is a good list of relativity experiments.
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<akvto3$t5e$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>
>[snip rubbish]
?
>Repeating yourself when you're wrong, and have been shown to be wrong
>repeatedly, doesn't make you any righter.
oh yes it does!
>Technology such as GPS uses relativity to be more accurate.
You just believe them, the people who already accepted SR on pure faith
alone, and without bothering about it's tremendous amount of contradictions,
lack of proof, and the insanity of postulate-2's 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
>Relativity is totally logically consistent.
errrr....<mutual timedilation>
BZZZZZP Wrong!
Logical contradiction right there.
Want to know the "brilliance" of Einstein's ?
Read his work, nothing disproves the man like his own writings.
>Relativity has an immense amount of experimental verification,
>including purely terrestial experimental verification.
? It's about light, remember?
We only have 2way experiments yet.
>http://www.weburbia.com/physics/experiments.html
>
>This is a good list of relativity experiments.
Then it has an experiment about the only real thing that SR adds to
science, the 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
Go people, look if he has it.
Knowing SR = knowing it's wrong, and why...and why some more :).
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
>>repeatedly, doesn't make you any righter.
>
> oh yes it does!
Instant classic, that one...
Spaceman
>Technology such as GPS uses relativity to be more accurate.
<ROFLOL>
Prove it!
You can't!
simply because.
It does not!
you are either a lyer or a moron.
absolute times are needed for absolute positions.
realtive time don't cut the cheese correctly.
>Relativity is totally logically consistent.
parrot droppings and WRONG!
the twins are the same revs of Earth old WRT the Sun.
see!
logically inconsistant you friggen dipwad!
>Relativity has an immense amount of experimental verification,
>including purely terrestial experimental verification.
It has an immense amount of verification of clocks goofups
and nothing more so far.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Sam Wormley
>
> >From: step...@hotmail.com (Steven the Thinker)
>
> >Technology such as GPS uses relativity to be more accurate.
>
> <ROFLOL>
> Prove it!
>
Nothing to prove! Relativistic corrections are an integral part of the
GPS. Without them, it would have errors on the order of a kilometer.
See: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.physicscentral.com/writers/writers-00-2.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
Spaceman
>Nothing to prove! Relativistic corrections are an integral part of the
>GPS. Without them, it would have errors on the order of a kilometer.
>
You are an idiot!
"With them .."
is what would get you that bad of an "absolute" position.
removal of all and synching of all clocks makes
absolutes.
you are a mechanically illiterate moron
and prove it each time you say GPS "uses" relative times.
Sam Wormley
>
> You are an idiot!
>
[snipped]
> you are a mechanically illiterate moron
> and prove it each time you say GPS "uses" relative times.
>
Since I'm so mathematically illiterate [in your opinion], show me
the PVT solution equations and how they [don't] include relativistic
terms.
Spaceman
>Since I'm so mathematically illiterate [in your opinion], show me
>the PVT solution equations and how they [don't] include relativistic
>terms.
Your search for "PVT" produced no results
<LOL>
Why don't you tell us how momentum is possible "without mass"
Sam Wormley
>
>
> you are a mechanically illiterate moron
> and prove it each time you say GPS "uses" relative times.
>
Convince me otherwise.
Spaceman
>Convince me otherwise.
Show me the clock that is "out of sync" and left that way.
You are lost Sam!
I am sorry you "just don't get absolutes"
Sam Wormley
>
>
> removal of all and synching of all clocks makes
> absolutes.
>
Ref: http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System
People often ask me "what good is Relativity", and think of it as an
abstract and highly mathematical theory that has no relation to
everyday life.
Consider for a moment that when you are riding in a commercial
airliner, the pilot and crew are navigating with the aid of the Global
Positioning System (GPS). In addition, you can now buy portable GPS
receivers with built-in maps for use in cars, and there are even
hand-held navigation units that will give you your position on the earth
(latitude, longitude, and altitude) to an accuracy of 5 to 10 meters that
weigh only a few ounces and cost around $100.
GPS uses a network of 24 satellites in high orbits around the Earth for
high-precision navigation. Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits
at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital
speed of about 14,000 km/hour. On-board each satellite is an atomic
clock that ticks with an accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a
second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position
and heading by comparing the time signals it receives from a number
of the GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and triangulating on the known
positions of each satellite. The precision is phenomenal: even a simple
hand-held GPS receiver can determine your absolute position on the
surface of the Earth to within 5 to 10 meters in only a few seconds. A
GPS receiver in a car can give accurate readings of position, speed, and
heading in real-time!
To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites
must known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because
the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth,
effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must
be taken into account.
Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative
to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks
ticking more slowly (see Lecture 32). A straightforward calculation
using special relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the
satellites would lose about 7 microseconds per day because of the
slower ticking rate.
Further, the satellites are in high orbits, where the curvature of
spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface.
A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a gravitating
object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away
(see Lecture 20 on Black Holes). As such, when viewed from the
ground, the clocks on the satellites would appear to tick faster than
identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using general relativity
predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite would get ahead of
ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
The combination of these special and general relativitic effects means
that, if not accounted for, the clocks on-board each satellite would tick
faster than clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day!
This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system
requires nanosecond accuracy, and there are 1000 microseconds in a
nanosecond. If these effects were not taken into account, a navigational
fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes,
and in general errors in global positions would accumulate at a rate of
about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly
worthless for navigation. This kind of accumulated error is akin to
measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus
one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and
having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are about 5000
meters in the air somewhere over Dayton.
The engineers who designed the GPS system took these relativistic
effects into account when they designed and deployed the system. One
thing they did was to slow down the ticking frequency of the atomic
clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper
orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as
compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations.
Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that
(among other things) performs the necessary relativistic calculations
when determining the user's location.
Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding
it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work
properly!
Spaceman
<snipped all twisted version ofthe fact that the clock actually goofed up>
Still nothing Sam.
Relativty is removed.
The clocks are synched.
OR do you say the clocks are not synced?
and
Do you have your own words of "Why" the clock change rate"
and how that proves "time" actually changed rate?
or only more link crap?
You got nothing Sammy!
Time is not a cause.
time did not change....time.
Go away MORON!
grelbr
> you are either a lyer or a moron.
I can spell, and punctuate, better than you.
grelbr
Sam Wormley
>
> You are an idiot!
> "With them .."
> is what would get you that bad of an "absolute" position.
>
> removal of all and synching of all clocks makes
> absolutes.
>
> you are a mechanically illiterate moron
> and prove it each time you say GPS "uses" relative times.
>
You're just pissing into the wind, Driscoll. You could care less about
learning physics... Some where along the [time] line, you failed in trying
to learn physics so now your childish reaction is to try to discredit what
you could not learn. What a waste of a human being.
You really should read about how the Global Positioning System works.
-Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
Spaceman
> You're just pissing into the wind, Driscoll.
No wormley,
I know "how clocks work and thier faults"
You are just ignorant to such mechanical laws I guess.
(Just like most time travel morons are)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020903161513...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> >From: Sam Wormley swor...@mchsi.com
>
> > You're just pissing into the wind, Driscoll.
>
> No wormley,
> I know "how clocks work and thier faults"
447 at http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aspaceman+thier
Dirk Vdm
Nicolaas Vroom
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
news:akvto3$t5e$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> I. The twin-paradox: it is never actually solved at all, because it is
solved
> outside of the bounds of Special Relativity, by assuming an absolute
frame
> of reference.
> Parameters: acceleration: 0->.99999c in 1.8 seconds
> trip duration: 9*10^9 years
> I'll grant, it is possible to distinguish between the two frames, and
> establish a prefferance, during the acceleration, but to assume this
> prefference continues accros the remainder of the trip where the
spaceship
> travels inertially, is to assume "the frame that never accelerated in
the
> history of the universe" as the de-facto preffered frame for the whole
> theory: relativity would have changed into absolutism.
I have a question:
Suppose I have two identical clocks.
One clock I keep at home (base time).
The other clock I put in space ship and it travels
a long trip away in one year (base time) and back to base.
After the two clocks are reunited my question is:
Is the time on each clock identical ?
Suppose your answer is no and the time difference is dt
In that case I have a new question:
Suppose the same trip away is two years and back.
After the two clocks are reunited my second question is:
Is the time difference now approx 2*dt ?
> II.The following clock-synchronization method:
> Considder a long iron rod, round, which is rolled off a long
> slope with the end bending up so it throws the rod in the air,
> and suppose we do this on the moon, where there is a gravity
> field pulling the rod down. If one side of the rod rolls down
> before the other, the rod will ofcourse roll down to one side
> of the slope. We put up to blocks at the same length as the
> rod from eatocher, at each end where the rod must pass through
> if it went down in a straight fashion. Get it?
No.
>
> side: front:
> \* ||************||
> \ ||||||||||||||||
> \ ||||||||||||||||
> \ ###||||||||||||###
> `-/ ###------------###
> """"""""""""""""
> If you like, you can coat the rubber rod with rubber, 'cause then
> it'll run down better, or with wheels at the end, or you can make
> the rod have a big diameter. You can also do this in space, then
> the rod must be propelled down the rod with an initial velocity.
I do not understand your drawing.
(I have the same problem with many of your drawings)
I do not understand this clock synchronisation.
It all seems very complex.
Why do you have to do this on the moon ?
> Alright, if the rod went down in a straight line, it must have
> each end-of-rod pass each block simultaneously. It will fly through
> the air and reach two buttons of two clocks sumiltaneously,
synchronizing
> them. That means you now have two clocks, perfectly synchronized in
> all frames of reference, usable to measure the true speed of light!
In your opinion what is a frame of reference.
Do I understand you correct that you can use this method
to synchronise all different clock arrangements ?
What about 4 clocks in the form of a square ?
What about 8 clocks in the form of a cube ?
>
> Selfcontradiction as hypotheses:
> --------------------------------
> The second postulate of special relativity is unthinkable. Can you imagine
> a astronaut on the moon, being shot with a laserbeam but running away,
where
> the laserbeam has the same speed relative to the moon and the astronaut?
Why do you mention the moon ?
Is it not possible to write this in a simpler way ?
> The timedilation hypotheses, given it's mutual nature, is
self-contradictory
> from the purely theoretical perspective when one looks at the underlying
> reality it presents, and not at incarnations of paradoxes.
I do not understand this sentence.
What do you mean for example with incarnations ?
> The lengthcontraction hypotheses suffers from the same problems.
>
> The relativity of simultaneity say that certain events shouldn't happen
> at the same time for a stationary or moving observer. However, all events
> are ultimately linked in a chain of causality.
I think that relativity of simultaneity only claims that certain events
which are observed simultaneous by a stationary observer are not
observed simultaneous by a moving observer.
Your second sentence I do not understand in this context.
>
> Conclusion:
> ----------
It is too early to draw any conclusion because the above
in general is not clear and unambigous.
Suggestion: Only discuss one subject at a time.
http://user.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Nick
Spaceman
>I have a question:
>Suppose I have two identical clocks.
>One clock I keep at home (base time).
>The other clock I put in space ship and it travels
>a long trip away in one year (base time) and back to base.
>After the two clocks are reunited my question is:
>Is the time on each clock identical ?
>
Not unless you have created the "perfect clock"
otherwise
clocks malfunctioned,
and time still remained unchanged.
the dt is a clock malfunction.
It is nothing more than such and will change
depending on the clock type.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
>news:akvto3$t5e$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> I. The twin-paradox: it is never actually solved at all, because it is solved
>> outside of the bounds of Special Relativity, by assuming an absolute frame
>> of reference.
>> Parameters: acceleration: 0->.99999c in 1.8 seconds
>> trip duration: 9*10^9 years
>> I'll grant, it is possible to distinguish between the two frames, and
>> establish a prefferance, during the acceleration, but to assume this
>> prefference continues accros the remainder of the trip where the spaceship
>> travels inertially, is to assume "the frame that never accelerated in the
>> history of the universe" as the de-facto preffered frame for the whole
>> theory: relativity would have changed into absolutism.
>
>I have a question:
>Suppose I have two identical clocks.
>One clock I keep at home (base time).
>The other clock I put in space ship and it travels
>a long trip away in one year (base time) and back to base.
See? Readers?!
They adjust the parameters to babble-solve the problem, because they
know they can't handle the wild numbers. He changes 9*10^9 years into
2 years. Why oh why you may ask. Can't SR deal with large numbers?
Answer is No!
>After the two clocks are reunited my question is:
>Is the time on each clock identical ?
>
>Suppose your answer is no and the time difference is dt
It doesn't matter what the answer "suppose" is. It matters what SR
predicts what it is here. And that answer is paradoxically ambiguous:
depending on doing SR from Earth-co-ordinate systems or from the moving
clock co-ordinate-systems, you get conflicting results.
>In that case I have a new question:
See? They don't /answer/ the question, they ask one of their own design.
>Suppose the same trip away is two years and back.
>After the two clocks are reunited my second question is:
>Is the time difference now approx 2*dt ?
Do you understand SR? I can explain it to you if you want.
>> II.The following clock-synchronization method:
>> Considder a long iron rod, round, which is rolled off a long
>> slope with the end bending up so it throws the rod in the air,
>> and suppose we do this on the moon, where there is a gravity
>> field pulling the rod down. If one side of the rod rolls down
>> before the other, the rod will ofcourse roll down to one side
>> of the slope. We put up to blocks at the same length as the
>> rod from eatocher, at each end where the rod must pass through
>> if it went down in a straight fashion. Get it?
>
>No.
What don't you understand.
>>
>> side: front:
>> \* ||************||
>> \ ||||||||||||||||
>> \ ||||||||||||||||
>> \ ###||||||||||||###
>> `-/ ###------------###
>> """"""""""""""""
>> If you like, you can coat the rubber rod with rubber, 'cause then
>> it'll run down better, or with wheels at the end, or you can make
>> the rod have a big diameter. You can also do this in space, then
>> the rod must be propelled down the rod with an initial velocity.
>
>I do not understand your drawing.
>(I have the same problem with many of your drawings)
You are not a technical person?
>> side: front:
>> \* <--iron bar ||************ <-- iron bar, lengthview
>> \ top-view ||||||||||||||||<---ramp
>> \ ||||||||||||||||
>> --->\ ###||||||||||||### <-- blocks
>> ramp `-/ rim ---> ------------###
>>sideview """"""""""""""""<--underside of ramp, visible
below the rim
>I do not understand this clock synchronisation.
>It all seems very complex.
It needs to be to defeat the SRists fuzzbabbles AND SR's requirenments.
>Why do you have to do this on the moon ?
Because SR deals with "light in a vacuum".
>> Alright, if the rod went down in a straight line, it must have
>> each end-of-rod pass each block simultaneously. It will fly through
>> the air and reach two buttons of two clocks sumiltaneously, synchronizing
>> them. That means you now have two clocks, perfectly synchronized in
>> all frames of reference, usable to measure the true speed of light!
>
>In your opinion what is a frame of reference.
It's a co-ordinate system with it's origin locked unto/into an object,
the object is called "the observer" in SR.
>Do I understand you correct that you can use this method
>to synchronise all different clock arrangements ?
>What about 4 clocks in the form of a square ?
>What about 8 clocks in the form of a cube ?
Haven't thought about it yet.
>> Selfcontradiction as hypotheses:
>> --------------------------------
>> The second postulate of special relativity is unthinkable. Can you imagine
>> a astronaut on the moon, being shot with a laserbeam but running away, where
>> the laserbeam has the same speed relative to the moon and the astronaut?
>
>Why do you mention the moon ?
Vacuum.
>Is it not possible to write this in a simpler way ?
Be my guest!
>> The timedilation hypotheses, given it's mutual nature, is self-contradictory
>> from the purely theoretical perspective when one looks at the underlying
>> reality it presents, and not at incarnations of paradoxes.
>
>I do not understand this sentence.
>What do you mean for example with incarnations ?
Instances. You have mutual-time-dilation. The twin paradox is an incarnation
of that paradox.
>> The lengthcontraction hypotheses suffers from the same problems.
>>
>> The relativity of simultaneity say that certain events shouldn't happen
>> at the same time for a stationary or moving observer. However, all events
>> are ultimately linked in a chain of causality.
>
>I think that relativity of simultaneity only claims that certain events
>which are observed simultaneous by a stationary observer are not
>observed simultaneous by a moving observer.
Incorrect, we are talking about the "true" sequence of events.
This is not about visual illusions. Sounds strange? Then you are beginning
to get why SR=wrong.
>Your second sentence I do not understand in this context.
Every happening influences other things. So, you can't just have in
one frame-of-reference things go simultaneously, and in another have them
go after one another. Also, Einstein derivation of RoS is plain old wrong,
and i'll be happy to show it to you and explain.
>> Conclusion:
>> ----------
>
>It is too early to draw any conclusion because the above
>in general is not clear and unambigous.
Maybe not to you?
>Suggestion: Only discuss one subject at a time.
Do you understand SR?
If not, what don't you understand.
You change the parameters of my twin-paradox. Why? They are what they
are for good reason.
--
jos
josX
>Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
>>news:akvto3$t5e$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>> II.The following clock-synchronization method:
>>> Considder a long iron rod, round, which is rolled off a long
>>> slope with the end bending up so it throws the rod in the air,
>>> and suppose we do this on the moon, where there is a gravity
>>> field pulling the rod down. If one side of the rod rolls down
>>> before the other, the rod will ofcourse roll down to one side
>>> of the slope. We put up to blocks at the same length as the
>>> rod from eatocher, at each end where the rod must pass through
>>> if it went down in a straight fashion. Get it?
>>
>>No.
>
>
>>>
>>> \* ||************||
>>> \ ||||||||||||||||
>>> \ ||||||||||||||||
>>> \ ###||||||||||||###
>>> `-/ ###------------###
>>> """"""""""""""""
>>> If you like, you can coat the rubber rod with rubber, 'cause then
>>> it'll run down better, or with wheels at the end, or you can make
>>> the rod have a big diameter. You can also do this in space, then
>>> the rod must be propelled down the rod with an initial velocity.
>>
>>I do not understand your drawing.
>>(I have the same problem with many of your drawings)
>
>
>>> side: front:
>>> \* <--iron bar ||************ <-- iron bar, lengthview
>>> \ top-view ||||||||||||||||<---ramp
>>> \ ||||||||||||||||
>>> --->\ ###||||||||||||### <-- blocks
>>> ramp `-/ rim ---> ------------###
>>>sideview """"""""""""""""<--underside of ramp, visible
> below the rim
>
>>It all seems very complex.
>
>
>
>
>>> each end-of-rod pass each block simultaneously. It will fly through
>>> the air and reach two buttons of two clocks sumiltaneously, synchronizing
>>> them. That means you now have two clocks, perfectly synchronized in
>>> all frames of reference, usable to measure the true speed of light!
>>
>>In your opinion what is a frame of reference.
>
>the object is called "the observer" in SR.
>
>>to synchronise all different clock arrangements ?
>>What about 4 clocks in the form of a square ?
>>What about 8 clocks in the form of a cube ?
>
Yes it can be done easily:
Have the iron rod tick off on each end two balls, these balls
roll down ramps towards two clocks, where the ramps are at a right
angle to the moving observer:
A view as seen by the moving observer, coming head on towards the
synchronized clocks:
/boof/ /tick/
-----------X-----------v
* * o o
\* <--rod rolling o*f top view (see only o/ \o
\* * tip) o/ \o
\* * o/ \o <-- balls roll down ramps
\* * o/ \o
\* * o/ \o
\ * # <--block Clock Clock <-- behind these are
`--/ two more clocks
^ramp
Topview:
#
*********************-----------X------------vooooo
********************** Clock Clock
**********************
**********************
**********************
**********************
*********************-----------X------------vooooo
# Clock Clock
A square of synchronized clocks, synchronized in all frames.
This can be done using springs in zero gravity, and the balls need
not be balls, but can be electrical wire or whatever, as long as
the signal propagates at a right angle to the motion of the moving
observer (then relativistic addition of velocities doesn't screw
with the signals, the rod-synchronization ensures simultaneity because
of the blocks, non-simultaneity in the rod makes the rod go down the
ramp at an angle, hitting one of the blocks).
--
jos
Uncle Al
[snip]
Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
carries four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied.
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
This URL cures josX infections.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Spaceman
>The clock God is great,
>the clock God is good,
>and anyone who thinks else,
>just misunderstood.
We know that is what you state.
stop spamming the group with it!
Too bad you have no clue about clocks faults
Uncle Al.
the clock worshipper!
<LOL>
Notice the moron has no "clock problems"
Notice in reality.
the clock does.
Al is a mechanically illiterate moron!
and proves it everytime he posts his little GPS diddly.
<LOL>
Uncle Al "worships the atomic clock"
<ROFLOL>
what a "smart" dipwad!
<LOL>
Nicolaas Vroom
> jos wrote:
> >Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >
> >>Do I understand you correct that you can use this method
> >>to synchronise all different clock arrangements ?
> >>What about 4 clocks in the form of a square ?
> >>What about 8 clocks in the form of a cube ?
> >
> >Haven't thought about it yet.
>
> Yes it can be done easily:
> Have the iron rod tick off on each end two balls, these balls
> roll down ramps towards two clocks, where the ramps are at a right
> angle to the moving observer:
Difficult to follow.
What is your strategy ?
> A view as seen by the moving observer, coming head on towards the
> synchronized clocks:
>
> /boof/ /tick/
> -----------X-----------v
> * * o o
> \* <--rod rolling o*f top view (see only o/ \o
> \* * tip) o/ \o
> \* * o/ \o <-- balls roll down
ramps
> \* * o/ \o
> \* * o/ \o
> \ * # <--block Clock Clock <-- behind these are
> `--/ two more clocks
> ^ramp
>
> Topview:
> #
> *********************-----------X------------vooooo
> ********************** Clock Clock
> **********************
> **********************
> **********************
> **********************
> *********************-----------X------------vooooo
> # Clock Clock
>
I do not understand this drawing.
> A square of synchronized clocks, synchronized in all frames.
> This can be done using springs in zero gravity, and the balls need
> not be balls, but can be electrical wire or whatever, as long as
> the signal propagates at a right angle to the motion of the moving
> observer (then relativistic addition of velocities doesn't screw
> with the signals, the rod-synchronization ensures simultaneity because
> of the blocks, non-simultaneity in the rod makes the rod go down the
> ramp at an angle, hitting one of the blocks).
I do not understand.
Are you sure that springs in zero gravity work ?
Why is there a moving observer ?
Do I understand you correct that this device only can be
used at the moon because as you previously mentioned:
"Because SR deals with "light in a vacuum"".
Nick
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
>news:al7aef$qge$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>jos wrote:
>>>Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do I understand you correct that you can use this method
>>>>to synchronise all different clock arrangements ?
>>>>What about 4 clocks in the form of a square ?
>>>>What about 8 clocks in the form of a cube ?
>>>
>>>Haven't thought about it yet.
>>
>>Yes it can be done easily:
>>Have the iron rod tick off on each end two balls, these balls
>>roll down ramps towards two clocks, where the ramps are at a right
>>angle to the moving observer:
>
>Difficult to follow.
>What is your strategy ?
Use /sideways/ speed of things relative to the motion of the moving
observer.
You are not helping me explain it to you.
>> A square of synchronized clocks, synchronized in all frames.
>> This can be done using springs in zero gravity, and the balls need
>> not be balls, but can be electrical wire or whatever, as long as
>> the signal propagates at a right angle to the motion of the moving
>> observer (then relativistic addition of velocities doesn't screw
>> with the signals, the rod-synchronization ensures simultaneity because
>> of the blocks, non-simultaneity in the rod makes the rod go down the
>> ramp at an angle, hitting one of the blocks).
>
>I do not understand.
>Are you sure that springs in zero gravity work ?
Why wouldn't they.
>Why is there a moving observer ?
Ah, you don't understand much about SR yet ?
He is there because SR says that the speed of light must be measured
as 300,000km/sec for everybody, even the same lightbeam, independantly
of their relative motions. The moving observer is such a moving
observer at a relative speed to the above drawn equipment. To have
the clocks synchronized in both frames of reference means that from
either frame, the speed of light will be measured differently (for
the moving observer, the direction of light even matters), if you are
going to force SR's requirenment of light going at c relative to the
observer your are 'looking from'. Do you get this? If so, how much
do you know about SR, what don't you understand. Do you know the postulates
of SR? Where it goes wrong? Anyway: synchronized clocks falsify SR,
because then the SRists cannot explain away another paradox, it's as
basic as that.
>Do I understand you correct that this device only can be
>used at the moon because as you previously mentioned:
>"Because SR deals with "light in a vacuum"".
To proof SR's inconsistancy, we have to work with it.
--
jos
Franz Heymann
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:akvto3$t5e$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Einstein, the originator of Special relativity, and General
relativity.
>
> - Maxwells laws are a complete cristalization of the math-models
describing
> electro-magnetic waves
> - they are based upon a set speed for these waves
Your understanding is not of a high enough calibre to cope with
characterising Maxwell's equations. Have you indeed ever seen them? If
so have you ever found any solutions to them? If you have, you will
know that Maxwell's equations are not, as you so crudely put it "based
upon a set speed for these waves". The phase velocity of the waves
follow from the solution of particular cases.
Did you realise that the phase velocity is "c" only in the case of
so-called TEM waves in free space?
Did you know that TM waves propagatein free space with a phase velocity
in excess of "c"?
Did you know that TE waves propagate in free space with a phase velocity
in excess of "c"?
[snip]
The rest of your babble was entirely reiterations of your broken
understanding. I suspect it is unmendable.
Franz Heymann
Paul B. Andersen
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al0jlt$cs9$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >http://www.weburbia.com/physics/experiments.html
> >
> >This is a good list of relativity experiments.
>
> Then it has an experiment about the only real thing that SR adds to
> science, the 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
> Go people, look if he has it.
Since none of the listed experiments test anything new added
by SR, isn't it strange that in all the experiments the predictions
of SR are different from the old theories?
How can that be?
Jos, forget SR for a while.
Consider the listed experiments to be tests of 'old theories'
like Newtonian mechanics and Michelson's ether theory.
Do any of these theories pass all the tests?
Paul
keith stein
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3D7774DA...@hate.spam.net...
but Uncle......
jos KNOWS there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR LIGHTSPEED
CONSTANT,
RELATIVE TO
ALL OBSERVERS !!!!
HOW DO I KNOW jos KNOWS THAT ?
BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE EVIDENCE FOR
THE IMPOSSIBLE.
and it is just as impossible for light to have the same speed
RELATIVE TO ALL OBSERVERS!
as it would be for a mouse eh!
I could postulate that 'the mouse' HAD the same speed relative
to all observers, and i could even distort space and time so that
the MOUSE 'did' have the same speed relative to all observers,
but i could never provide you with evidence
that a mouse HAD the same speed relative to all observers,
Because ACTUALLY the mouse can't have the same speed
relative to all observers, and no more can 'light', eh!
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
tj Frazir
MC 2 .
Let me see what you got ,,let me see
tj Frazir
just convert it all to energy.
Got constepaited drinking dark beer angan and will sit here and figer
it out with a pencil.
Well no energy ca be distroyed or made so Ill just forget all te idias
its all te saame stuff anyway and thats the last of the tolet paper ,,
E = MC 2 . There ,,mass and energy are the same thing now any idiot
with a calculator or bigger role can figer it out. As mater of fact
they can test tier tirories against it .. Dont you ?
tj Frazir
pushes a ball from space to space .. it takes him te same time to get to
each space as he roles a ball tat will not go any faster. Te mouse
pushes the ball from space to soace in any direction one space at a time
and one space in same time .
The one that let the mouse out was in this space at this time the same
time the mouse was ..the mouse steped acrosste space in the same time
like the dude was not even moving and the clock gose tap . Te mouse
moves space to space at the same speed per step
till it get to a space you are in . You are moving in the space in space
wle the mouse steps on and the motion of you moving as temouse steps on
roles te ball back moe or less against the mouse ,,but te mouse steps on
to your space at te same time.
A bedtime story for rocket man ?
Energy reacts with energy at C . E=mc2 or E=E at C or E=E
All cats and mice report to the bridge "" If any mice show up the cats
get fed "
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:akvto3$t5e$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> Einstein, the originator of Special relativity, and General relativity.
>>
>> Einstein's logical "analyses" goes like this:
>> - Maxwells laws are a complete cristalization of the math-models describing
>> electro-magnetic waves
>> - they are based upon a set speed for these waves
>
>Your understanding is not of a high enough calibre to cope with
>characterising Maxwell's equations. Have you indeed ever seen them? If
>so have you ever found any solutions to them? If you have, you will
>know that Maxwell's equations are not, as you so crudely put it "based
>upon a set speed for these waves". The phase velocity of the waves
>follow from the solution of particular cases.
>Did you realise that the phase velocity is "c" only in the case of
>so-called TEM waves in free space?
"Free space", where can one look at that, in the zoo ?
>Did you know that TM waves propagatein free space with a phase velocity
>in excess of "c"?
A signal going faster then c?
>Did you know that TE waves propagate in free space with a phase velocity
>in excess of "c"?
>
>[snip]
>
>The rest of your babble was entirely reiterations of your broken
>understanding. I suspect it is unmendable.
Can you proof to us:
relativity of simultaneity
lengthcontraction
timedilation
postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
relativistic addition of velocities
--
jos
josX
Newton passes, because he would math-model the new data.
--
jos
Paul B. Andersen
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3d784d02$0$12325$e4fe...@dreader3.news.xs4all.nl...
Mumbo, jumbo.
You see, Jos, if you use Newtonian mechanics to predict
what will be measured in a number of those experiments,
you simply get the wrong answer. The measured values
in the real world experiments simply aren't what Newtonian
mechanics say they should be.
That proves that Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
So it doesn't matter what your opinion about SR is.
The listed experiments falsify the 'old theories',
and they would do so even if SR hadn't existed.
And THAT is the real importance of those experiments.
But none of the listed experiments falsify SR.
That doesn't prove SR right, but the experiments
does NOT prove SR wrong.
Paul
in the rea
Courtney Mewton
Jos,
Length contraction, time dilation, the relativity of simultaneity and the
relativistic addition of velocities are all mathematical consequences of
Einstein's two posulates.
The invariance of the speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's 4
equations. All 4 equations are verified through experiment. Maxwell's
equations are not just about electromagnetic waves. They govern all
classical electrostatic and magnetic phenomenon, and describe how these
two fields interact with one another. Again, no mention of e-m waves.
Now, Maxwell found that his equations predicted the existence of
"electromagnetic waves". They are governed by the following differential
equation (in free space):
d^2 E / dx^2 = (1/c^2) d^2 E / dt^2
and the same for the magnetic field B. Notice the 1/c^2 term? This sort
of differential equation is a wave equation, and the 1/c^2 implies that
the wave travels with speed c. This speed "c" is an invariant -- there is
no provision in Maxwells equations to change it. "c" is not an arbitrary
constant -- it is a function of electrostatic and magnetic constants. If
this were not the case, if you travelled at a high enough velocity, atoms
would probably implode due to the variations in these constants.
SO, e-m waves in free space always travel at speed "c". This is one of
Einstein's postulates. All SR says is that if Maxwell's equations are
correct, then "c" won't vary, in accordance with Maxwell's equations.
Indeed, this postulate is a consequence of the principle of relativity,
coupled with the validity of Maxwell's equations.
Regards,
CJM
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:al9k8m$kad$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Paul, didn't you know then?
These experiments "are conducted by biased experimentalists".
All of them.
At all times.
Everywhere.
Dirk Vdm
josX
Only if you put Lorentzian paradoxes in postulate-1 as laws of physics,
and throw working Galileian math/geometry out.
>The invariance of the speed of light is a consequence of Maxwell's 4
>equations.
If so, they were in an unfinished state.
> All 4 equations are verified through experiment. Maxwell's
>equations are not just about electromagnetic waves. They govern all
>classical electrostatic and magnetic phenomenon, and describe how these
>two fields interact with one another. Again, no mention of e-m waves.
Every wave ...
Supose there is an e-m wave on Saturn, i'm sure there are. If this wave's
relative speed to earth does not change when the earth moves away from
Saturn or towards, then your formulas are in a broken state.
>Now, Maxwell found that his equations predicted the existence of
>"electromagnetic waves". They are governed by the following differential
>equation (in free space):
>
>d^2 E / dx^2 = (1/c^2) d^2 E / dt^2
>
>and the same for the magnetic field B. Notice the 1/c^2 term? This sort
>of differential equation is a wave equation, and the 1/c^2 implies that
>the wave travels with speed c.
...relative to something...
> This speed "c" is an invariant -- there is
>no provision in Maxwells equations to change it.
Then you must add it.
> "c" is not an arbitrary
>constant -- it is a function of electrostatic and magnetic constants. If
>this were not the case, if you travelled at a high enough velocity, atoms
>would probably implode due to the variations in these constants.
Ah yes "the world implodes if Maxwells work was wrong". Maybe it would,
for you i mean.
>SO, e-m waves in free space
<cut>
in what?
Where was this "free space" observed.
> always travel at speed "c". This is one of
>Einstein's postulates.
And obviously flawed because of absurdity.
> All SR says is that if Maxwell's equations are
>correct, then "c" won't vary, in accordance with Maxwell's equations.
But they forgot to suplement Maxwells equations with the obvious relative
speed factor for when some co-ordinate system changes speed relative
to the waves. That's no big deal, equations develop. But it becomes a problem
when you are going to take Einsteins route.
>Indeed, this postulate is a consequence of the principle of relativity,
>coupled with the validity of Maxwell's equations.
Think about what i've say, think about Saturn and Earth. Does Maxwell make
sense, or do his formula's need patching to be (more) complete ?
--
jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3d784d02$0$12325$e4fe...@dreader3.news.xs4all.nl...
>>Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al0jlt$cs9$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>> >http://www.weburbia.com/physics/experiments.html
>>>> >
>>>> >This is a good list of relativity experiments.
>>>>
>>>> Then it has an experiment about the only real thing that SR adds to
>>>> science, the 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
>>>> Go people, look if he has it.
>>>
>>>Since none of the listed experiments test anything new added
>>>by SR, isn't it strange that in all the experiments the predictions
>>>of SR are different from the old theories?
>>>How can that be?
>>>
>>>Jos, forget SR for a while.
>>>Consider the listed experiments to be tests of 'old theories'
>>>like Newtonian mechanics and Michelson's ether theory.
>>>Do any of these theories pass all the tests?
>>
>>Newton passes, because he would math-model the new data.
>
>Mumbo, jumbo.
>You see, Jos, if you use Newtonian mechanics to predict
>what will be measured in a number of those experiments,
>you simply get the wrong answer. The measured values
>in the real world experiments simply aren't what Newtonian
>mechanics say they should be.
They would, but you might be too biased to notice.
>That proves that Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
>
>So it doesn't matter what your opinion about SR is.
>The listed experiments falsify the 'old theories',
>and they would do so even if SR hadn't existed.
Wrong. Then there wouldn't have been a reason to trot out flimsy
evidence, and mass-increase in accelerators might have been investigated
at to their true causes.
>And THAT is the real importance of those experiments.
Where were they when SR got adopted ??
>But none of the listed experiments falsify SR.
>That doesn't prove SR right, but the experiments
>does NOT prove SR wrong.
SR is absurd, that proves it wrong. It's build on an unproven hypotheses,
that means we can discard it easily.
--
jos
josX
You are arguing that accelerators and muons and GPS-clocks existed
in 1905, to support the acceptance of postulate-2 ?
Don't you realize that acceptance of SR and postulate-2 makes all
physics relating to it afterwards suspect ?
To ask phycisists to test SR is to ask priests to proof God's existance.
With priests you get confirmed miracles, with phycisists you get muons
explained as timedilation, and mass-increase in particle-accelerators.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3d786294$0$11981$e4fe...@dreader1.news.xs4all.nl...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:al9k8m$kad$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
[snip]
> >> But none of the listed experiments falsify SR.
> >> That doesn't prove SR right, but the experiments
> >> does NOT prove SR wrong.
> >
> >Paul, didn't you know then?
> >These experiments "are conducted by biased experimentalists".
> >All of them.
> >At all times.
> >Everywhere.
>
> You are arguing that accelerators and muons and GPS-clocks existed
> in 1905, to support the acceptance of postulate-2 ?
No. We know you cannot write, but can't you read either?
I am arguing that:
These experiments "are conducted by biased experimentalists".
All of them.
At all times.
Everywhere.
Dirk Vdm
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3d786294$0$11981$e4fe...@dreader1.news.xs4all.nl...
>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:al9k8m$kad$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
>[snip]
>
>>>> But none of the listed experiments falsify SR.
>>>> That doesn't prove SR right, but the experiments
>>>> does NOT prove SR wrong.
>>>
>>>Paul, didn't you know then?
>>>These experiments "are conducted by biased experimentalists".
>>>All of them.
>>>At all times.
>>>Everywhere.
>>
>> You are arguing that accelerators and muons and GPS-clocks existed
>> in 1905, to support the acceptance of postulate-2 ?
>
>No. We know you cannot write, but can't you read either?
>I am arguing that:
> These experiments "are conducted by biased experimentalists".
> All of them.
> At all times.
> Everywhere.
ah right, strawman
``Forget reality, let's get a mood going.''
Can you proof to us instead:
relativity of simultaneity
lengthcontraction
timedilation
postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
relativistic addition of velocities
Can't? Then how about an admission that SR=wrong given it's unsolvable
paradoxes.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Newton passes, because he would math-model the new data.
That was not how Newton worked. That is how Kepler worked.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al9q1q$25f$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
I cannot and no one can "proof".
I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
As long as you do not understand "whoof",
I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
Dirk Vdm
josX
It is how true science works. Newton's laws are so simple,
his data could have come directly from real world intuition.
Ready to face the facts that you cannot give evidence of SR's
base, cannot explain how it got adopted, and cannot explain this
twin paradox: ?
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.
For the unbrainwashed, this is what SR claims:
In a space-war, a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
as relative to an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
Can you imagine it?
Neither can anyone who is capable of holding three things in his mind.
How long oh scientific community before you will stop lying ?
--
jos
josX
Then open a church instead of wasting the recourses for science.
>I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
I do, everybody does except those that benifit from the scheme.
>I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
I do, and everybody who loves science does.
>As long as you do not understand "whoof",
I won't be brainwashed into your religion Dirk, i know it's faults.
>I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
Because it's not me who needs the ""help"", it's science.
Help to weed out the likes of the SRists who infiltrate into it.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al9rfk$6pc$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
We already have that well established church ;-)
>
> >I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
>
> I do, everybody does except those that benifit from the scheme.
And you get nothing ;-)
>
> >I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
>
> I do, and everybody who loves science does.
We do not love science, we thrive on it ;-)
>
> >As long as you do not understand "whoof",
>
> I won't be brainwashed into your religion Dirk, i know it's faults.
You are not welcome in it ;-)
>
> >I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
>
> Because it's not me who needs the ""help"", it's science.
> Help to weed out the likes of the SRists who infiltrate into it.
They do not infiltrate, they own it ;-)
Dirk Vdm
josX
But you call it science, twisting the word. Why. Only then the flocks keep
coming and the bucks keep rolling.
>>>I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
>>
>>I do, everybody does except those that benifit from the scheme.
>
>And you get nothing ;-)
I get to know how it works, and i don't have to lie.
>>>I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
>>
>>I do, and everybody who loves science does.
>
>We do not love science, we thrive on it ;-)
Exactly, like a tumor.
>>>As long as you do not understand "whoof",
>>
>>I won't be brainwashed into your religion Dirk, i know it's faults.
>
>You are not welcome in it ;-)
I don't want to be.
>>>I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
>>
>>Because it's not me who needs the ""help"", it's science.
>>Help to weed out the likes of the SRists who infiltrate into it.
>
>They do not infiltrate, they own it ;-)
What more can i say to someone like you. Please leave this group,
it's about science ?
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al9t3d$9mq$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Haven't you noticed?
To annoy you ;-)
> Only then the flocks keep
> coming and the bucks keep rolling.
Yep, but not for you ;-)
>
> >>>I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
> >>
> >>I do, everybody does except those that benifit from the scheme.
> >
> >And you get nothing ;-)
>
> I get to know how it works, and i don't have to lie.
Neither do we *have* to lie, we just do it to annoy you ;-)
>
> >>>I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
> >>
> >>I do, and everybody who loves science does.
> >
> >We do not love science, we thrive on it ;-)
>
> Exactly, like a tumor.
Yep, we love the smell of pus ;-)
>
> >>>As long as you do not understand "whoof",
> >>
> >>I won't be brainwashed into your religion Dirk, i know it's faults.
> >
> >You are not welcome in it ;-)
>
> I don't want to be.
If you don't want your brain washed, go elsewhere, because
*this* is a brainlaunderette.
>
> >>>I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
> >>
> >>Because it's not me who needs the ""help"", it's science.
> >>Help to weed out the likes of the SRists who infiltrate into it.
> >
> >They do not infiltrate, they own it ;-)
>
> What more can i say to someone like you. Please leave this group,
> it's about science ?
No it's about what *we* define as science.
*You* are the outcast. Haven't you noticed?
Dirk Vdm
josX
What if they knew you were lying.
>>>>>I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
>>>>
>>>>I do, everybody does except those that benifit from the scheme.
>>>
>>>And you get nothing ;-)
>>
>>I get to know how it works, and i don't have to lie.
>
>Neither do we *have* to lie, we just do it to annoy you ;-)
What if they knew you were lying.
>>>>>I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
>>>>
>>>>I do, and everybody who loves science does.
>>>
>>>We do not love science, we thrive on it ;-)
>>
>>Exactly, like a tumor.
>
>Yep, we love the smell of pus ;-)
>
>>>>>As long as you do not understand "whoof",
>>>>
>>>>I won't be brainwashed into your religion Dirk, i know it's faults.
>>>
>>>You are not welcome in it ;-)
>>
>>I don't want to be.
>
>If you don't want your brain washed, go elsewhere, because
>*this* is a brainlaunderette.
Does it still work ?
>>>>>I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
>>>>
>>>>Because it's not me who needs the ""help"", it's science.
>>>>Help to weed out the likes of the SRists who infiltrate into it.
>>>
>>>They do not infiltrate, they own it ;-)
>>
>>What more can i say to someone like you. Please leave this group,
>>it's about science ?
>
>No it's about what *we* define as science.
>*You* are the outcast. Haven't you noticed?
What if people were taught the truth, asked to think for a change.
Still can't answer to my questions can you ?
Can you proof to us:
relativity of simultaneity
lengthcontraction
timedilation
postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
relativistic addition of velocities
You cannot.
Can you solve for us:
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.
You cannot.
What do you estimate the time before people realize you can't, no professor
can, and never could (without going outside SR).
People did not accept the maffia running bisnis and politics, do you think
they will accept the SR-maffia as running physics once they know ?
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al9ucf$bod$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Doesn't matter, we are lying in harmony and they are
dumb anyway ;-)
>
> >>>>>I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
> >>>>
> >>>>I do, everybody does except those that benifit from the scheme.
> >>>
> >>>And you get nothing ;-)
> >>
> >>I get to know how it works, and i don't have to lie.
> >
> >Neither do we *have* to lie, we just do it to annoy you ;-)
>
> What if they knew you were lying.
Doesn't matter, we are lying in harmony and they are
dumb anyway ;-)
>
> >>>>>I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
> >>>>
> >>>>I do, and everybody who loves science does.
> >>>
> >>>We do not love science, we thrive on it ;-)
> >>
> >>Exactly, like a tumor.
> >
> >Yep, we love the smell of pus ;-)
> >
> >>>>>As long as you do not understand "whoof",
> >>>>
> >>>>I won't be brainwashed into your religion Dirk, i know it's faults.
> >>>
> >>>You are not welcome in it ;-)
> >>
> >>I don't want to be.
> >
> >If you don't want your brain washed, go elsewhere, because
> >*this* is a brainlaunderette.
>
> Does it still work ?
Yep, but you need a little brain in order to get serviced ;-)
>
> >>>>>I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
> >>>>
> >>>>Because it's not me who needs the ""help"", it's science.
> >>>>Help to weed out the likes of the SRists who infiltrate into it.
> >>>
> >>>They do not infiltrate, they own it ;-)
> >>
> >>What more can i say to someone like you. Please leave this group,
> >>it's about science ?
> >
> >No it's about what *we* define as science.
> >*You* are the outcast. Haven't you noticed?
>
> What if people were taught the truth, asked to think for a change.
People don't want truth.
People don't want to think.
The want religion, faith, beer and a tv-set.
>
> Still can't answer to my questions can you ?
> Can you proof to us:
> relativity of simultaneity
> lengthcontraction
> timedilation
> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
> relativistic addition of velocities
> You cannot.
> Can you solve for us:
> 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.
> You cannot.
Indeed.
I cannot and no one can "proof".
I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
As long as you do not understand "whoof",
I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
>
> What do you estimate the time before people realize you can't, no professor
> can, and never could (without going outside SR).
People *know* that we can't and won't and don't
need to. We tell them that. They understand and they
are happy with it. We give them what they want.
Haven't you noticed?
>
> People did not accept the maffia running bisnis and politics, do you think
> they will accept the SR-maffia as running physics once they know ?
Yes. They swallow it. Haven't you noticed?
Dirk Vdm
josX
They are, now. But if they really were dumb, would you need a
brainlaundarette?
>>>>>>>I do not want and no one wants to "proof".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do, everybody does except those that benifit from the scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you get nothing ;-)
>>>>
>>>>I get to know how it works, and i don't have to lie.
>>>
>>>Neither do we *have* to lie, we just do it to annoy you ;-)
>>
>>What if they knew you were lying.
>
>Doesn't matter, we are lying in harmony and they are
>dumb anyway ;-)
And you are arrogant to think things cannot change.
Do you realize how easy it is to disproof SR?
All i have to do is say what it means, and i need not go past postulate-2.
>>>>>>>I do not need and no one needs to "proof".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do, and everybody who loves science does.
>>>>>
>>>>>We do not love science, we thrive on it ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Exactly, like a tumor.
>>>
>>>Yep, we love the smell of pus ;-)
>>>
>>>>>>>As long as you do not understand "whoof",
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I won't be brainwashed into your religion Dirk, i know it's faults.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are not welcome in it ;-)
>>>>
>>>>I don't want to be.
>>>
>>>If you don't want your brain washed, go elsewhere, because
>>>*this* is a brainlaunderette.
>>
>>Does it still work ?
>
>Yep, but you need a little brain in order to get serviced ;-)
The size of the brain for which it still works will decrease the longer
we are here.
What you don't realize is... hehe, i won't say.
Ok i tell you: most people don't believe in relativity at all, they
merely don't understand it "yet" and are unable to break from the
faith they have in the "genius" phycisists. Now they have me bashing
your heads with a few fingers and you are nowhere. All these people
will know.
>>>>>>>I cannot and no one can possibly help "yoof".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because it's not me who needs the ""help"", it's science.
>>>>>>Help to weed out the likes of the SRists who infiltrate into it.
>>>>>
>>>>>They do not infiltrate, they own it ;-)
>>>>
>>>>What more can i say to someone like you. Please leave this group,
>>>>it's about science ?
>>>
>>>No it's about what *we* define as science.
>>>*You* are the outcast. Haven't you noticed?
>>
>>What if people were taught the truth, asked to think for a change.
>
>People don't want truth.
I know. But some do.
>People don't want to think.
I know. But some do it anyway.
>The want religion, faith, beer and a tv-set.
They also like scandals.
I think i beat that with my truth requires undue evidence.
I beat you even at poetry son :).
>> What do you estimate the time before people realize you can't, no professor
>> can, and never could (without going outside SR).
>
>People *know* that we can't and won't and don't
>need to. We tell them that. They understand and they
>are happy with it. We give them what they want.
>Haven't you noticed?
Ofcourse. But they are not all like that, only the weak are.
>> People did not accept the maffia running bisnis and politics, do you think
>> they will accept the SR-maffia as running physics once they know ?
>
>Yes. They swallow it. Haven't you noticed?
Not all do. The churches go empty the more time goes on, your religion
will suffer from the decline of the common resource.
My only true goal was to end the working of your launderette, i succeed
every day as long as i please. Time always exists before and after the
scams, it's just a matter of time before this thing ends.
--
jos
Manfred Geilhaupt
As we know the most theories are wrong.
But SR is not wrong only has limits.
It is the (private) assumption made that limits a theory.
Here the assumption is c=const
I have a principle theory too.
My assumption is "Only the laws of nature are constant"
Now it is possible that c is not constant if it is not a law of nature.
If you go from vacuum to water c is not a constant. So c=const is not a law of nature.
But if you say ALL IS POSSIBLE. It's toyota.
manfred
the most theories are wrong
Not so SR. She is the most beautiful theory because survived in GR - hopefully the same fate for GR once. Einstein
failed utterly here but not before. So what does it mean: "was einstein wrong?"
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ala12m$gjj$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al9ucf$bod$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snot]
So we are back where we were.
So long and thanks for all the fish ;-)
Dirk Vdm
josX
>SR is a (principle) THEORY
Hence, not science, but fiction.
>As we know the most theories are wrong.
No. 1+1=2. a^2+b^2=c^2. True. "The sky is blue", true. Dogs carry
their young and give live birth, true. Etc etc etc etc.
>But SR is not wrong only has limits.
No, it's wrong.
>It is the (private) assumption made that limits a theory.
>Here the assumption is c=const
Without physical evidence. That is not science, that is fantasy.
>I have a principle theory too.
>My assumption is "Only the laws of nature are constant"
>Now it is possible that c is not constant if it is not a law of nature.
>If you go from vacuum to water c is not a constant. So c=const is not a law of nature.
>
>But if you say ALL IS POSSIBLE. It's toyota.
>
>manfred
>the most theories are wrong
>Not so SR. She is the most beautiful theory because survived in GR - hopefully the same fate for GR once. Einstein
>failed utterly here but not before. So what does it mean: "was einstein wrong?"
It means i am right.
--
jos
josX
You are easy game Dirk, you don't even know it.
--
jos
bb powers
> No throery ,,,just the energy please . Im full of thirories today and
> just convert it all to energy.
> Got constepaited drinking dark beer angan and will sit here and figer
> it out with a pencil.
Oh you drink and post in the bathroom?? -- if so, {Omg!}
Drinking can impair one's visual senses, verbal abilities, tactually,
and Intelligence.
> Well no energy ca be distroyed or made so Ill just forget all te idias
> its all te saame stuff anyway and
>thats the last of the tolet paper ,,
> E = MC 2 . There ,,mass and energy are the same thing now any idiot
> with a calculator or bigger role can figer it out. As mater of fact
> they can test tier tirories against it .. Dont you ?
Tom Potter
"Courtney Mewton" <uqcm...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.30.020906...@dingo.cc.uq.edu.au...
Maxwell observed that the speed of light was equal to
the square root of the reciprocal of the magnetic constant (Permeability)
multiplied by the electric constant (Permittivity), and reasoned that if
these properties
were constant in space, as they likely were, that the speed of light would
be constant. He computed the speed of light using these constant.
Note that Maxwell and Faraday knew that the magnetic and electric
"constants",
were NOT constants when dealing with Leyden jars (Capacitors)
and inductors, but obviously Maxwell knew that they were probably constant
for free space, where there was no matter to affect these "constants",
otherwise he would not have predicted what the speed of light was.
In other words, Maxwell knew:
C^2 = 1 / ( Permittivity * Permeability )
and
B = H * Permeability
If other words, if Maxwell thought that B / H was not a constant in space,
he would have mentioned it, and he wouldn't have computed the speed of
light.
Maxwell, like most scientists, believed that space was homogenous and
isotropic,
and naturally he would think that the speed of light was constant.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Spaceman
>Jos,
>
>Length contraction, (light illusion)
time dilation, (clock malfunction)
the relativity of simultaneity (absolute same times)
> and the
>relativistic addition of velocities (bad math)
>are all mathematical crap!
YUP!
the rod did not shrink (and no experminet has shown such)
time did not change rate (and no experiment has showed such)
and
things can happen at the same time.
you and you "fuzzy math"
are just caught in your own math and light built illusions.
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>Mumbo, jumbo.
>You see, Jos, if you use Newtonian mechanics to predict
>what will be measured in a number of those experiments,
>you simply get the wrong answer.
And that would simply mean,
You missed something that needed more of Newtons math.
>The measured values
>in the real world experiments simply aren't what Newtonian
>mechanics say they should be.
>That proves that Newtonian mechanics is wrong.
Only mechanically illiterate fools say such.
I see you could never fix a car engine.
and according to you a car engine won't work.
since it does not use relativity at all.
poor mechanically illiterate puppy dog.
chasing tires for no reason.
Spaceman
>They do not infiltrate, they own it ;-)
AHA!
ownersip now huh?
<LOL>
Who is they?
and what do they own?
Spaceman
>No it's about what *we* define as science.
>*You* are the outcast. Haven't you noticed?
>
>Dirk Vdm
Hey Dork!
When you say "time changed rate"
you left science long ago.
Outcast is what your time travel ship has had happen to it.
Stop crying and accept the fact.
You lose.
simply because
The clock malfunctioned.
You just don't get it huh?
Ken Seto
> Spaceman wrote:
> >
> >
> > removal of all and synching of all clocks makes
> > absolutes.
> >
>
> Ref: http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
> Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System
>
>
> Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative
> to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks
> ticking more slowly (see Lecture 32). A straightforward calculation
> using special relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the
> satellites would lose about 7 microseconds per day because of the
> slower ticking rate.
This refutes the SR claim of mutual time dilation. According to
the GPS the SR effect on the stallite clock_always_run slower
than the ground station clock and the daily correction built into
the statellite clock for the SR portion is always 7 microsecond slower
per day.
>
>
> The engineers who designed the GPS system took these relativistic
> effects into account when they designed and deployed the system. One
> thing they did was to slow down the ticking frequency of the atomic
> clocks before they were launched
No they didn't slow down the ticking as you claimed. The
satellite clock ticks at their natural state. What they
did was redefined the definition for a clock second for
the satellite clock. a clock second of the satellite clock
has 4.5 ticks more of the Cs atom than a clock second of
the ground station clock.
ken seto
Spaceman
>No they didn't slow down the ticking as you claimed. The
>satellite clock ticks at their natural state. What they
>did was redefined the definition for a clock second for
>the satellite clock. a clock second of the satellite clock
>has 4.5 ticks more of the Cs atom than a clock second of
>the ground station clock.
:)
they won't "get that fact"
:)
they think atomic clocks "regulate time"
They are truly lost in a dimension.
the more they allowed the clocks to
"keep the relative goofups of clock" (clock malfunctions/time dilations)
the more they missed a target.
so,
they removed the dang things and "synched all clocks"
and ...
TADA!
It worked better by completely ignoring relativity.
:)
and when they get "better clocks" they will get more accuracy.
That is the TRUTH about GPS.
all these dorks have no clue about how clocks "must work"
and what faults ALL CLOCKS HAVE.
they are simply mechanically illiterate "smart people"
<LOL>
Ken Seto
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3D7774DA...@hate.spam.net...
> > josX wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
> > carries four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
> > corrections being applied.
> >
> > http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
> > http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
> >
> <http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/in
> dex.html>
> >
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
> > This URL cures josX infections.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>
> but Uncle......
>
> jos KNOWS there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR LIGHTSPEED
>
> CONSTANT,
>
> RELATIVE TO
>
> ALL OBSERVERS !!!!
>
>
>
>
> HOW DO I KNOW jos KNOWS THAT ?
>
>
> BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE EVIDENCE FOR
> THE IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> and it is just as impossible for light to have the same speed
> RELATIVE TO ALL OBSERVERS!
> as it would be for a mouse eh!
>
> I could postulate that 'the mouse' HAD the same speed relative
> to all observers, and i could even distort space and time so that
> the MOUSE 'did' have the same speed relative to all observers,
> but i could never provide you with evidence
> that a mouse HAD the same speed relative to all observers,
> Because ACTUALLY the mouse can't have the same speed
> relative to all observers, and no more can 'light', eh!
You could if you accept that speed is a constant math ratio.
For light the ratio is as follows:
light path length for rod(300,000km)/absolute time content
for a clock seocnd co-moving with the rod
ken seto
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>>josX wrote:
>>
>>>Newton passes, because he would math-model the new data.
>>
>>That was not how Newton worked. That is how Kepler worked.
>
>
> It is how true science works. Newton's laws are so simple,
> his data could have come directly from real world intuition.
Obviously physical law is based, in part, on experience and in part on
necessary symmetries. As for the first law, both Newton and Galileo did
a gedanken experiment (an act of creative imagination) based on
experience. Suppse you have an inclined plane P_1 of slope S_1 which is
abutted to an inclined plane P_2 of slope S_2 in the opposite direction.
The configulation looks like \/.
Assume the planes are pefectly smooth and smooth spheriods are used. If
one rolls a ball down plane P_1 from height h it will run up P_2 to the
same height h. Now decrease S_2 and lengthen P_2 so it reaches height h.
As S_2 decreases the length becomes longer and longer. As the ball runs
up P_2 it is decelerated by gravity less and less, so its velocity
approach the uniform velocity it had when it left P_1. -In the limiit-
when S_2 is 0 plane P_2 will extend infinitely to try to get to height h
, but it can't. The balls will run the length of S_2 at a uniform velocity.
This gedanken leads one to assume a body (like the ball) will go
indefinitely in a straight line at uniform velocity. No -real-
experment can possibly produce this result because all real bodies that
can be observed (especially in the 17-th century) can only go a limited
distance and they are subjected to forces of friction and gravity. These
perturbing forces are subtracted -mentally- since that is the only way
they can be eliminated. In any case, no real experiment can establish
the first law. It must be done in imagination as an idealization which
approximates real situations.
So when we get to the 20-th century and use a laminar airflow rail we
have an extremely good approximation to a frictionless surface, and we
can imagine, without too much object an air rail extended indefinitely.
Again no such real air rail exists so even here we extend the limited
observation by an act of imagination.
Now contrast this to Kepler. He had tons of data from Tycho Brahae
(which he obtained from Tycho's heirs after a battle). He needs to find
an orbit that fits the data. At first he tries circles. Even with
offsets from the sun as a center the best he can do is fit the orbit of
mars to within 8 minutes of observation. A less honest man than J.
Kepler, might have declared this close enough for government work. But
no, Kepler persisted and finally disovered the best fit using a
geometrically defined curve (Kepler did not have analystic geometry) nor
did he use least squre fit, he came up with the ellipse. Within the
limits of accuracy of Tycho's figures, 2 minutes, he got a "perfect
fit". And that is how Kepler determined the orbits were Ellipses. He was
data driven. He did not have a superordinating principle of symmetry to
lead him to this conclusion, nor did he have any good notion of force.
Newton was led with some help from Robert Hooke to regard the motion of
planets as the resulting of tangential motion, governed by the principle
of interia and centripital force, directed to the sun. Guided by
Kepler's laws 1 and 2 he got an ellipse as the orbit and guided by
Kepler's law 3 he determined the centripital force to be inversely
proportional to the square of the distance. In short, Newton took an
abstract mathematical approach guided by Kepler's findings. Newton
invented the tools for describing motion (fluxions) a technique which
Kepler did not, nor could not have had to hand.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Manfred Geilhaupt wrote:
>
>>SR is a (principle) THEORY
>
>
> Hence, not science, but fiction.
So is Newton's classical theory, which is factually dispoved by the way
particle accelerators work. If Newton's theory were true at all
veclocities, the particles in a modern high energy accelerator would be
up to and past light speed in a matter of seconds. To achieve the speeds
obtained in the SLAC which is over two miles long, the accerlator tube
would only need to be a few meters long. Heck, in a television tub,
electrons are acclerated to 70,000 miles per second. Why prey tell wont
they go to light speed if extended by a factor of 4. The tube in your
CRT monitor, is what, about 3/4 foot in length. Extend that to a yard
and and add magentic boosters and you should lightspeed electrons
easily. So why doesn't it happen. Because the electrons a velecity v
behave -as though- they had a mass of m/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 where m is the
rest mass of an electron. To put it crudely the faster the electrons go,
the harder they are to push to higher speed. The total momentum of the
elctrons are m*v/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 in the rest frame of the CRT. In short,
the momentum increase to infinity as v approaches c from below. The
velocity can never be c, but if you can exert enough force you can get
the velocity close to c. In accelerators, electrons can be driven to
speeds of 0.9999*c or even higher, but never to c.
Look at the velocity curve, as measured, for accelerators. The speeds to
not increase linearly as more force is exerted. They approach a
horizontal assymptote. The speed to force curve is shaped like
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 , as v -> c. These are -facts- based on direct
measurement (since you seem to like experimental facts). In short the
lightest of particles cannot be driven to c, so how can heavier
particles be driven to c. Only particles with 0 rest mass can go at c
and they cannot go slower. There is no way to slow a photon down. It can
be absorbed by a bound electron, but it cannot be slowed and maintain
its identity.
To get back to the main point, good old Newtonian mechanics is as much
fantasy as is S.R.. When compared to fact, Newtonian mechanics breaks
down at high velocities. Which is why Einstein had to modify Newtonian
mechanics (and slightly at that) in order to encompass it under the same
regime as electromagnetic radiation. If the world worked as you suppose
it does we would have two physics. The physics of light (i.e.
electromagnetic radiation) and the physics of massive particles. Each
seperate unto itself. E.R. does not obey the galilean laws of velocity
addition. Even under the old aether view, once the light waves were in
the aether, they would go as the aether permits, not as the speed of the
emitting body. The ballistic theory of light (where velocities add) is
just plain wrong.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
[snip]
Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
carries four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied?
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>
>>>josX wrote:
>>>
>>>>Newton passes, because he would math-model the new data.
>>>
>>>That was not how Newton worked. That is how Kepler worked.
>>
>>
>> It is how true science works. Newton's laws are so simple,
>> his data could have come directly from real world intuition.
>
>Obviously physical law is based, in part, on experience and in part on
>necessary symmetries.
No, only on experience.
> As for the first law, both Newton and Galileo did
>a gedanken experiment (an act of creative imagination) based on
>experience. Suppse you have an inclined plane P_1 of slope S_1 which is
>abutted to an inclined plane P_2 of slope S_2 in the opposite direction.
>The configulation looks like \/.
Newton did experiments if you didn't know. Newton did a lot of experiments.
I am looking at a steam-powerd cart used to demonstrate (proof) the third
law of motion, and equipment to measure falling balls's force.
Where are you getting the idea Newton was a postulator like Einstein who
merely fantasized his work together.
>Assume the planes are pefectly smooth and smooth spheriods are used. If
>one rolls a ball down plane P_1 from height h it will run up P_2 to the
>same height h. Now decrease S_2 and lengthen P_2 so it reaches height h.
>As S_2 decreases the length becomes longer and longer. As the ball runs
>up P_2 it is decelerated by gravity less and less, so its velocity
>approach the uniform velocity it had when it left P_1. -In the limiit-
>when S_2 is 0 plane P_2 will extend infinitely to try to get to height h
>, but it can't. The balls will run the length of S_2 at a uniform velocity.
>
>This gedanken
Excuze me, but he most likely just did it.
<snip>
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Excuze me, but he most likely just did it.
The gedanken? Yes. An actual experiment in the real world cannot verify
the first law of motion. When was the last time a body ran forever in a
force free environment? The first law can only be realized by idealization.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
> When was the last time a body ran forever in a
>force free environment?
Superconductivity.
DUH!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020906133632...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@attbi.com
>
> > When was the last time a body ran forever in a
> >force free environment?
>
> Superconductivity.
> DUH!
Ah yes, than one ran forever.
We all humbly stand corrected.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>>From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@attbi.com
>
>
>>When was the last time a body ran forever in a
>>force free environment?
>
>
> Superconductivity.
> DUH!
Still subject to gravity. And we are talking about motion in a stright
line at uniform velocity.
Superconductors are circuits. The electrons are constrained to run in
circles as it were.
DUH!
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
>
> Ah yes, than one ran forever.
> We all humbly stand corrected.
A superconducter has never run forever.
Since the electrons are changing direction, there must be force
operating on them.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>Still subject to gravity. And we are talking about motion in a stright
>line at uniform velocity.
<LOL>
NOT!
it levitated too!
oh now spinning can't be used?
PUH-LEASE!
you are a sad ass twister!
magnetic levitation does not happen either I suppose?
You are truly lost in spacetime Bob..
<LOL>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3D78EAD9...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ah yes, than one ran forever.
> > We all humbly stand corrected.
>
> A superconducter has never run forever.
Of course not. I think you missed my point.
Should I have included a ";-)"?
Surely not, right?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020906133632...@mb-md.aol.com...
I think it is a keeper:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#RanForever
Title: "For the benefit of josX: Superconductivity ran forever!"
Thanks Spacegoof.
Dirk Vdm
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Manfred Geilhaupt wrote:
>>
>>>SR is a (principle) THEORY
>>
>> Hence, not science, but fiction.
Sure, 'keep snipping'.
>So is Newton's classical theory, which is factually dispoved by the way
>particle accelerators work.
It is still proven by every day objects, particle accelerators are operated
by biased people, who interpret everything according to their religious
persuasion, and have no motivation to look beyond it.
> If Newton's theory were true at all
>veclocities, the particles in a modern high energy accelerator would be
>up to and past light speed in a matter of seconds.
There is always friction.
> To achieve the speeds
>obtained in the SLAC which is over two miles long, the accerlator tube
>would only need to be a few meters long. Heck, in a television tub,
>electrons are acclerated to 70,000 miles per second. Why prey tell wont
>they go to light speed if extended by a factor of 4.
Friction for example.
> The tube in your
>CRT monitor, is what, about 3/4 foot in length. Extend that to a yard
>and and add magentic boosters and you should lightspeed electrons
>easily. So why doesn't it happen. Because the electrons a velecity v
>behave -as though- they had a mass of m/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 where m is the
>rest mass of an electron.
Friction.
> To put it crudely the faster the electrons go,
>the harder they are to push to higher speed.
Sounds like friction to me.
> The total momentum of the
>elctrons are m*v/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 in the rest frame of the CRT. In short,
>the momentum increase to infinity as v approaches c from below.
The longer you blast them around, the more will be flying with it.
> The
>velocity can never be c
Says who, the faithfull?
What did scientists waffle about the soundbarrier again ?
Making the same mistakes again are we ?
> but if you can exert enough force you can get
>the velocity close to c. In accelerators, electrons can be driven to
>speeds of 0.9999*c or even higher, but never to c.
We have no reliable sources on this.
>Look at the velocity curve, as measured, for accelerators.
Who made it, your professional friends ?
We can expect the same kind of honesty and scruteny from them as from you ?
> The speeds to
>not increase linearly as more force is exerted.
Friction acts just like it.
> They approach a
>horizontal assymptote. The speed to force curve is shaped like
>1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 , as v -> c. These are -facts- based on direct
>measurement (since you seem to like experimental facts). In short the
>lightest of particles cannot be driven to c, so how can heavier
>particles be driven to c. Only particles with 0 rest mass can go at c
>and they cannot go slower.
Light goes slower then c in denser then vacuum mediums.
> There is no way to slow a photon down.
No?
How about some glass.
> It can
>be absorbed by a bound electron, but it cannot be slowed and maintain
>its identity.
Then why can it.
>To get back to the main point, good old Newtonian mechanics is as much
>fantasy as is S.R..
No. Play a game of snooker.
> When compared to fact, Newtonian mechanics breaks
>down at high velocities.
Says who. Unbiased scientists who never take something on faith alone ?
Who discarde hypotheses containing paradoxes ?
> Which is why Einstein had to modify Newtonian
>mechanics (and slightly at that) in order to encompass it under the same
>regime as electromagnetic radiation.
To explain the particle accelerator evidence ?
> If the world worked as you suppose
>it does we would have two physics. The physics of light (i.e.
>electromagnetic radiation) and the physics of massive particles.
No, we would finish the work on Maxwells equations and make them Galilei
transformation compatible, simply by adding a term for observer velocity.
Light at Saturn doesn't care about your Earthbound observers moving around,
Maxwells formula's should be Galileian transformation (normal physics/
/geometry) compatible, otherwise they are unfinished.
> Each
>seperate unto itself. E.R. does not obey the galilean laws of velocity
>addition.
Because not finished.
> Even under the old aether view, once the light waves were in
>the aether, they would go as the aether permits, not as the speed of the
>emitting body. The ballistic theory of light (where velocities add) is
>just plain wrong.
I didn't said it was right. SR is wrong, and that has little to do with
erroneous competing theories. SR is more wrong then either one of them,
because it's unsuported by evidence and wrong by paradox. The other
theories had at least a theoretical chance of getting it right. SR is
not even a theory, it is an psychosis.
--
jos
Paul B. Andersen
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al9q1q$25f$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Can you proof to us instead:
> relativity of simultaneity
> lengthcontraction
> timedilation
> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
> relativistic addition of velocities
>
> paradoxes.
No theory can be proven right.
Theories can however be proven wrong.
NM is proven wrong.
Michelson's ether theory is proven wrong.
SR is NOT proven wrong.
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:alarkb$1m1$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
But josX's point is:
NM is proven wrong "by biased scientists"
Michelson's ether theory is proven wrong "by biased scientists"
SR is NOT proven wrong because the "biased scientists"
haven't tried to prove it wrong.
See also:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Ajosx+biased
You're welcome, josX. Anytime, Anyplace.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
>
> >From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@attbi.com
>
> > When was the last time a body ran forever in a
> >force free environment?
>
> Superconductivity.
> DUH!
Which superconductivity experiment has lasted forever?
As far as I know, none have even gone as long as the
lifetime of the earth. Hell, I'll bet none have even
outlived the experimenter.
- Randy
Spaceman
>SR is NOT proven wrong.
Clocks do not measure a physical thing that "is time"
SR IS WRONG WITHOUT PROOF.
It has no clue about what clocks do,
or what they have for faults "no matter how small the ticker"
SR is wrong simply because
Science knows clocks have faults.
(Newtonian faults all the way)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message news:3D78ECC0...@atl.lmco.com...
;-) But the fumble might outlive Spaceman.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>Which superconductivity experiment has lasted forever?
Which superconductivity experiment was done in a frictionless enviroment?
Where is there a "frictionless" enviroment?
(Not space!)
>As far as I know, none have even gone as long as the
>lifetime of the earth. Hell, I'll bet none have even
>outlived the experimenter.
The Earth is the one I speak of.
<LOL>
but even it "has friction"
so.
I guess I am part wrong,
but that is where another Law
helps backup the law you state has not been proven
(yet Earth does a pretty good job so far)
Of course you probably have no clue what law that is.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020906143407...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >Which superconductivity experiment has lasted forever?
>
> Which superconductivity experiment was done in a frictionless enviroment?
>
> Where is there a "frictionless" enviroment?
> (Not space!)
>
> >As far as I know, none have even gone as long as the
> >lifetime of the earth. Hell, I'll bet none have even
> >outlived the experimenter.
>
> The Earth is the one I speak of.
> <LOL>
> but even it "has friction"
> so.
> I guess I am part wrong,
THIS MUST BE A DREAM!
SLAP SLAP SLAP!
NO, IT IS NOT A DREAM!
IT IS A MIRACLE!
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
> >> >http://www.weburbia.com/physics/experiments.html
> >> >
> >> >This is a good list of relativity experiments.
> >>
> >> Then it has an experiment about the only real thing that SR adds to
> >> science, the
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
> >> Go people, look if he has it.
> >
> >Since none of the listed experiments test anything new added
> >by SR, isn't it strange that in all the experiments the predictions
> >of SR are different from the old theories?
> >How can that be?
> >
> >Jos, forget SR for a while.
> >Consider the listed experiments to be tests of 'old theories'
> >like Newtonian mechanics and Michelson's ether theory.
> >Do any of these theories pass all the tests?
>
> Newton passes, because he would math-model the new data.
The fact that electron trajectories were not correctly predicted by
Newton was known long before the advent of SR.
Newton also fails to predict the cyclotron orbits of protons with
kinetic energies above 20 MeV with sufficient accuracy. Relativistic
mechanics had to be used to enable synchrocyclotrons to accelerate
protons beyond the 20 MeV "Newtonian barrier".
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Marco Nelissen
> Without physical evidence. That is not science, that is fantasy.
Newton fantasized that an object moving without a force acting on
it would move forever, without physical evidence. Why don't you
demand proof?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marco Nelissen" <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:alau0a$c0j$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
I think he is looking in his old posts. He must have replied
to this question before. Get prepared to see something
you have seen at least 14 times by now.
Good luck ;-)
Dirk Vdm
josX
The law is F=m*a, needs input from real numbers.
--
jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al9q1q$25f$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> Can you proof to us instead:
>> relativity of simultaneity
>> lengthcontraction
>> timedilation
>> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
>> relativistic addition of velocities
>>
>> Can't? Then how about an admission that SR=wrong given it's unsolvable
>> paradoxes.
>
>No theory can be proven right.
"Dogs give birth to live young"
>Theories can however be proven wrong.
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
Can we test this yet?
>NM is proven wrong.
Go play soccer or snooker or bowling.
>Michelson's ether theory is proven wrong.
He measured what he measured, we don't need your interpretation or even his.
>SR is NOT proven wrong.
It did never rationally exist.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >Which superconductivity experiment has lasted forever?
>
> Which superconductivity experiment was done in a frictionless enviroment?
Uh, spacenut, you're arguing against yourself. You're the one
who said superconductors are experimental proof of motion
lasting forever in a frictionless environment.
Spaceman wrote:
>
> >From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@attbi.com
>
> > When was the last time a body ran forever in a
> >force free environment?
>
> Superconductivity.
> DUH!
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> The fact that electron trajectories were not correctly predicted by
> Newton was known long before the advent of SR.
>
> Newton also fails to predict the cyclotron orbits of protons with
> kinetic energies above 20 MeV with sufficient accuracy. Relativistic
> mechanics had to be used to enable synchrocyclotrons to accelerate
> protons beyond the 20 MeV "Newtonian barrier".
I'd like to know what the difference is in josX's mind between
"math-model the data by throwing out F=ma" and "develop a new
mathematical theory that throws out F=ma".
What the hell else is SR but "math-modeling the data"?
- Randy
Marco Nelissen
> You missed something that needed more of Newtons math.
Yeah, like the (1-v^2/c^2) correction factor...
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alb0k0$hhp$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Why didn't you use the reply I suggested?
You could have taken it over.
It was copied from your own posts.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alb0gj$hhp$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
and it describes air resistance, right?
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
> >So is Newton's classical theory, which is factually dispoved by the
way
> >particle accelerators work.
>
> It is still proven by every day objects, particle accelerators are
operated
> by biased people, who interpret everything according to their
religious
> persuasion, and have no motivation to look beyond it.
I think this qualifies for that file which Dirk v.d. M is keeping on the
sayings of JosX
Franz Heymann
Marco Nelissen
> his data could have come directly from real world intuition.
Intuition != fact. Had Newton had access to particle accelerators,
he would have realised that F=m*a is only an approximation.
> How long oh scientific community before you will stop lying ?
How long, oh Jos, before you admit that you are insane, that your TV
is NOT a mindcontrol device, that aliens from the planet Zeta do NOT
exist, and that Newton's hypothesis has NOT been proven?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:alb1bi$qmh$2...@venus.btinternet.com...
Consider it done:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BiasedPeople
Dirk Vdm
>
>
Franz Heymann
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:al9q1q$25f$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
>
> >NM is proven wrong.
>
> Go play soccer or snooker or bowling.
It was known experimentally before the advent of SR that the
trajectories of electrons deviated noticeably from the predictions of
Newtoniam mechanics when their kinetic energies exceed around 10 KeV.
Cyclotrons whose proton trajectories are calculated via Newtonian
mechanics fail to work at proton kinetic energies around 20 MeV. As a
consequence, the much more complicated and expensive cloverleaf
cyclotron designs have to be used at higher energies. They are designed
in accordance with SR mechanics.
Why on earth do you think folk went over to designing particle
accelerators in accordance with the principles of SR mechanics?
If Newtonian mechanics had worked for fast electrons, an electron
cyclotron of 50 MeV could have been built as a table-top accelerator.
The trouble is that it fails to accelerate electrons to beyond about 10
KeV.
>
[snip]
Franz Heymann