Einstein's theories had to be wrong.

[chanr...@gmail.com]

Hello,

For some reason, I think Sylvia Else do have some good background in physics and also intelligent.

Sylvia Else wrote elsewhere:
"That sounds very much as if you're thinking of the "each is longer than the other" contradiction.

Yet the true situation is that each is, in its own space-time, longer
than the *projection* of the other onto that space-time.

I think not. When the Lorentz transform is used in the way required to
predict time dilation or length contraction, the result is
mathematically a projection. Special relativity describes relatively
moving objects as occupying space-times of differing orientations. As
counter-intuitive as this seems, experiments indicate that it is
correct. Lengths and periods of time cannot be compared directly when
they exist in different space-time orientations, since an observer
cannot occupy both space-time orientations concurrently. Some sort of
projection is required, and that explains the apparent "each is longer" contradiction."

Indeed, Sylvia is very clever with words. Or is it mathematics? :
"in its own space-time",
"...occupying space-times of differing orientations",
"...since an observer cannot occupy both space-time orientations concurrently..."
"observers,...,observers,..."

What Sylvia wrote is easily acceptable to hitlong, Dirk, Bodkin, ...and they do think and interpret special relativity in these manner - there is no contradiction whatever with special relativity. If people like hitlong, Dirk, Bodkin were serious about wanting to dissociate themselves from Einstein's theories, they must not read
Sylvia Else. They should only read Chan Rasjid. If you don't want to be affected by Christianity, don't read the Bible. If you don't want to be touched by Islam, don't read anything on Islam.

"The pen is mightier than the sword"

We have an inertial frame A represented by coordinates (x, y, z, t) and another B represented by coordinates (x', y', z', t') with relative motion. Special relativity attempts a model using the Lorentz
transformation as the basis to study physics of motion. Sylvia mentioned the LT is just a geometrical rotation in 4-D (I don't know what is rotation in 4-D...). What I know is that the LT (a mapping) is used to compute coordinates of one frame using those from another, that's all - nothing more nor less.
(x, y, z, t) -> <- (x', y', z', t')
It depends on which set of variables one has interest in. Using fancy concepts from higher mathematics (space-time orientations,tensors, non-euclidean geometry) do not change the nature of our real physical
world. The real world do not adapt to fancy mathematics, but the fancy mathematics have to adapt to the real world. If it is found that predictions do not match empirical measurements of data, the theory is discarded. But there may not be a need to look for empirical observations to check if a theory is validated. A theory is
stop dead on tract once it is found to be contradictory.

Einstein's special relativity theory is inconsistent.

It is so as the Lorentz transformation imply time dilation.
Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.

The Lorentz transformation imply length contraction.
Length contraction is a contradiction because length contracts.

A stationary clock is in frame B with coordinates (x', y', z', t'). A clock is nothing more, nor less, than a piece of equipment. SR finds that LT of t' from t do not match. Time in SR is relative.
We may like to use this manner of description :
Under LT, the dilated time t' that clock B monitors has a rate that is only a rate "observed" by a stationary observer in A.
Therefore that there is time dilation and differing rates is not a contradiction.

But the clock B is dumb and does not understand higher mathematics. The main problem is in the real world. We can only have one clock B to monitor one time t' of frame B. A dumb clock "clocks at only one rate" irrespective if anyone is looking or not looking. But SR has many different observers giving many purported relative "observed readings" of that one clock which can only monitor that one time t' of frame B. The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility.

Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.

The only way time do not dilate is when time is absolute. Any theory that treats time within its theory, and not just as a dimension, is invalid.

Absolute time is a principle of physics.

Einstein's theories, special and general, cannot be valid.

Absolute time was never needed to be explicitly stated as a principle of physics in the time of Newton. Only the insane and the heretical would have tried to theorize of a relative time of what belongs only to the mystery of God. But since a new trend has been started with Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Einsteins, it has to be stated explicitly as a principle.

So Herbert Dingle was no fool. The two clocks A, B are real clocks that would only tick as they would tick as clock ticks.
So clock A runs not faster, and at the same time, not slower than that of clock B.

There is no Twins Paradox. When the space twin comes back after traveling near the speed of light, he comes home to meet his twin brother of the same age.

Louis Essen too is no fool. Length is a basic dimension in physics that can only be measured. When we change the standard of unit of measure of length to fit a theory for local regions, then the theory cannot be used consistently for the real world which is a whole, not just collections of infinitesimal local regions.

And length can be incorporated into a theory only as a basic dimension. Any theory which attempts to treat space within its theory beyond just as a dimension, is invalid.
Absolute space is a principle of physics.

In another thread, someone mentions why Einstein's theories and quantum physics can never be compatible - because Einstein used relative spacetime while quantum physics uses absolute space
and time. At some point in time in the future, one has to go. Which?

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/2/2014 2:54 PM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein's special relativity theory is inconsistent.
>
> It is so as the Lorentz transformation imply time dilation.
> Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
>
> The Lorentz transformation imply length contraction.
> Length contraction is a contradiction because length contracts.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Where is the inconsistency?
Are you saying that time cannot be allowed to dilate, because if it
does, then it is automatically a contradiction? Why?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/2/2014 2:54 PM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Absolute time is a principle of physics.

I don't believe this is a true statement. You may DESIRE that it is a
true statement, but no, it is not a principle of physics.

Physics does not insist on the rules. Physics only tries to find out
what the rules are. Physics cannot insist that time MUST be absolute. It
has to determine whether nature operates with a time that is absolute or
not. If it does not, then absolute time cannot be held as a principle of
physics.

[paparios]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:54:40 PM UTC-4, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:

snip BS for brevity

>
> Einstein's special relativity theory is inconsistent.
> It is so as the Lorentz transformation imply time dilation.
>
> Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
> The Lorentz transformation imply length contraction.
> Length contraction is a contradiction because length contracts.
>
>
>
> A stationary clock is in frame B with coordinates (x', y', z', t'). A clock is nothing more, nor less, than a piece of equipment. SR finds that LT of t' from t do not match. Time in SR is relative.
>
> We may like to use this manner of description :
>
> Under LT, the dilated time t' that clock B monitors has a rate that is only a rate "observed" by a stationary observer in A.
>
> Therefore that there is time dilation and differing rates is not a contradiction.
>
>
>
> But the clock B is dumb and does not understand higher mathematics. The main problem is in the real world. We can only have one clock B to monitor one time t' of frame B. A dumb clock "clocks at only one rate" irrespective if anyone is looking or not looking. But SR has many different observers giving many purported relative "observed readings" of that one clock which can only monitor that one time t' of frame B. The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility.
>
>

In the real world, the one you appear to know nothing about, physics is done by performing laboratory experiments, with real instruments (clocks and rulers).

So in the train frame of reference K, with spacetime coordinates (x,y,z,t), a one meter ruler can be used to measure the proper length of a train coach by the usual method. If you have inside that train coach two atomic clocks, they will show the same time that your Rolex watch, whether the train is or not moving with respect to the tracks.

In the track frame of reference K', with spacetime coordinates (x',y',z',t'), a one meter ruler can be used to measure the proper length of the station by the usual method. If you have on the station two atomic clocks, they will show the same time that your Rolex watch.

Now we put the train in movement with respect to the station. The questions to answer are a) what is the length of the moving train, measured from the frame of reference of the station? and b)what is the length of the station, measured from the frame of reference of the moving train? c)similarly to (a) and (b) what are the corresponding values of all clocks?

To answer (a), the laboratory experiment to implement is as follows:

1) Place markers along the station tracks, for instance every meter. Also at those markers locate synchronized clocks and photodetectors (these are to detect the front and the back of the moving train, and can be digital cameras).

2) Record at every marker what is going on (that is, at what time the front of the train was detected and at what time the back of the train was detected).

3) Compare the results of all the markers data, looking for those times where the front of the train was located in front of marker j and, at the same time the back of the train was located in front of marker k.

4) Calculate the length of the train, in meters, as (marker j - marker k).

A similar procedure can be applied from synchronized clocks and rulers inside the train to measure the station length.

What about the measuring of time? Well the procedure is much more easier:

1) Assume all the clocks, both at the train as on the station were synchronized before the experiment.
2) At each marker, when the front of the train is detected store both the reading of the marker clock and the reading of the moving clock passing through the marker (this reading can be digitally transmitted from the passing train).
3) Compare the readings.

All these experiments will show that the Lorentz equations of SRT correctly predict the observed results.

snip the rest of the BS

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/2/14, 7/2/14 - 2:54 PM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> [... much nonsense] Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.

You are confused by the NAME -- that's why I always put "time dilation" and
"length contraction" in quotes -- because "time" (whatever that is) does not
really "dilate", and "length" does not really "contract".

We _DO_ know what "time" is in physics: time is what clocks
measure (because every experiment involving "time" uses
clocks to measure it). But outside of physics there is
ambiguity and/or uncertainty in its meaning.

> Absolute time is a principle of physics.

Nonsense. We have learned conclusively that "absolute time" does not apply to
the world we inhabit. Your bald assertions do not change this simple fact.

> Einstein's theories, special and general, cannot be valid.

Again, your bald assertions do not affect the simple fact that both of these
theories agree with all experiments and observations within their domains --
which is what "valid" means for a physical theory.

> There is no Twins Paradox. When the space twin comes back after traveling
> near the speed of light, he comes home to meet his twin brother of the same
> age.

Again, your bald assertions do not affect the world we inhabit. Real experiments
have implemented the twin paradox, and in all cases the traveling twin
experiences less elapsed proper time than the stationary twin. For muons in a
storage ring traveling at ~0.9994 c, they differ by a factor of ~30.


You REALLY need to learn what science is. Your bald assertions are not science,
and in fact are just plain wrong -- the world we inhabit simply does not work
the way you claim.


Tom Roberts

[Dirk Van de moortel]

chanr...@gmail.com <chanr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,

You were pointed to this twice:

Perhaps you are referring to this famous "contradiction", lead to
by time dilation:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
See what's at the bottom. There is a "contradiction", lead to by
the laws of perspective. You see the analogy?


Any reason why you had a look at it but refused to reply?
Twice?

Dirk Vdm

[Pentcho Valev]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:42:19 PM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Again, your bald assertions do not affect the world we inhabit. Real experiments
> have implemented the twin paradox, and in all cases the traveling twin
> experiences less elapsed proper time than the stationary twin. For muons in a
> storage ring traveling at ~0.9994 c, they differ by a factor of ~30.

Don't lie, Honest Roberts. Just explain how the lifetime of muons "at rest" is measured.

Pentcho Valev

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:54:40 PM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> snip imbecilities <

There was a glimmer of hope for you, towelhead, you were making steps like you wanted to learn. Now, you have reverted to your natural state of autistic imbecile.

[Odd Bodkin]

Mostly from the decay of pions at rest. Very little kinetic energy is
transferred to the muon because of the closeness of the masses of the
pion and muon.

>
> Pentcho Valev
>

[Ellsworth Wooten]

paparios wrote:

> n the real world, the one you appear to know nothing about, physics is
> done by performing laboratory experiments, with real instruments (clocks
> and rulers).

Clocks and rulers are instruments? In which country?

[snip crap]

> Now we put the train in movement with respect to the station. The

[more crap]

> To answer (a), the laboratory experiment to implement is as follows:
>
> 1) Place markers along the station tracks, for instance every meter.

A train station into a lab??

> Also at those markers locate synchronized clocks and photodetectors
> (these are to detect the front and the back of the moving train, and can
> be digital cameras).

No it cannot. You obvious are analphabet in digital cameras, and obviously
other things.

> 2) Record at every marker what is going on (that is, at what time the
> front of the train was detected and at what time the back of the train
> was detected).

Using a digital camera!?? LOL, man, you are something.

> 3) Compare the results of all the markers data, looking for those times
> where the front of the train was located in front of marker j and, at
> the same time the back of the train was located in front of marker k.

You cannot compare that much. At any instance of time you can only focus
at ONE thing. At the time you need to compare, it is already too late.

[more crap]

> What about the measuring of time? Well the procedure is much more
> easier:

[done]

[Michael Moroney]

Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:

>> Don't lie, Honest Roberts. Just explain how the lifetime of muons "at rest" is measured.

>Mostly from the decay of pions at rest. Very little kinetic energy is
>transferred to the muon because of the closeness of the masses of the
>pion and muon.

Also muonic atoms, where a muon replaces an electron in an atom. Atom at
rest = muon at rest.

[paparios]

El miércoles, 2 de julio de 2014 19:19:34 UTC-4, Ellsworth Wooten escribió:

Snip once again the troll BS.

a) I postulate this guy is a moronic troll.
b) I check his daily "contributions" and verify each and everytime the above postulate holds true.
c) The best available model is that this guy is indeed a moronic troll.

[Sylvia Else]

On 3/07/2014 5:54 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:

> What Sylvia wrote is easily acceptable to hitlong, Dirk, Bodkin,
> ...and they do think and interpret special relativity in these manner
> - there is no contradiction whatever with special relativity. If
> people like hitlong, Dirk, Bodkin were serious about wanting to
> dissociate themselves from Einstein's theories, they must not read
> Sylvia Else. They should only read Chan Rasjid. If you don't want to
> be affected by Christianity, don't read the Bible. If you don't want
> to be touched by Islam, don't read anything on Islam.

OK, now I've pretty much settled on the "delusional" hypothesis.

Sylvia.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/2/14 7/2/14 6:45 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> [muon lifetime at rest]

> Also muonic atoms, where a muon replaces an electron in an atom. Atom at
> rest = muon at rest.

No. The mu- lifetime in a muonic atom is not the same as that of a free muon at
rest, it is shorter; IIRC in Al it is reduced from 2.2 us to about 0.8 us. This
basically occurs because in addition to decaying as a free muon, it can also
interact with the nucleus (due to the higher mass of the muon, its orbital is
MUCH smaller than that of an electron); most experiments cannot distinguish them.

So measurements are normally made by stopping mu+ in a material, because mu+
cannot form muonic atoms.

Measurements of both mu+ and mu- have also been made by trapping muons in a
Penning trap, which uses magnetic and electrical fields to trap charged
particles in high vacuum.


Tom Roberts

[shuba]

Sylvia wrote:

> OK, now I've pretty much settled on the "delusional" hypothesis.

That is of course not mutually exclusive with the "trolling"
hypothesis. Rasjid has definitely done a fair bit of trolling, and
he also appears to be several spokes short of a fully laced wheel.

It's worth considering to what extent Rasjid's delusions have been
nurtured and strengthened by old-school cranks such as the lifelong
clowns on the "NPA-relativity" list, including Harry Hamlin Ricker,
Nick Percival, and Glenn Baxter. It's much easier and more pleasant
for Rasjid to uncritically jump on their bandwagon than it is for
him to seriously and honestly study the basics of modern physics.


---Tim Shuba---

[chanr...@gmail.com]

"The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility."

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[chanr...@gmail.com]

Hello Dirk,

You gave a link to a short explanation you wrote on the Dingle contradiction:
"A trivial refutation of one of Dingle's Fumbles"

Herbert Dingle quote start:
"Thus, between events E0 and E1, A advances by "...something"
and B by "...something" by (1). Therefore
rate of A/rate of B = t1/at1 = 1/a > 1 (3)

Thus, between events E0 and E2, B advances by ... and A by ... by (2). Therefore
rate of A/rate of B = at2'/t2' = a < 1 (4)

Equations (3) and (4) are contradictory: hence the theory requiring them must be false"
quote end

You explained why the above had trivial errors...which means the contradiction Herbert Dingle pointed to does not hold.

I have not read "Science at the Crossroad" by Herbert Dingle. I only read of what was quoted in some other sites of the Dingle question:
"Which of the two clocks actually is working faster ?"
... which actually imply "rate A > rate B and rate A < rate B" as reciprocity and symmetry of the Lorentz transformation apply.

If the "Dingle's Fumbles" you referred to is this same question, then my starting post has already addressed this issue.

About "events" in special relativity, it is too advanced a topic for me. As I do not fully understand your article, I am not qualified to say if Dingle made an error as you noted. Neither can I confirm if your resolution of the contradiction is proper. But of course, there should be many who understand your short article.

About the analogy of perspective you brought up, I supposed it should be the same as what Sylvia wrote earlier:
"Two clocks, each ticking at rates greater than the other" is a contradiction."
"Two clocks, each ticking at rates greater than the "some observed rates projected onto..." of the other" is not a contradiction."

This too has also been addressed in my starting post.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

chanr...@gmail.com <chanr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:58:58 AM UTC+8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> chanr...@gmail.com <chanr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>
>> You were pointed to this twice:
>> Perhaps you are referring to this famous "contradiction", lead to
>> by time dilation:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
>> See what's at the bottom. There is a "contradiction", lead to by
>> the laws of perspective. You see the analogy?
>>
>> Any reason why you had a look at it but refused to reply?
>> Twice?
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Hello Dirk,

[snip]

> If the "Dingle's Fumbles" you referred to is this same question, then
> my starting post has already addressed this issue.
>
> About "events" in special relativity, it is too advanced a topic for
> me. As I do not fully understand your article, I am not qualified to
> say if Dingle made an error as you noted. Neither can I confirm if
> your resolution of the contradiction is proper. But of course, there
> should be many who understand your short article.

If "events" is too advanced a topic and if you don't
understand that trivial refutation, you might consider
seeking another hobby. I recommend going to
alt.engineering and writing a post where you say that
airplanes cannot really fly because they simply are
too heavy.

Dirk Vdm

[chanr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:42:19 AM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/2/14, 7/2/14 - 2:54 PM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > [... much nonsense] Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
>
>
>
> You are confused by the NAME -- that's why I always put "time dilation" and
>
> "length contraction" in quotes -- because "time" (whatever that is) does not
>
> really "dilate", and "length" does not really "contract".
>
>
>
> We _DO_ know what "time" is in physics: time is what clocks
>
> measure (because every experiment involving "time" uses
>
> clocks to measure it). But outside of physics there is
>
> ambiguity and/or uncertainty in its meaning.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Absolute time is a principle of physics.
>
>
>
> Nonsense. We have learned conclusively that "absolute time" does not apply to
>
> the world we inhabit. Your bald assertions do not change this simple fact.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Einstein's theories, special and general, cannot be valid.
>
>
>
> Again, your bald assertions do not affect the simple fact that both of these
>
> theories agree with all experiments and observations within their domains --
>
> which is what "valid" means for a physical theory.
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is no Twins Paradox. When the space twin comes back after traveling
>
> > near the speed of light, he comes home to meet his twin brother of the same
>
> > age.
>
>
>
> Again, your bald assertions do not affect the world we inhabit. Real experiments
>
> have implemented the twin paradox, and in all cases the traveling twin
>
> experiences less elapsed proper time than the stationary twin. For muons in a
>
> storage ring traveling at ~0.9994 c, they differ by a factor of ~30.
>

This is the first time I have read "Real experiments have implemented the twin paradox,..." ... and the implication is ...sobering...

I presume muons do have sort of average lifetime just as we humans do. So the implication of the muon experiments means that a real experiment with humans could be done given the needed technology.
We have a spacecraft capable of supporting a 1000 strong colony of intergalactic tourists families. After a journey of twenty years of their time at near speed of light, they returned to earth; history has elapsed a 1000 years!

I am now confused. If there was a typo... "contradiction" instead of "intoxication" or "delusion"....

>
>
>
>
> You REALLY need to learn what science is. Your bald assertions are not science,
>
> and in fact are just plain wrong -- the world we inhabit simply does not work
>
> the way you claim.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Roberts

Chan Rasjid.

[Poutnik]

On 07/03/2014 08:40 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:

> "The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility."
>

One rod provides different readings of angle size at the same distance
to all different observers, while its length is still the same.

What is the problem ?

--
Poutnik

A wise man guards words he says,
as they may say about him more, than he says about the subject.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Poutnik <Pou...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 08:40 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> "The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to
>> different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility."
>>
>
> One rod provides different readings of angle size at the same distance
> to all different observers, while its length is still the same.
>
> What is the problem ?

Airplanes are too heavy to fly :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Poutnik]

And a cosmic ray energy rich protons up to 50 Joules ( measured )
move at speed near 1 000 000 time faster than speed.
( to have such a classically calculated kinetic energy )

[chanr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:35:22 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 08:40 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > "The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility."
>
> >
>
>
>
> One rod provides different readings of angle size at the same distance
>
> to all different observers, while its length is still the same.
>
>
>
> What is the problem ?
>

But after the different observers recorded the different angles, they recorded :
L1 = L, L2 = L, L3 = L,....

>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
>
> A wise man guards words he says,
>
> as they may say about him more, than he says about the subject.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Poutnik]

On 07/03/2014 11:29 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:35:22 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 07/03/2014 08:40 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> One rod provides different readings of angle size at the same distance
>> to all different observers, while its length is still the same.
>>
>> What is the problem ?
>>
>
> But after the different observers recorded the different angles, they recorded :
> L1 = L, L2 = L, L3 = L,....
>

Their measured lengths are ( for small betas )
L1 = D * beta1
L2 = D * beta2
L3 = D * beta3

where
alpha is angle of rod normal wrt them.
beta is observed angle size of a rod.

If they are aware of the angle alpha ( they need nopt to be )
they calculate
L = L1 / cos(alfa1) = L2 / cos(alfa2) = L3 / cos(alfa3)

Similarly in SR and LC, they got
L = L1 * gamma1 = L2 * gamma2 = L3 * gamma3
( = L * 1 for Observer in rest wrt object )

where L1..3 are dimensions in direction of object observer
and gamma are usual values, based on their relative speed.

[Poutnik]

On 07/03/2014 11:26 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 11:05 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Poutnik <Pou...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2014 08:40 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to
>>>> different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility."
>>>
>>> One rod provides different readings of angle size at the same distance
>>> to all different observers, while its length is still the same.
>>>
>>> What is the problem ?
>>
>> Airplanes are too heavy to fly :-)
>>
>
> And a cosmic ray energy rich protons up to 50 Joules ( measured )
> move at speed near 1 000 000 time faster than speed.
> ( to have such a classically calculated kinetic energy )
>

Errata:
.....1 000 000 times faster than speed of light.

[chanr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 5:46:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 11:29 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:35:22 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >> On 07/03/2014 08:40 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> One rod provides different readings of angle size at the same distance
>
> >> to all different observers, while its length is still the same.
>
> >>
>
> >> What is the problem ?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > But after the different observers recorded the different angles, they recorded :
>
> > L1 = L, L2 = L, L3 = L,....
>
> >
>
>
>
> Their measured lengths are ( for small betas )
>
> L1 = D * beta1
>
> L2 = D * beta2
>
> L3 = D * beta3
>
>
>
> where
>
> alpha is angle of rod normal wrt them.
>
> beta is observed angle size of a rod.
>

You do not need to invoke trigonometry to compute the length L "while its length is still the same"; just take L.

If your lengths from trigonometry give different values for different observers, it is a contradiction. Trigonometry is contradicted. It should give the value L, but did not.

>
>
> If they are aware of the angle alpha ( they need nopt to be )
>
> they calculate
>
> L = L1 / cos(alfa1) = L2 / cos(alfa2) = L3 / cos(alfa3)
>
>
>
> Similarly in SR and LC, they got
>
> L = L1 * gamma1 = L2 * gamma2 = L3 * gamma3
>
> ( = L * 1 for Observer in rest wrt object )
>
>
>
> where L1..3 are dimensions in direction of object observer
>
> and gamma are usual values, based on their relative speed.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
>
> A wise man guards words he says,
>
> as they may say about him more, than he says about the subject.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Poutnik]

On 07/03/2014 12:13 PM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 3, 2014 5:46:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> Their measured lengths are ( for small betas )
>> L1 = D * beta1
>> L2 = D * beta2
>> L3 = D * beta3
>>
>> where
>> alpha is angle of rod normal wrt them.
>> beta is observed angle size of a rod.
>>
>
> You do not need to invoke trigonometry to compute the length L "while its length is still the same"; just take L.
>
> If your lengths from trigonometry give different values for different observers, it is a contradiction.
> Trigonometry is contradicted. It should give the value L, but did not.

If all you have is distance and angles,
you have to invoke trigonometry.

And if you know both angles,
you get the same length, within measurement errors.

Nothing is contradicted.

[Poutnik]

On 07/03/2014 12:13 PM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:

> You do not need to invoke trigonometry to compute the length L "while its length is still the same"; just take L.
>
> If your lengths from trigonometry give different values for different observers, it is a contradiction. Trigonometry is contradicted. It should give the value L, but did not.

Length of object is defined for measurerent done in rest wrt object.

If you got different values is object is moving
it does not contradict the single defined value.

Same as for a builder purposes length of the object is defined
as measured with a meter sticl in paralel to measured object .

If you measure different values in cases meter stick is not parallel,
id does not contradict the single value nor definition what is the
object length.

[kefischer]

Learn some physics, different observers "see"
different readings on a clock proportional to
their distance from the clock because of the
finite speed of light.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

You can stop trying.
In one book they say that x = 2.
In another book they say that x = 3.
Mathematics is a contradiction:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Yesterday.gif

Dirk Vdm

[Poutnik]

On 07/03/2014 12:54 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>
> You can stop trying.
> In one book they say that x = 2.
> In another book they say that x = 3.
> Mathematics is a contradiction:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Yesterday.gif
>

Good one... :)

[Poutnik]

On 07/03/2014 12:46 PM, kefischer wrote:

>
> Learn some physics, different observers "see"
> different readings on a clock proportional to
> their distance from the clock because of the
> finite speed of light.
>

More exactly not only because of finite light speed,
but also because of invariant finite light speed.

That means they would see different clock readings
( whatever clock implementation is )

even if readings were corrected by light propagation time.

[shuba]

Dirk Vdm wrote:

> If "events" is too advanced a topic and if you don't
> understand that trivial refutation, you might consider
> seeking another hobby. I recommend going to
> alt.engineering and writing a post where you say that
> airplanes cannot really fly because they simply are
> too heavy.

Branching out to the biological sciences is a logical step.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument


---Tim Shuba---

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:42:19 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/2/14, 7/2/14 - 2:54 PM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > [... much nonsense] Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
>
>
>
> You are confused by the NAME -- that's why I always put "time dilation" and
> "length contraction" in quotes -- because "time" (whatever that is) does not
> really "dilate", and "length" does not really "contract".
>
>
>
> We _DO_ know what "time" is in physics: time is what clocks
> measure (because every experiment involving "time" uses
> clocks to measure it). But outside of physics there is
> ambiguity and/or uncertainty in its meaning.

But a clock second rep[resents a different amount of time (duration)
in different frames. That means every observer using different standard to measure time. That means that time is what the clock measures is an ambiguous statement.

> > Absolute time is a principle of physics.

> Nonsense. We have learned conclusively that "absolute time" does not apply to
> the world we inhabit. Your bald assertions do not change this simple fact.

The nonsense is on your part. Absolute time is the only time that exists. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock by redefining the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of one redefined GPS second corresponded to the passage of one ground clock second.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Einstein's theories, special and general, cannot be valid.
>
>
>
> Again, your bald assertions do not affect the simple fact that both of these
> theories agree with all experiments and observations within their domains --
> which is what "valid" means for a physical theory.

So is LET agree with all experiments and LET includes the exisatence of absolute time.

>
>
>
>
>
> > There is no Twins Paradox. When the space twin comes back after traveling
> > near the speed of light, he comes home to meet his twin brother of the same age.

> Again, your bald assertions do not affect the world we inhabit. Real experiments
> have implemented the twin paradox, and in all cases the traveling twin
> experiences less elapsed proper time than the stationary twin.

This is not due to time dilation....it is due to that the traveli9ng clock second represent a larger amount of absolute time. If you converts the total traveling clock second to the value of the stay at home clock seconds you will find that the traveling twin aged the same in terms of absolute time.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Even better.
Thx for that link. Looks like a good site.

Dirk Vdm

[Sylvia Else]

I like

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection

which I first saw in Sagan's book.

Some debaters on the Internet seem to be systematically working their
way through the list.

Sylvia.

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:10:18 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> I like
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection
> which I first saw in Sagan's book.

Excellent link. Thanks, Sylvia.

> Some debaters on the Internet seem to be systematically working their way
> through the list.
>
> Sylvia.

Indeed! There seems to be a paucity of rational thinking in such folk. The
LT follows strictly and logically from its premises, so if it is wrong, at
least one of its premises must be wrong. Ergo, the point of attack should
be at the premises and not at the conclusions of the LT, regardless of how
much they turn one's stomach.

There certainly has been a lot of attack at the lightspeed invariance premise,
but experimental evidence is really, really strong in favor of it. So it is
quite irrational to claim a c +/- v universe. Others have attacked the PoR,
and I've encountered at least one person who denied homogeneity of space or
time, and another who said something is wrong with v = dx/dt!

These may all have some validity because of the discontinuous nature of the
nanoscopic world, but I can't see how these could affect the premises at
the human and larger scales.

Gary

[Dirk Van de moortel]

I have book. Read it a long time ago.
Scheduled for a re-read.

By the way, Sagan forgot one very important item:
"Falacy by Bwahahahahaha!", as in
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/k1CjuXljB2A/2VwE7Ij5Sa4J
| "(1+2)/(1+1*2/1^2) =3/3 =1
| Bwahahahahaha!"

Dirk Vdm

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/3/14 7/3/14 7:45 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [... derivation of LT from premises]

>
> There certainly has been a lot of attack at the lightspeed invariance premise,

So don't use it. The Lorentz Transform of SR can be derived from the PoR alone,
plus basic experimental evidence such as: pion beams exist longer than 100 meters.

What's required: the PoR, the homogeneity of space and time when seen from an
inertial frame, and the definition of inertial frames and their coordinates.
From those alone, group theory restricts the transformation group among
inertial coordinates to be one of: the Euclid group (in 4d), the Galilei group,
and the Lorentz group. Only this last is in agreement with the experimental
evidence (including those pion beams).

> These may all have some validity because of the discontinuous nature of the
> nanoscopic world

That has never been observed; all of our current theories about atoms and
subatomic particles are based on a continuous spacetime manifold.


Tom Roberts

[Ellsworth Wooten]

paparios wrote:

> El miércoles, 2 de julio de 2014 19:19:34 UTC-4, Ellsworth Wooten
> escribió:
>
> Snip once again the troll BS.

Are you really that stupid, not realizing you snipped your OWN bullshit?

I said nothing in it, you did. Whereas the stupidity among the lines of
content is evident. This must be painful for you to see, which is good,
hence it comes one more time inhere:

"
> Also at those markers locate synchronized clocks and photodetectors
> (these are to detect the front and the back of the moving train, and can
> be digital cameras).

No it cannot. You obvious are analphabet in digital cameras, and obviously
other things.

> 2) Record at every marker what is going on (that is, at what time the
> front of the train was detected and at what time the back of the train
> was detected).

Using a digital camera!?? LOL, man, you are something.

> 3) Compare the results of all the markers data, looking for those times
> where the front of the train was located in front of marker j and, at
> the same time the back of the train was located in front of marker k.

You cannot compare that much. At any instance of time you can only focus
at ONE thing. At the time you need to compare, it is already too late.

[more crap]
"

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/3/2014 1:40 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> "The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers.
> So special relativity is an impossibility."

No, it doesn't provide different readings to different observers. Where
on earth do you get that idea?

That's not what relativity says at all.

Clock B will record 10:23:41 for event X and will report that time to
ALL observers.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/3/2014 2:39 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> About "events" in special relativity, it is too advanced a topic for me.

This concept is so central to special relativity that you should take
the time to learn it before fretting that relativity is flawed. It is
not a concept that is unique to relativity -- it has ordinary classical
meaning -- but until you are familiar with it, little in relativity will
make any sense.

[paparios]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 10:46:18 AM UTC-4, Ellsworth Wooten wrote:

> paparios wrote:

>
> > Also at those markers locate synchronized clocks and photodetectors
>
> > (these are to detect the front and the back of the moving train, and can
>
> > be digital cameras).
>
>
>
> No it cannot. You obvious are analphabet in digital cameras, and obviously
>
> other things.
>

Of course you are dead wrong, verified nameshifter troll. Just one example.

"The CamRecord CV is the version in the CamRecord series that is fitted with an image intensifier. With this image intensifier as well as an electronic shutter, it's possible to record at a rate of up to 100,000 frames per second. At the same time, the CamRecord CV allows you to identify single photons. As the image intensifier supports exposure times of up to 40 ns (5 ns is available as an option), you can record fast-moving objects without motion blur."

Once again the theory that you are a moronic troll is verified!!

Good work imbecile.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/3/2014 3:17 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is the first time I have read "Real experiments have implemented the twin paradox,..." ... and the
> implication is ...sobering...
>
> I presume muons do have sort of average lifetime just as we humans do. So the implication of the muon
> experiments means that a real experiment with humans could be done given the needed technology.

Yes, it could. I suppose that some would like to see it happen, just for
first-hand proof that relativity works.

> We have a spacecraft capable of supporting a 1000 strong colony of intergalactic tourists families. After
> a journey of twenty years of their time at near speed of light, they returned to earth; history has elapsed
> a 1000 years!

Yes, that's precisely what would happen.
Now, of course, come the practicalities. What is 500 light-years away
that is worth sending a human expedition to? What would be the benefit
of such an expedition if we didn't get the artifacts back for 1000
years? What would a rocket cost that could accelerate humans safely for
a very long burn time, to get to the speed of light?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/3/2014 4:29 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> But after the different observers recorded the different angles, they recorded :
> L1 = L, L2 = L, L3 = L,....

That's right. This is the fundamental lesson. There are some properties
that are not intrinsic to an object. Speed for example. Galileo in the
1600s pointed out that there is no "true" speed for any object. Whatever
speed it has is an accident of whatever observer happens to be looking
at it. The example he used was the path of a cannonball dropped from the
top of a mast of a ship. To someone standing on the deck of the ship,
the ball lands directly under where it was released, and the path was
straight and vertical. But to someone standing on the shore, watching
the sailing ship, the ball lands to one side of where it was released
(still next to the mast, but the mast has moved during the flight of the
ball), and the ball's path was parabolically curved.
Click on this link to see this pictured:
http://relativityoflight.com/images/5.1.jpg

So which is the "true" path of the ball? There is no "true" path. The
path is different for each observer, and they are all "true" though they
are different.

Same for the length of an object.

[chanr...@gmail.com]

I'll answer this easy one first.

You are wrong here or your analogy is bad. speed = L / T
depends on the basic units of measure L, T. Length, at least in Galiloe's world, were fundamental and fixed properties of an object that do not depend on observers perspective.

Rasjid.

[hit...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 8:34:29 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 7/3/14 7/3/14 7:45 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > [... derivation of LT from premises]
> > There certainly has been a lot of attack at the lightspeed invariance
> > premise,
>
> So don't use it. The Lorentz Transform of SR can be derived from the PoR
> alone, plus basic experimental evidence such as: pion beams exist longer
> than 100 meters.

Hi Tom,

Which just supports the invariant lightspeed premise. Whether you start with
the premise and use experimental evidence to back it up, or start with the
evidence and infer the premise, the premise is still there to start the logic
chain, n'est-ce pas?

> What's required: the PoR,

Yes, however, all that's really needed is when a B frame is moving at v wrt
an A frame, the A frame is moving at -v wrt the B frame. I believe this is
contained in the PoR, but I haven't been able to derive it. Others have
claimed it is part and parcel of PoR, but their reasons seem a bit flaky to
me.

> the homogeneity of space and time when seen from an inertial frame,

Yes, indeed.

> and the definition of inertial frames and their coordinates.

And the definition of velocity, which can be included in the above def.

> From those alone, group theory restricts the transformation group among
> inertial coordinates to be one of: the Euclid group (in 4d), the Galilei
> group, and the Lorentz group. Only this last is in agreement with the
> experimental evidence (including those pion beams).

And NASA's spacecraft distance determination method, LLRE results, etc.
Of course, there are those who will not be convinced by ANY evidence as they
are not swayed by facts. I believe their psychotic behavior is included in
Sagan's Sayings :-)

> > These may all have some validity because of the discontinuous nature of
> > the nanoscopic world
>
> That has never been observed; all of our current theories about atoms and
> subatomic particles are based on a continuous spacetime manifold.
>
> Tom Roberts

True, but with all this talk about measuring rods and cesium clocks, it
becomes difficult to imagine a length measurement smaller than an atom.
Certainly, we can reach down to nucleus-size with scattering experiments,
at least in terms of a delta-x. But the HUP sort of smears out any definite
size considerations at small sizes.

As for time, I believe the aluminum clocks run at much higher frequencies,
so we're not limited to 1/9GHz. And we have femtosecond detectors. Will we
need gamma clocks some day?

Gary

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 7:16:39 PM UTC-7, shuba wrote:
> Sylvia wrote:
>
>
>
> > OK, now I've pretty much settled on the "delusional" hypothesis.
>
>
>
> That is of course not mutually exclusive with the "trolling"
>
> hypothesis. Rasjid has definitely done a fair bit of trolling, and
>
> he also appears to be several spokes short of a fully laced wheel.
>
>
>
> It's worth considering to what extent Rasjid's delusions have been
>
> nurtured and strengthened by old-school cranks such as the lifelong
>
> clowns on the "NPA-relativity" list, including Harry Hamlin Ricker,
>
> Nick Percival, and Glenn Baxter.
>
> ---Tim Shuba---

Do not forget our "buddy", Stephane Baune, aka "rotchm" and his "contributions" to the NPA cause.

[Ellsworth Wooten]

paparios wrote:

> "The CamRecord CV is the version in the CamRecord series that is fitted
> with an image intensifier. With this image intensifier as well as an
> electronic shutter, it's possible to record at a rate of up to 100,000
> frames per second. At the same time, the CamRecord CV allows you to
> identify single photons. As the image intensifier supports exposure
> times of up to 40 ns (5 ns is available as an option), you can record
> fast-moving objects without motion blur."

:) LOL, this is what makes you an imbecile. Not because you were not a
one. You swallow bullshit wherever you see it.

See what CCDs are all about, then come back and ask more questions.

Humbly, affectionately yours.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes, you're right. Galileo recognized that speed was not an intrinsic
property of an object and just was an accident of observer's
perspective, but he thought that length was an intrinsic property of an
object. It turns out that he was wrong on the latter.

Again, your bias about "basic units" notwithstanding, the invariance of
a quantity is something we have to get from nature, not something we
impose on nature. Relativity's experimental confirmations showed that
some of the quantities we thought were intrinsic aren't, and that other
properties we didn't really know about are.

As a side illustration of the trouble you run into in making assumptions
about "basic units", consider the units for electric charge and current.
The unit for charge is a coulomb and the unit for current current is an
ampere, where an ampere is defined as a coulomb/second. Now, which of
this do you think is the "basic unit" in the SI units system? Answer
first off the top of your head, and then look it up with Google.

>
> Rasjid.
>
>

[paparios]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:03:20 PM UTC-4, Ellsworth Wooten wrote:
> paparios wrote:
>
>
>
> > "The CamRecord CV is the version in the CamRecord series that is fitted
>
> > with an image intensifier. With this image intensifier as well as an
>
> > electronic shutter, it's possible to record at a rate of up to 100,000
>
> > frames per second. At the same time, the CamRecord CV allows you to
>
> > identify single photons. As the image intensifier supports exposure
>
> > times of up to 40 ns (5 ns is available as an option), you can record
>
> > fast-moving objects without motion blur."
>
>

> See what CCDs are all about, then come back and ask more questions.
>

One more proof of the already known moronity of this troll. After spitting that digital cameras can not be used to detect moving trains, and proved wrong one more time, he diverts the issue to something else and quite unrelated (as the only camera he knows is in his lousy phone)

These cameras use CMOS stupid imbecile!

Besides that, MIT has new camera which will shoot one trillion frames per second.

Let's put that in some perspective. One trillion seconds is over 31,688 years. So if you shot one second of footage on this camera, and played it back at 30fps, it'd still take you over 1,000 years to watch it. That's one boring-ass home movie.

Of course, the "camera" can't be taken on vacation, and even if it could, there wouldn't be enough light on even the sunniest beach to support shooting so fast. What MIT's device (designed by Professor Ramesh Raskar and team) does is to use "femtosecond laser illumination, picosecond-accurate detectors and mathematical reconstruction techniques" to illuminate a scene and then capture the pulses of laser light. And like all good magic, the kit also uses mirrors: in this case to move the view of the camera.

Nor does the camera run for a full second. The movies are 480 frames long, and show a slice in time of just 1.71 picoseconds.

[Ellsworth Wooten]

paparios wrote:

> These cameras use CMOS

Does not matter the technology, idiot, but the principle of functionality.

LOL, that was not the reason I sent you to see what CCDs are all about!
There are thousands of implementations, if not millions.

Idiot. The principle!! :) LOL

> stupid imbecile!

That is exactly what you are, paparios, you can't take it back.

> Let's put that in some perspective. One trillion seconds is over 31,688
> years. So if you shot one second of footage on this camera, and played
> it back at 30fps, it'd still take you over 1,000 years to watch it.
> That's one boring-ass home movie.

Idiot, is not that much about that, but about something much more obvious!
And about many others less obvious for the uninitiated.

You just can't get it, but swallow bullshit and never masticate.

> Of course, the "camera" can't be taken on vacation, and even if it

You told that poor man he can use a digital camera, remember?

[paparios]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:31:23 PM UTC-4, Ellsworth Wooten wrote:
> paparios wrote:
>
>
>
> > These cameras use CMOS
>
>
>
> Does not matter the technology, idiot, but the principle of functionality.
>
>
>
> LOL, that was not the reason I sent you to see what CCDs are all about!
>
> There are thousands of implementations, if not millions.
>
>
>
> Idiot. The principle!! :) LOL
>

You keep on swimming in your own shit, right troll? Keep up the good work! it is fun to see you slipping day after day.

[Ellsworth Wooten]

paparios wrote:

> On Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:31:23 PM UTC-4, Ellsworth Wooten wrote:
>> paparios wrote:
>> > These cameras use CMOS
>>
>> Does not matter the technology, idiot, but the principle of
>> functionality.
>> LOL, that was not the reason I sent you to see what CCDs are all about!
>>
>> There are thousands of implementations, if not millions.

>> Idiot. The principle!! LOL

>>
> You keep on swimming in your own shit, right troll? Keep up the good
> work!

Here comes the proof, paparios, a typical imbecile troll. Cornered by
facts, snipping, trying to evade from own stupidity, now obvious to
everybody.

[Lord Androcles]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:lp3o43$klo$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

==============================
"Falacy" -- Bwahahahahahaha!
(BTW, Dork forgot it's worse than "professionaly", it has a higher typo to
word length ratio.)

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/3/14, 7/3/14 - 3:17 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, July 3, 2014 4:42:19 AM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Real experiments have implemented the twin paradox, and in all cases the
>> traveling twin experiences less elapsed proper time than the stationary

>> twin. For muons in a storage ring traveling at ~0.9994 c, they differ by a
>> factor of ~30.

>
> This is the first time I have read "Real experiments have implemented the
> twin paradox,..." ... and the implication is ...sobering...

SR is a pillar of modern physics, and all current physical theories are based
upon it. Do you seriously think physicists would use SR in such fundamental ways
if it were not KNOWN to be valid? there are literally hundreds of experiments
that support the validity of SR (within its domain), and more importantly: none
that refute it. These include several tests of the twin paradox. See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

The fools and idiots around here who claim SR is somehow "wrong" or
"self-contradictory", are just that: fools and idiots.


Tom Roberts

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 02.07.2014 21:54, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For some reason, I think Sylvia Else do have some good background in physics and also intelligent.
>
> Sylvia Else wrote elsewhere:
> "That sounds very much as if you're thinking of the "each is longer than the other" contradiction.
>
> Yet the true situation is that each is, in its own space-time, longer
> than the *projection* of the other onto that space-time.
>
> I think not. When the Lorentz transform is used in the way required to
> predict time dilation or length contraction, the result is
> mathematically a projection. Special relativity describes relatively
> moving objects as occupying space-times of differing orientations. As
> counter-intuitive as this seems, experiments indicate that it is
> correct. Lengths and periods of time cannot be compared directly when
> they exist in different space-time orientations, since an observer
> cannot occupy both space-time orientations concurrently. Some sort of
> projection is required, and that explains the apparent "each is longer" contradiction."
>

You are confusing yourself by statements like:
"objects that exist in different space-time orientations"
which is a rather nonsensical way to say "objects in
relative motion".

Sure periods of time as measured by clocks in relative motion
can be compared directly:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Odd Bodkin]

From what I've seen here, there are people like chan and altergnostic
and others who confess that they really don't know much about
relativity, but something about it bothers them. At first, they wonder
if they are alone in thinking that, and whether it really is something
simple that can easily banish their lingering doubts. Then they look
around on the internet for "relativity controversy" or something like
that, and they discover that they aren't alone! There are lots of people
who are vaguely bothered by it, though they can't quite say what. This
at least fortifies their own feelings, and they feel less foolish. Then
they see more, like the writings of Essen and Dingle, where the
vagueness is resolved, and there seems to be a specific and concrete
complaint. Now their doubts are solidified, and they begin to feel that
there must really be something seriously wrong here. But notice that
nowhere along here have they started to learn what relativity says. All
they've done is looked up whether other people feel the same way they
do. So in the end, all they've identified is a group of people who don't
understand relativity well, either, and they are members of that group.

Fortunately, chan and altergnostic have been taking the first steps that
people like me have done -- actually learning some of the concepts and
working through some of the arguments and experimental evidence about
relativity. Not very intensively or in an organized fashion, but it's a
start. And they are gradually planting mental feet on firmer soil so
that vague doubts can evaporate. Then comes the anxiety of separation
from the club of doubters they once were relieved to belong to.

Various people falter at different steps in this process.

[Lubomir Vlcek]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:54:40 PM UTC+2, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> For some reason, I think Sylvia Else do have some good background in physics and also intelligent.
>
>
>
> Sylvia Else wrote elsewhere:
>
> "That sounds very much as if you're thinking of the "each is longer than the other" contradiction.
>
>
>
> Yet the true situation is that each is, in its own space-time, longer
>
> than the *projection* of the other onto that space-time.
>
>
>
> I think not. When the Lorentz transform is used in the way required to
>
> predict time dilation or length contraction, the result is
>
> mathematically a projection. Special relativity describes relatively
>
> moving objects as occupying space-times of differing orientations. As
>
> counter-intuitive as this seems, experiments indicate that it is
>
> correct. Lengths and periods of time cannot be compared directly when
>
> they exist in different space-time orientations, since an observer
>
> cannot occupy both space-time orientations concurrently. Some sort of
>
> projection is required, and that explains the apparent "each is longer" contradiction."
>
>
>

> Indeed, Sylvia is very clever with words. Or is it mathematics? :
>
> "in its own space-time",
>
> "...occupying space-times of differing orientations",
>
> "...since an observer cannot occupy both space-time orientations concurrently..."
>
> "observers,...,observers,..."
>
>
>
> What Sylvia wrote is easily acceptable to hitlong, Dirk, Bodkin, ...and they do think and interpret special relativity in these manner - there is no contradiction whatever with special relativity. If people like hitlong, Dirk, Bodkin were serious about wanting to dissociate themselves from Einstein's theories, they must not read
>
> Sylvia Else. They should only read Chan Rasjid. If you don't want to be affected by Christianity, don't read the Bible. If you don't want to be touched by Islam, don't read anything on Islam.
>
>
>
> "The pen is mightier than the sword"
>
>
>
> We have an inertial frame A represented by coordinates (x, y, z, t) and another B represented by coordinates (x', y', z', t') with relative motion. Special relativity attempts a model using the Lorentz
>
> transformation as the basis to study physics of motion. Sylvia mentioned the LT is just a geometrical rotation in 4-D (I don't know what is rotation in 4-D...). What I know is that the LT (a mapping) is used to compute coordinates of one frame using those from another, that's all - nothing more nor less.
>
> (x, y, z, t) -> <- (x', y', z', t')
>
> It depends on which set of variables one has interest in. Using fancy concepts from higher mathematics (space-time orientations,tensors, non-euclidean geometry) do not change the nature of our real physical
>
> world. The real world do not adapt to fancy mathematics, but the fancy mathematics have to adapt to the real world. If it is found that predictions do not match empirical measurements of data, the theory is discarded. But there may not be a need to look for empirical observations to check if a theory is validated. A theory is
>
> stop dead on tract once it is found to be contradictory.
>
>
>
> Einstein's special relativity theory is inconsistent.
>
>
>
> It is so as the Lorentz transformation imply time dilation.

>
> Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
>
>
>

> The Lorentz transformation imply length contraction.
>
> Length contraction is a contradiction because length contracts.
>
>
>
> A stationary clock is in frame B with coordinates (x', y', z', t'). A clock is nothing more, nor less, than a piece of equipment. SR finds that LT of t' from t do not match. Time in SR is relative.
>
> We may like to use this manner of description :
>
> Under LT, the dilated time t' that clock B monitors has a rate that is only a rate "observed" by a stationary observer in A.
>
> Therefore that there is time dilation and differing rates is not a contradiction.
>
>
>
> But the clock B is dumb and does not understand higher mathematics. The main problem is in the real world. We can only have one clock B to monitor one time t' of frame B. A dumb clock "clocks at only one rate" irrespective if anyone is looking or not looking. But SR has many different observers giving many purported relative "observed readings" of that one clock which can only monitor that one time t' of frame B. The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility.

>
>
>
> Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
>
>
>

> The only way time do not dilate is when time is absolute. Any theory that treats time within its theory, and not just as a dimension, is invalid.

>
>
>
> Absolute time is a principle of physics.
>
>
>

> Einstein's theories, special and general, cannot be valid.
>
>
>

> Absolute time was never needed to be explicitly stated as a principle of physics in the time of Newton. Only the insane and the heretical would have tried to theorize of a relative time of what belongs only to the mystery of God. But since a new trend has been started with Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Einsteins, it has to be stated explicitly as a principle.
>
>
>
> So Herbert Dingle was no fool. The two clocks A, B are real clocks that would only tick as they would tick as clock ticks.
>
> So clock A runs not faster, and at the same time, not slower than that of clock B.

>
>
>
> There is no Twins Paradox. When the space twin comes back after traveling near the speed of light, he comes home to meet his twin brother of the same age.
>
>
>

> Louis Essen too is no fool. Length is a basic dimension in physics that can only be measured. When we change the standard of unit of measure of length to fit a theory for local regions, then the theory cannot be used consistently for the real world which is a whole, not just collections of infinitesimal local regions.
>
>
>
> And length can be incorporated into a theory only as a basic dimension. Any theory which attempts to treat space within its theory beyond just as a dimension, is invalid.
>
> Absolute space is a principle of physics.
>
>
>
> In another thread, someone mentions why Einstein's theories and quantum physics can never be compatible - because Einstein used relative spacetime while quantum physics uses absolute space
>
> and time. At some point in time in the future, one has to go. Which?
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Chan Rasjid.

Many physicists not known fundamental experiments ( as are Harres's Experiment http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-2.html#2-2-2,
Kaufmann's Experiment http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-1.html#2-1-2
Do you still not know, that form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field is asymmetrical ?
When, wake you up ?

Physics relativists.
Are you worried that I'm really okay. Therefore you reject my arguments and you recommended to do by others too.
I told you already that Albert ends.You can not hold him indefinitely on a pedestal. Experiments are basis in science.
Many physicists, especially in the first half of the 20th century were strongly against Einstein's ideas.
I told you already that Albert ends.
You can not hold him indefinitely on a pedestal. Experiments are basis in science.
But here goes about physics itself , about its solid foundation.
Even civil and human performance Alberta very well, but this in itself physics on its solid foundation. And the theory of relativity, Albert stands on feet of clay. The sooner you realize this, the higher the acceleration of knowledge in science achieved.
Lubo Vlcek

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:03:21 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 7:16:39 PM UTC-7, shuba wrote:
> > Sylvia wrote:
>
> > > OK, now I've pretty much settled on the "delusional" hypothesis.
>
> > That is of course not mutually exclusive with the "trolling"
> > hypothesis. Rasjid has definitely done a fair bit of trolling, and
> > he also appears to be several spokes short of a fully laced wheel.
> > It's worth considering to what extent Rasjid's delusions have been
> > nurtured and strengthened by old-school cranks such as the lifelong
> > clowns on the "NPA-relativity" list, including Harry Hamlin Ricker,
> > Nick Percival, and Glenn Baxter.
>

> Do not forget our "buddy", Stephane Baune, aka "rotchm" and his "contributions" to the NPA cause.

A word of advice, Dono...
You should take a good look at yourself before accusing others of crackpottery.

I agree that rotchm is fringe, but he has a reasonably good idea of WHY he is fringe. He has shown a reasonable understanding of the Lorentz transforms, but disagrees with mainstream on their physical interpretation. My belief is that he does not have the same aesthetic sense that leads mainstream physicists almost inevitably to special relativity.

I have no real issue with THAT sort of fringe. Throughout history, after all, physical advance has largely (but not entirely) been led by fringe innovators who were fully cognizant of current mainstream views. Copernicus and Galileo would be examples of such. Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect would be another example, but NOT special relativity, which was almost immediately accepted by the most important of his contemporaries.

(No, I do NOT believe that rotchm is a great innovator...)

A current example of that sort of fringe may (or may not) be Lee Smolin, who in Time Reborn argues that time must be real. One of his arguments grates on me, when he states that the quest for beauty/symmetry in physical theories (which has led to so much advance) may ultimately be a sterile pursuit. However distasteful I find that argument, it is not one that can be casually dismissed.

Looking over your posting history, I see that you have become estranged from many posters who could otherwise be your allies in the ongoing war against cranks and crackpots. Many of the most knowledgeable posters refuse to directly communicate with you at all. I think their attitude is that you are a useful attack dog in going after the REAL ignoramuses on these groups, too useful to risk losing your support by engaging you in debate on matters where you are clearly in the wrong.

Let's look at your good points:
1) You are good in math.
2) You support special relativity (or what you THINK is special
relativity) against the crackpots.
3) Your sense of who is crackpot and who isn't is usually correct.

Let's look at your bad points:
1) You are deficient in relating math to physical reality.
2) You find it impossible to admit being wrong.
3) You equate being in disagreement with you with being a crackpot.

Questions:
1) How is it possible, in multiple posts, for you to defend the frame
jumping between primed and unprimed frames that you exhibited
in the following drawing? http://tinyurl.com/lube9sy
2) How is it possible that you do not understand that J. H. Field is,
purely and simply, a crackpot? http://tinyurl.com/qedk234
(Yes, yes, I know he has his name on a number of refereed papers
in experimental physics. That doesn't matter as regards his
theoretical physics writings on special relativity.)

[Dono,]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 12:58:17 PM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> Let's look at your good points:
>
> 1) You are good in math.
>
> 2) You support special relativity (or what you THINK is special
>
> relativity) against the crackpots.
>
> 3) Your sense of who is crackpot and who isn't is usually correct.
>
>

Excellent, no go fuck yourself.

>
> Questions:
>
> 1) How is it possible, in multiple posts, for you to defend the frame
>
> jumping between primed and unprimed frames that you exhibited
>
> in the following drawing? http://tinyurl.com/lube9sy
>

There is no frame jumping, imbecile. So, please go fuck yourself.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

In Figure 1 (Train Approaching), you have drawn x_s and x_h on arrow x.

In Figure 2 (Train Receding), you have drawn x_s and x_h on arrow x'.

Please explain.

[Pentcho Valev]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 3:00:27 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> So measurements are normally made by stopping mu+ in a material

Exactly, Honest Roberts. One makes it crash into a "material", calls the wreckage "muon at rest", detects its short lifetime (analogous to the short lifetime of a driver whose car has crashed into a wall) and sings "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

Pentcho Valev

[xxe...@att.net]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:42:19 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/2/14, 7/2/14 - 2:54 PM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > [... much nonsense] Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
>
>
>
> You are confused by the NAME -- that's why I always put "time dilation" and
>
> "length contraction" in quotes -- because "time" (whatever that is) does not
>
> really "dilate", and "length" does not really "contract".
>
>
>
> We _DO_ know what "time" is in physics: time is what clocks
>
> measure (because every experiment involving "time" uses
>
> clocks to measure it). But outside of physics there is
>
> ambiguity and/or uncertainty in its meaning.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Absolute time is a principle of physics.
>
>
>

> Nonsense. We have learned conclusively that "absolute time" does not apply to
>
> the world we inhabit. Your bald assertions do not change this simple fact.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Einstein's theories, special and general, cannot be valid.
>
>
>

> Again, your bald assertions do not affect the simple fact that both of these
>
> theories agree with all experiments and observations within their domains --
>
> which is what "valid" means for a physical theory.

>
>
>
>
>
> > There is no Twins Paradox. When the space twin comes back after traveling
>
> > near the speed of light, he comes home to meet his twin brother of the same
>
> > age.
>
>
>

> Again, your bald assertions do not affect the world we inhabit. Real experiments

>
> have implemented the twin paradox, and in all cases the traveling twin
>
> experiences less elapsed proper time than the stationary twin. For muons in a
>
> storage ring traveling at ~0.9994 c, they differ by a factor of ~30.
>
>
>
>
>

> You REALLY need to learn what science is. Your bald assertions are not science,
>
> and in fact are just plain wrong -- the world we inhabit simply does not work
>
> the way you claim.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Roberts

xxein: Too bad that physics is only a theoretical approach to understanding the nature of the universe. The scientific method is only valid within the theoretical. Like the rules of Oz. Once accepted, they are the physics we abide by?

What happened to rational and logical thinking? Only within the confines of an adopted theory? We make excuses (called theories or modifications of such) for everything that's newly discovered.

As we look back upon old theories and their physics, some look very silly. Others not so but impossible to accept. Alchemy?

We cannot make the universe do anything that is not within itself. We can manipulate plants, make cars, all kinds of bombs etc. but it has to remain within the laws of the universe (or beyond to it's origins). We can't change those laws. We can have a faulty understanding and call it physics though.

I've noticed (since you said it years ago) that everyone will jump on the current bandwagon. Why? It's much easier than to really think. Impress others with your rote.

That's you, bandwagon Tom.

[Dono,]

An obvious drawing mistake. There is another mistake (a typo in the formulas), it was done in a rush. I acknowledged the two mistakes years ago. Now, please go and fuck yourself. I am asking politely.

[xxe...@att.net]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 1:35:22 AM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:

> On 07/03/2014 08:40 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > "The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility."
>
> >
>
>
>

> One rod provides different readings of angle size at the same distance
>
> to all different observers, while its length is still the same.
>
>
>
> What is the problem ?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Poutnik
>
>
>
> A wise man guards words he says,
>
> as they may say about him more, than he says about the subject.

xxein: Yeah. You are proving that.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/4/14 7/4/14 9:45 PM, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> xxein: Too bad that physics is only a theoretical approach to understanding
> the nature of the universe.

How could it be otherwise? -- ALL thinking is "theoretical".

> The scientific method is only valid within the
> theoretical. Like the rules of Oz. Once accepted, they are the physics we
> abide by?

No. But we cannot escape the knowledge already acquired; most specifically
experimental results, but theoretical insights as well.

> What happened to rational and logical thinking?

Nothing. The fact that so many people around here are incapable of it does not
mean that real physicists and scientists are so limited.

> Only within the confines of
> an adopted theory?

Certainly not.

> We cannot make the universe do anything that is not within itself. We can
> manipulate plants, make cars, all kinds of bombs etc. but it has to remain
> within the laws of the universe (or beyond to it's origins). We can't change
> those laws.

Right, interpreting your "laws" not as human constructs (the normal meaning),
but rather referring to the way nature actually works (whatever that is).

> We can have a faulty understanding and call it physics though.

All human understanding of nature is going to be "faulty", that's just part of
the human condition. For instance, we probably will never know how nature
operates at the Planck scale, because that is an energy so far beyond our
current abilities it seems unlikely we will ever perform experiments there. Not
knowing that implies that any theories we construct will at best only be
low-energy APPROXIMATIONS to what nature is actually doing.

For instance, Newtonian mechanics is in a very real sense the
low-energy approximation to relativity. For several hundred
years, NM was accepted as "how the world works", until better
technology was developed so new experiments became possible.
This is most likely continue, but the Planck scale may
remain out of reach....

> I've noticed (since you said it years ago) that everyone will jump on the
> current bandwagon. Why? It's much easier than to really think. Impress
> others with your rote.
>
> That's you, bandwagon Tom.

Not really. But unlike you, I actually have relevant knowledge and am willing to
share it.

You have your own bandwagon: sniping at others from a position
of ignorance. That, too, is easier than really thinking.


Tom Roberts

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Hmmm... As late as 4/17/2013 in the "relativity is wrong because ..." thread, the most civil response that I had ever seen you make to a question about this figure was a stream of obscenities and racist/xenophobic insults to YBM. http://tinyurl.com/q3r7298

I do not see where you had EVER previously acknowledged that your drawing was wrong. Of course, in your current response, you have tried to put a "spin" on your mistaken figure by explaining the mistakes as a combination of an obvious drawing mistake and a typo.

They were not a simple drawing mistake, and your formula mistake was not a typo, as can be seen by reading the "version of the train and platform thought experiment" thread. I was especially amused where you wrote, "Of course I am using different Lorentz transforms for opposing senses of v. It is this type of intellectual dishonesty that makes you into an autistic imbecile:" http://tinyurl.com/lf5o683

What makes you think that you can get away with such pathetic lies?

At least you now acknowledge that your drawing is goofed up. That's progress, of a sort.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

I only just now read over this little gem of yours: http://tinyurl.com/n4plkf6

Starting from the premise that the body falls horizontally in all frames of reference, you conclude that the body falls horizontally in all frames of reference. That is known as circular logic.

Or is it a minor typographical error?

Questions:
1) Why did you omit calculating t' and T' in the Lorentz tranformations?
2) Write the expression for t'(x,v,t)
3) Write the expression for T'(X,v,t)
4) Write the expression for y'(x,v,t)
5) Write the expression for Y'(X,v,t)

Does the body fall horizontally in all frames of reference?

[chanr...@gmail.com]

Hello,

This is a rather humorous analogy.

I think no one would dispute the fact that physicists and engineers nowadays are very capable, at times seemingly even able to create miracles within the laboratory. As an example, I vaguely recall how someone had isolated a single photon and measured how it behaved and traversed a distance of a few meter. I would guess that "implementing the twins paradox" with the muon too would pass as a miracle of sort. But I guess only few people have the physics background to understand the details of such experiments. So not many here may be qualified to comment if the experiments would pass the test of fair judgment.

I have my simple reasons to reject relativity theories. And I reject the theories confidently without ever paying the slightest attention to the "massive amount of empirical data" that supports the theories. Here, too, I have simple reasons. A conspiracy theory - but a justified conspiracy theory.

In the world of our peer-reviewed journals, we have massive number of articles published that are in agreement with the relativity theories. But it does not mean there are no other evidence that are in disagreement with the theories, nor the amount. Or if such amount are just a minuscule number. Or it could be a mountain of unpublished evidence that are against the relativity theories that swallows that molehill of published evidence that supports it.

One does not need the IQ of Albert Einstein to understand that, when only articles that show support of the relativity theories are published that, over decades, we finally only see the evidence in agreement. And if you gather evidence for decades, it would add up to many. So now, we have the claim that relativity is one of the
best tested theory in physics.

It seems some of the posters here do pay attention to the many evidence that supports relativity.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 7:57:34 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Friday, July 4, 2014 9:49:51 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > On Friday, July 4, 2014 3:59:24 PM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > In Figure 1 (Train Approaching), you have drawn x_s and x_h on arrow x.
>
> >
>
> > > In Figure 2 (Train Receding), you have drawn x_s and x_h on arrow x'.
>
> >
>
> > > Please explain.
>
> >
>
> > An obvious drawing mistake. There is another mistake (a typo in the formulas), it was done in a rush. I acknowledged the two mistakes years ago. Now, please go and fuck yourself. I am asking politely.
>
>
>
> I only just now read over this little gem of yours: http://tinyurl.com/n4plkf6
>
>

I asked you politely to go fuck yourself. Now go and fuck yourself.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

chanr...@gmail.com <chanr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have my simple reasons to reject relativity theories. And I reject
> the theories confidently without ever paying the slightest attention
> to the "massive amount of empirical data" that supports the theories.
> Here, too, I have simple reasons. A conspiracy theory - but a
> justified conspiracy theory.

Simple reasons.
A simple world.
There we go.

Dirk Vdm

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/3/14 7/3/14 10:58 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 3, 2014 8:34:29 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>>The Lorentz Transform of SR can be derived from the PoR
>> alone, plus basic experimental evidence such as: pion beams exist longer
>> than 100 meters.
>
> Which just supports the invariant lightspeed premise. Whether you start with
> the premise and use experimental evidence to back it up, or start with the
> evidence and infer the premise, the premise is still there to start the logic
> chain, n'est-ce pas?

No. It becomes a conclusion, not a premise.


>> What's required: the PoR,
>
> Yes, however, all that's really needed is when a B frame is moving at v wrt
> an A frame, the A frame is moving at -v wrt the B frame. I believe this is
> contained in the PoR, but I haven't been able to derive it. Others have
> claimed it is part and parcel of PoR, but their reasons seem a bit flaky to
> me.

This is not a mathematical proof, but it indicates why v and -v relate the two
frames:
Consider inertial frames A and B, with A measuring B's velocity (wrt A) to be V.
From the definition of inertial frames, space is isotropic, so if we rotate
both frames by 180 degrees, A will still measure B's velocity to be V. But now,
as far as the two frames are concerned, frame A is equivalent to frame B in the
original orientation, and now A's V is equivalent to the original B's -V. Now
apply the PoR to see that the rotated B is equivalent to the original A.


>> From those alone, group theory restricts the transformation group among
>> inertial coordinates to be one of: the Euclid group (in 4d), the Galilei
>> group, and the Lorentz group. Only this last is in agreement with the
>> experimental evidence (including those pion beams).
>
> And NASA's spacecraft distance determination method, LLRE results, etc.

Yes, there are literally zillions of experiments which could be used.


> with all this talk about measuring rods and cesium clocks, it
> becomes difficult to imagine a length measurement smaller than an atom.

Direct measurements, yes. But indirect measurements can be made -- LIGO
effectively measures the distance between their mirrors to about 1E-21 meters
(IIRC) -- much smaller than a nucleus. The Planck scale is still about 1E14
times smaller....


Tom Roberts

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Given your extremely negative response, it behooves me to point out to you that omitting the time dilation term means that you were analyzing the falling body scenario in terms of FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction rather in terms of the full Lorentz transformation.

It has been known since the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment that FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction alone is incapable of explaining observation.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 4:14:51 PM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 11:54:12 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, July 5, 2014 7:57:34 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I only just now read over this little gem of yours: http://tinyurl.com/n4plkf6
>
> >
>
> > I asked you politely to go fuck yourself. Now go and fuck yourself.
>
>
>
> Given your extremely negative response, it behooves me to point out to you that omitting the time dilation term means that you were analyzing the falling body scenario in terms of FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction rather in terms of the full Lorentz transformation.
>

Nope, so you can definitely go fuck yourself.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

"Nope", you say? Do you claim that the calculations in your paper are correct, and that I am in error? http://tinyurl.com/n4plkf6

If that is the case, please explain to me why you are justified in omitting the calculation of t'(x,v,t) and T'(X,v,t) and what that implies in terms of y'(x,v,t) and Y'(X,v,t).

I also wish to refer you to Exercises 52 (The Tilted Meter Stick) and 53 (The Meter-Stick Paradox) in Spacetime Physics (first edition), by Taylor and Wheeler, pages 98-99.

I find that I need to expand on my previous list of your bad points:

1) You are deficient in relating math to physical reality.
2) You find it impossible to admit being wrong.
3) You equate being in disagreement with you with being a crackpot.

4) You have a potty mouth.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 4:40:25 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 6:33:54 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, July 5, 2014 4:14:51 PM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> > > On Saturday, July 5, 2014 11:54:12 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > > > On Saturday, July 5, 2014 7:57:34 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > I only just now read over this little gem of yours: http://tinyurl.com/n4plkf6
>
> >
>
> > > > I asked you politely to go fuck yourself. Now go and fuck yourself.
>
> >
>
> > > Given your extremely negative response, it behooves me to point out to you that omitting the time dilation term means that you were analyzing the falling body scenario in terms of FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction rather in terms of the full Lorentz transformation.
>
> >
>
> > Nope, so you can definitely go fuck yourself.
>
>
>
> "Nope", you say? Do you claim that the calculations in your paper are correct, and that I am in error?

Yep, your nick fits you, Ignorant.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Your inability to admit being wrong, even when I can supply you an exact reference to a widely-admired textbook by recognized authorities, is, of course, diagnostic of a crackpot. There is an excerpt from Spacetime Physics on the Tilted Meter Stick: http://tinyurl.com/njf2gpe

Please read and comment.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 8:54:26 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 8:07:42 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 4:40:25 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
>
>
> > > "Nope", you say? Do you claim that the calculations in your paper are correct, and that I am in error?
>
> >
>
> > Yep, your nick fits you, Ignorant.
>

Let's try something simple, Ignorant:

1. The floor of the train car is parallel to the ground. Yes or No?
2. The rod falls parallel with the floor of the car. Yes or No?

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:01:26 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> Let's try something simple, Ignorant:
>
> 1. The floor of the train car is parallel to the ground. Yes or No?

Yes.

> 2. The rod falls parallel with the floor of the car. Yes or No?

In the frame of the car, yes. In the frame of the platform, no.

This is a simple consequence of relativity of simultaneity, which evidently you deny.

Please read and comment on this excerpt from Spacetime Physics on the Tilted Meter Stick: http://tinyurl.com/njf2gpe

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 9:28:13 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:01:26 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Let's try something simple, Ignorant:
>
> >
>
> > 1. The floor of the train car is parallel to the ground. Yes or No?
>
>
>
> Yes.
>

Ok, you got one right

>
>
> > 2. The rod falls parallel with the floor of the car. Yes or No?
>
>
>
> In the frame of the car, yes.

You got the second one right

> In the frame of the platform, no.
>

Bzzt, wrong, Ignorant.

Let me help you again: the space is Euclidian. Yes or No?

> Please read and comment on this excerpt from Spacetime Physics on the Tilted Meter Stick: http://tinyurl.com/njf2gpe

Does not apply, Ignorant. You nick applies, though.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 9:28:13 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:01:26 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > > Let's try something simple, Ignorant:
>
> > > 1. The floor of the train car is parallel to the ground. Yes or No?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Ok, you got one right
>
> > > 2. The rod falls parallel with the floor of the car. Yes or No?
>
> > In the frame of the car, yes.
>
> You got the second one right
>
> > In the frame of the platform, no.
>
> Bzzt, wrong, Ignorant.
>
> Let me help you again: the space is Euclidian. Yes or No?

(sigh) Of course not.

> > Please read and comment on this excerpt from Spacetime Physics on the Tilted Meter Stick: http://tinyurl.com/njf2gpe
>
> Does not apply, Ignorant. You nick applies, though.

Place two clocks on the body, one at the head, the other at the feet. Synchronize them in the frame of the train.

Do they read the same time or different times in the frame of the platform?

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 9:55:05 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 9:28:13 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:01:26 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Let's try something simple, Ignorant:
>
> >
>
> > > > 1. The floor of the train car is parallel to the ground. Yes or No?
>
> >
>
> > > Yes.
>
> >
>
> > Ok, you got one right
>
> >
>
> > > > 2. The rod falls parallel with the floor of the car. Yes or No?
>
> >
>
> > > In the frame of the car, yes.
>
> >
>
> > You got the second one right
>
> >
>
> > > In the frame of the platform, no.
>
> >
>
> > Bzzt, wrong, Ignorant.
>
> >
>
> > Let me help you again: the space is Euclidian. Yes or No?
>
>
>
> (sigh) Of course not.
>

The space in the exercise in discussion is not Euclidian, Ignorant? Let me give you a second chance, try answering correctly.

>
> Do they read the same time or different times in the frame of the platform?

yes, they show different times, nothing to do with the exercise. This is what happens when you do physics by picking up exercises from books, Crackpot.

[Dale Fletcher]

Dono, wrote:

>> (sigh) Of course not.
>>
>>
> The space in the exercise in discussion is not Euclidian, Ignorant? Let me
> give you a second chance, try answering correctly.

It must be yes then :)

[Dono,]

But the new imbecile said "no". If the nick fits, he should continue wearing it. I have a pretty good guess why he answered "no". He knows that he's already fucked.

[Lord Androcles]

"Ignorant Raving Crackpot" wrote in message
news:c81eaecb-1714-4fdd...@googlegroups.com...

=======================================================================
Ok...
Mental co-masturbation over hyperbolic trig doesn't change the speed of the
co-moving laboratory in the frame of the spaceship from being greater than
c.

Fig. 78. Will the "meter stick"
pass through the "one-meter-
diameter hole" without collision?

1 metre travelling at 0.866c is
1 /sqrt(1-0.866^2)
= 1/sqrt(1 - 3/4)
= 1/sqrt(1/4)
= 1/0.5
= 2
The stick is twice the hole diameter.

Of course not! What fuckwit suggested it could?

Moronic crap commented on.

Your inability to admit being a stupid arsehole, even when I can supply you
an exact reference to a widely-admired paper by the one recognized
authority, Einstein himself, is, of course, diagnostic of a fucking idiot.
However, I should not interfere in a kook-fight between two fucking idiots.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

This has EVERYTHING to do with the exercise.

If the clocks at the head and the foot read different times in the frame of the platform, then the distances that the head and the foot have fallen, in the frame of the platform, must be different.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 10:27:24 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 12:01:57 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 9:55:05 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > > > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 9:28:13 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:01:26 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Let's try something simple, Ignorant:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 1. The floor of the train car is parallel to the ground. Yes or No?
>
> >
>
> > > > > Yes.
>
> >
>
> > > > Ok, you got one right
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 2. The rod falls parallel with the floor of the car. Yes or No?
>
> >
>
> > > > > In the frame of the car, yes.
>
> >
>
> > > > You got the second one right
>
> >
>
> > > > > In the frame of the platform, no.
>
> >
>
> > > > Bzzt, wrong, Ignorant.
>
> >
>
> > > > Let me help you again: the space is Euclidian. Yes or No?
>
> >
>
> > > (sigh) Of course not.
>
> >
>
> > The space in the exercise in discussion is not Euclidian, Ignorant? Let me give you a second chance, try answering correctly.
>
> >
>
> > > Do they read the same time or different times in the frame of the platform?
>
> >
>
> > yes, they show different times, nothing to do with the exercise. This is what happens when you do physics by picking up exercises from books, Crackpot.
>
>
>
> This has EVERYTHING to do with the exercise.
>

Answer the question, Crackpot. I answered yours, so , please answer mine. Do you still claim that the space in the exercise is not Euclidian?

>
>
> If the clocks at the head and the foot read different times in the frame of the platform,

They do, indeed.

> then the distances that the head and the foot have fallen, in the frame of the platform, must be different.

It is easy to disprove your line of thinking. Don't worry, I will do it. AFTER you answer my question above.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 12:34:02 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 10:27:24 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> > This has EVERYTHING to do with the exercise.
>
> Answer the question, Crackpot. I answered yours, so , please answer mine. Do you still claim that the space in the exercise is not Euclidian?

The proper geometry in which to think of these exercises is Minkowski spacetime.

We have, however, been arguing in terms of more primitive conceptualizations.

> > If the clocks at the head and the foot read different times in the frame of the platform,
>
> They do, indeed.
>
> > then the distances that the head and the foot have fallen, in the frame of the platform, must be different.
>
> It is easy to disprove your line of thinking. Don't worry, I will do it. AFTER you answer my question above.

What is there to disprove, Dono? In the frame of the platform, you agree that the head and the foot were released at different times.

We haven't agreed on which end of the body is to the front of the train, but one way or another, in the frame of the platform, one end of the body will have fallen a short distance before the other end ever got started.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:10:40 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 12:34:02 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 10:27:24 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > This has EVERYTHING to do with the exercise.
>
> >
>
> > Answer the question, Crackpot. I answered yours, so , please answer mine. Do you still claim that the space in the exercise is not Euclidian?
>
>
>
> The proper geometry in which to think of these exercises is Minkowski spacetime.
>
>

Minkowski spacetime is based on Euclidian space. The question was about space, Crackpot.
Is the space in the exercise Euclidian? Yes or No?

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

Quibble, quibble, quibble. You are trying to win some sort of fantasy brownie point in your head, and in the process you are trying to draw attention from my main point, which I repeat:

> > If the clocks at the head and the foot read different times in the frame of the platform,
>
> They do, indeed.
>
> > then the distances that the head and the foot have fallen, in the frame of the platform, must be different.
>
> It is easy to disprove your line of thinking. Don't worry, I will do it. AFTER you answer my question above.

In the frame of the platform, you agree that the head and the foot were released at different times.

We haven't agreed on which end of the body is to the front of the train, but one way or another, in the frame of the platform, one end of the body will have fallen a short distance before the other end got started.

Therefore, as the body is falling, head and foot are not parallel to the platform, as observed in the frame of the platform.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/6/14 7/6/14 1:15 PM, Dono, wrote:
> Minkowski spacetime is based on Euclidian space.

Yes. Well, sort of: I would not say "Minkowski spacetime is 'based on' Euclidean
space". Rather I would say that there are an infinite number of 3-d Euclidean
submanifolds in Minkowski spacetime, one for each value of the time coordinate.

> Is the space in the exercise Euclidian? Yes or No?

The question does not make sense -- there is no "THE space in the exercise",
there are TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF SPACES (and each set is infinite):
a) the set of Euclidean 3-spaces seen by the platform when considering
all points at a given value of the platform time coordinate
b) the set of Euclidean 3-spaces seen by the train when considering
all points at a given value of the train time coordinate
Every 3-space in each set is Euclidean, but they are DIFFERENT in that the two
sets have no 3-space in common.

You guys keep shouting past each other without bothering to understand what is
really going on. You seem to concentrate on words, when you often make ambiguous
statements (or questions, as above).


Tom Roberts

[Dale Fletcher]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Yes. Well, sort of: I would not say "Minkowski spacetime is 'based on'
> Euclidean space". Rather I would say that there are an infinite number
> of 3-d Euclidean submanifolds in Minkowski spacetime, one for each value
> of the time coordinate.

Hmmm, what you say is that the big now legendary GR tensor equation is
just a mapping of curved space back over to a flat Euclidean spacetime/
space. Hahahahaa. Thus that Tensor equation is nothing more than an
adapter.!!

Why the need to translate curved spacetime into flat, once is alrrady
curved in the first place??

> The question does not make sense -- there is no "THE space in the
> exercise", there are TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF SPACES (and each set is
> infinite):
> a) the set of Euclidean 3-spaces seen by the platform when considering
> all points at a given value of the platform time coordinate
> b) the set of Euclidean 3-spaces seen by the train when considering
> all points at a given value of the train time coordinate
> Every 3-space in each set is Euclidean, but they are DIFFERENT in that
> the two sets have no 3-space in common.
>
> You guys keep shouting past each other without bothering to understand
> what is really going on. You seem to co

What do you mean with different 3-space. To me a 3-space plus a 3-space
gives a 3-space as well. You can't just hack a 3-space in small pieces.

It seems I just invalidated Relativity, again. Thanks. This gives me
pleasure.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 1:56:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

> You guys keep shouting past each other without bothering to understand what is
> really going on. You seem to concentrate on words, when you often make ambiguous
> statements (or questions, as above).

Would you be able to mediate? (I'll understand if you wish to stay out of this.)

I claim that the conclusion offered by Dono in http://tinyurl.com/n4plkf6 is defective, the result of his failing to use the full Lorentz transformations to analyze the orientation of the falling body in the frame of the platform. I further state that the analysis to be applied to this problem is precisely the same as the analysis presented in two exercises from Spacetime Physics: http://tinyurl.com/njf2gpe

Thanks in advance, whether or not you wish to take on this task of mediation!

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 12:18:41 PM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 1:56:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>
>
>
> > You guys keep shouting past each other without bothering to understand what is
>
> > really going on. You seem to concentrate on words, when you often make ambiguous
>
> > statements (or questions, as above).
>
>
>
> Would you be able to mediate? (I'll understand if you wish to stay out of this.)
>
>
>
> I claim that the conclusion offered by Dono in http://tinyurl.com/n4plkf6 is defective,

...making you the imbecile that you are.

> the result of his failing to use the full Lorentz transformations

...making you the ignorant that you are,

> to analyze the orientation of the falling body in the frame of the platform. I further state that the analysis to be applied to this problem is precisely the same as the analysis presented in two exercises from Spacetime Physics: http://tinyurl.com/njf2gpe
>

Ignorant,

This is what happens when you "do physics" by citing papers published in the lame American Journal of Physics.

>
>
> Thanks in advance, whether or not you wish to take on this task of mediation!

You can really go now and fuck yourself

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:33:26 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 1:15:02 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:10:40 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 12:34:02 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > > > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 10:27:24 AM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Answer the question, Crackpot. I answered yours, so , please answer mine. Do you still claim that the space in the exercise is not Euclidian?
>
> >
>
> > > The proper geometry in which to think of these exercises is Minkowski spacetime.
>
> >
>
> > Minkowski spacetime is based on Euclidian space. The question was about space, Crackpot.
>
> >
>
> > Is the space in the exercise Euclidian? Yes or No?
>
>
>
> Quibble, quibble, quibble. You are trying to win some sort of fantasy brownie point in your head, and in the process you are trying to draw attention from my main point, which I repeat:
>

Deceptive Imbecile,

You agreed that the platform and the car floor are parallel
You agreed that the falling item and the car floor are parallel
Therefore the falling item and the platform are... parallel.

You can look at the above in even a simpler way:

Place an array of synchronized clocks on the car floor. They all show the same time for an observer traveling with the car.
For an observer on the ground, they show different times.
Does this mean that the floor of the car is inclined with respect with the ground?
Obviously no, the time stamps assigned (via the Lorentz transform) to the different clocks in the car by the observer on the ground are just that, a set of time stamps.
So, if we go back to the idiotic exercise from Taylor and Wheeler, does that mean that the hole in the ground "tilts" as per fig 77 so the meter can pass through it? Of course not, only and Ignorant Crackpot who is learning his physics from a shitty paper published in the shitty AJP (with the glorious impact factor of 0.7 and falling) can think such a thing.

> We haven't agreed on which end of the body is to the front of the train, but one way or another, in the frame of the platform, one end of the body will have fallen a short distance before the other end got started.
>

This makes things only worse from a real physics POV. In the frame of the car , the ends are released in such a way that the item falls parallel to itself. No problem here.
In the frame of the ground, by virtue of one end being freed before the other one, the item PIVOTS around the fixed end and the body will acquire a rotational motion. Of course, this creates a very nasty paradox.

>
>
> Therefore, as the body is falling, head and foot are not parallel to the platform, as observed in the frame of the platform.

Riiiight,

According to you, the body starts rotating around in the frame of the ground. Congratulations, you had your balls in a vise, now, you have "improved" your situation, you have them nailed to the wall.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 5:16:33 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> Deceptive Imbecile,
>
> You agreed that the platform and the car floor are parallel
> You agreed that the falling item and the car floor are parallel
> Therefore the falling item and the platform are... parallel.

Not in the frame of the platform.

> You can look at the above in even a simpler way:
>
> Place an array of synchronized clocks on the car floor. They all show the same time for an observer traveling with the car.
> For an observer on the ground, they show different times.
> Does this mean that the floor of the car is inclined with respect with the ground?
> Obviously no, the time stamps assigned (via the Lorentz transform) to the different clocks in the car by the observer on the ground are just that, a set of time stamps.

The car floor does not have a vertical motion.

> So, if we go back to the idiotic exercise from Taylor and Wheeler, does that mean that the hole in the ground "tilts" as per fig 77 so the meter can pass through it? Of course not, only and Ignorant Crackpot who is learning his physics from a shitty paper published in the shitty AJP (with the glorious impact factor of 0.7 and falling) can think such a thing.

The vertical motion makes a difference.

> > We haven't agreed on which end of the body is to the front of the train, but one way or another, in the frame of the platform, one end of the body will have fallen a short distance before the other end got started.
>
> This makes things only worse from a real physics POV. In the frame of the car , the ends are released in such a way that the item falls parallel to itself. No problem here.
>
> In the frame of the ground, by virtue of one end being freed before the other one, the item PIVOTS around the fixed end and the body will acquire a rotational motion. Of course, this creates a very nasty paradox.

It is not a pivot, and there is no paradox.

> > Therefore, as the body is falling, head and foot are not parallel to the platform, as observed in the frame of the platform.
>
> Riiiight,
>
> According to you, the body starts rotating around in the frame of the ground. Congratulations, you had your balls in a vise, now, you have "improved" your situation, you have them nailed to the wall.

Do I have to resort to ASCII art, like I would with mathematically
illiterate crackpots like Henry Wilson or Androcles?

Use a non-proportional font to view.

Imagine that I have the body affixed to the ceiling of the train by
two hooks J.

A flash signal emitted from the center is used to trigger the release
of the body. In the frame of the train, we see this:
_____________
J-----*-----J Flash from center


_____________
J---*---*---J Pulse spreads symmetrically


_____________
J-*-------*-J Pulse spreads symmetrically


_____________
*-----------* Pulse reaches the two hooks and opens them up


_____________
^ ^
----------- Body starts to drop


_____________
^ ^


----------- Body continues to drop


======================================================================
In order for the body to be released parallel to the platform in the
frame of the platform, the following implausible sequence must occur:
_____________
J-----*-----J Flash from center


_____________ Pulse spreads symmetrically from origin, but the
J--*---*----J train is moving to the right at 0.5c


_____________
*-------*---J Pulse reaches left hook and opens it up


_____________ You propose that somehow, the left end of the body
^--------*--J remains stuck to the ceiling despite the open hook


_____________
^---------*-J Left end remains stuck??? How? Why?


_____________
^----------*J Left end remains stuck??? How? Why?


_____________
^-----------* Left end remains stuck??? How? Why?


_____________
^ ^
----------- Finally the body start to drop


_____________
^ ^


----------- Body continues to drop

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 4:51:15 PM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 5:16:33 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Deceptive Imbecile,
>
> >
>
> > You agreed that the platform and the car floor are parallel
>
> > You agreed that the falling item and the car floor are parallel
>
> > Therefore the falling item and the platform are... parallel.
>
>
>
> Not in the frame of the platform.
>
>

Basic geometry proves that you are an idiot.

>
> > In the frame of the ground, by virtue of one end being freed before the other one, the item PIVOTS around the fixed end and the body will acquire a rotational motion. Of course, this creates a very nasty paradox.
>
>
>
> It is not a pivot, and there is no paradox.
>

Because you say so, Crackpot?



> two hooks J.

> _____________ You propose that somehow, the left end of the body
>
> ^--------*--J remains stuck to the ceiling despite the open hook
>
>

No, imbecile, the RIGHT hook is the one that is still stuck. The left hook has already opened (in the platform frame), as per your own scenario. Keep your balls nailed to the wall.

[Ignorant Raving Crackpot]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 7:10:30 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> On Sunday, July 6, 2014 4:51:15 PM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 6, 2014 5:16:33 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
>
> > > Deceptive Imbecile,
>
> > > You agreed that the platform and the car floor are parallel
>
> > > You agreed that the falling item and the car floor are parallel
>
> > > Therefore the falling item and the platform are... parallel.
>
> > Not in the frame of the platform.
>
> Basic geometry proves that you are an idiot.

(sigh)

> > > In the frame of the ground, by virtue of one end being freed before the other one, the item PIVOTS around the fixed end and the body will acquire a rotational motion. Of course, this creates a very nasty paradox.
>
> > It is not a pivot, and there is no paradox.
>
> Because you say so, Crackpot?
>
> > two hooks J.
>
> > _____________ You propose that somehow, the left end of the body
> > ^--------*--J remains stuck to the ceiling despite the open hook
>
> No, imbecile, the RIGHT hook is the one that is still stuck. The left hook has already opened (in the platform frame), as per your own scenario. Keep your balls nailed to the wall.

That, of course, is the WHOLE POINT of my exercise. You recognize the stupidity of the scenario as I have drawn it.

The left hook has opened up, therefore the left side of the body must begin falling before the right side.

The body does not fall parallel to the platform.

[Dono,]

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 5:34:54 PM UTC-7, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
>
> The left hook has opened up, therefore the left side of the body must begin falling before the right side.
>
>
>
> The body does not fall parallel to the platform.

But IMBECILE, the point was that the body would have a ROTATION motion in one frame (the ground) and INERTIAL motion in the other frame (the train). So you got your balls nailed in a paradox.