info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity
145 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jun 19, 2017, 6:57:10 AM6/19/17
to
In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
This conclusion does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is invalid. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B.
In contrast, the invalidly deduced conclusion ("the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B") provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Conclusion: If logical validity is obeyed, special relativity is unable to say which clock - the moving or the stationary - lags behind the other. Einstein's invalid argument masks this inability and does say how the two clocks differ but this is not science of course.
Pentcho Valev
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
This conclusion does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is invalid. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B.
In contrast, the invalidly deduced conclusion ("the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B") provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Conclusion: If logical validity is obeyed, special relativity is unable to say which clock - the moving or the stationary - lags behind the other. Einstein's invalid argument masks this inability and does say how the two clocks differ but this is not science of course.
Pentcho Valev
Rhett Doucet
Jun 19, 2017, 9:31:00 AM6/19/17
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the
> clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
Another interesting catch from Dr. Pentcho. So true indeed. What never I
> In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the
> clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
heard explained, is that the Speed and the Acceleration are purely
*insignificant*. It does not matter you move that clock SLOW or FAST along
the SHORTEST line, for instance. The lag deficit accumulates the same.
Very funny indeed. Thank you Dr. Pentcho.
Gary Harnagel
Jun 19, 2017, 9:35:15 AM6/19/17
to
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 4:57:10 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion
>
> "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
>
> Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> This conclusion does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates
Sure it does. You are either a liar or an ignoramus.
>
> In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion
>
> "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
>
> Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> This conclusion does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates
> [More lying deleted]
Pentcho Valev
Jun 19, 2017, 10:47:29 AM6/19/17
to
All VALIDLY deducible consequences of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate are absurd. For instance, length contraction implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"
It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies unlimited compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The unlimitedly compressed object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.
At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd bending first, as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Ladder_paradox_grate_variation.svg/450px-Ladder_paradox_grate_variation.svg.png
Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
Pentcho Valev
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
John Baez: "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
See, at 7:12 in the video below, how the train is trapped "in a compressed state" inside the tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"
It is not difficult to realize that trapping unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers implies unlimited compressibility and drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The unlimitedly compressed object, in trying to restore its original volume ("spring back to its natural shape"), would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere.
At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole, and in order to save Einstein's relativity, the authors of the video inform the gullible world that Adam as well sees the train falling through the hole. However Adam can only see this if the train undergoes an absurd bending first, as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Ladder_paradox_grate_variation.svg/450px-Ladder_paradox_grate_variation.svg.png
Clearly we have reductio ad absurdum: An absurd bending is required - it does occur in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jun 19, 2017, 12:19:05 PM6/19/17
to
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 8:47:29 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> All VALIDLY deducible consequences of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-
> light postulate are absurd.
Actually, all assertions made by Prevaricating Pentcho are MUCH more absurd.
>
> All VALIDLY deducible consequences of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-
> light postulate are absurd.
> For instance, length contraction implies that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped,
> "in a compressed state", inside unlimitedly short containers:
> [Pointless Pentcho's misunderstandings of quoted text deleted]
Tom Roberts
Jun 19, 2017, 11:51:17 PM6/19/17
to
On 6/19/17 6/19/17 5:57 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [...]
There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is a PHYSICAL
THEORY. The only VALID way to refute it is by experiment, and within its domain
that has NEVER been a reproducible experiment that refuted it. There aren't even
any "puzzles" that make one wonder if refutation is only a matter of improved
technique.
As usual, Valev simply doesn't have a clue....
Tom Roberts
> [...]
There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is a PHYSICAL
THEORY. The only VALID way to refute it is by experiment, and within its domain
that has NEVER been a reproducible experiment that refuted it. There aren't even
any "puzzles" that make one wonder if refutation is only a matter of improved
technique.
As usual, Valev simply doesn't have a clue....
Tom Roberts
Ned Latham
Jun 20, 2017, 3:36:43 AM6/20/17
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>
> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
travel in vaccuum.
JanPB
Jun 20, 2017, 5:48:42 AM6/20/17
to
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:57:10 PM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion
>
> "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
>
> Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence.
You've posted this dozens of times (probably hundreds if one starts counting
> In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion
>
> "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
>
> Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence.
around 1995). It was answered the corresponding number of times. What do you
think are accomplishing by this sort of mindless repetition?
--
Jan
Gary Harnagel
Jun 20, 2017, 7:06:22 AM6/20/17
to
BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum." Do you believe that "vacuum"
is nothing?
Odd Bodkin
Jun 20, 2017, 7:20:50 AM6/20/17
to
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ned Latham
Jun 20, 2017, 7:51:52 AM6/20/17
to
Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
>
> So what?
So it's not a physical theory.
> QED does.
QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
relativity. That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
is all about, remember?
> BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
Nope. Do you?
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> >
> > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > travel in vacuum.
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> >
> > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>
> So what?
So it's not a physical theory.
> QED does.
QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
relativity. That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
is all about, remember?
> BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
Ned Latham
Jun 20, 2017, 7:54:24 AM6/20/17
to
Odd Bodkin wrote in <oib0ef$1jsb$3...@gioia.aioe.org>:
them anyway.
> Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> >
> > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > travel in vaccuum.
>
> But quantum field theories do.
Irrelevant. SR and GR predate all of them, and they're inconsistent with
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> >
> > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > travel in vaccuum.
>
> But quantum field theories do.
them anyway.
Eshiki Orakut
Jun 20, 2017, 9:05:33 AM6/20/17
to
Odd Bodkin
Jun 20, 2017, 9:26:28 AM6/20/17
to
On 6/20/17 6:51 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>> travel in vacuum.
>>
>> So what?
>
> So it's not a physical theory.
But QED is, and QED incorporates special relativity.
> Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>> travel in vacuum.
>>
>> So what?
>
> So it's not a physical theory.
>
>> QED does.
>
> QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
> relativity.
NOT the same thing. QM and special relativity are completely consistent
with each other and have been since 1930.
> That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> is all about, remember?
>
>> BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
>
> Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
>
>> Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
>
> Nope. Do you?
>
Odd Bodkin
Jun 20, 2017, 9:29:56 AM6/20/17
to
ANY theory. ANY theory is a set of propositions that apply to certain
domains and not ALL domains. There is no theory to date that claims to
be an explanation for any and all phenomena. Each theory is an
INCREMENTAL step in answering a few more questions.
SR is not at all inconsistent with quantum field theory. QFT is FULLY
Lorentz-covariant.
What is true is that no quantum field theory has been found that is
compatible with GENERAL relativity. That's an increment that has yet to
be made.
Tom Roberts
Jun 20, 2017, 10:03:56 AM6/20/17
to
waveform. If you mean anything else, you'll have to explain.
> So it's not a physical theory.
you need an additional theory, one that is consistent with SR (because SR is so
solidly established experimentally). For light we have such a theory (QED), but
we have no such theory for any "waveform".
> QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
> relativity.
theory, which incorporates SR at its foundation. Rather, QM is an appropriate
limit of QED (in a manner similar to Newtonian mechanics being a limit of SR).
Yes, both QM and NM are inconsistent with SR; but the underlying theories of
which they are appropriate limits ARE consistent with SR.
> That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> is all about, remember?
Tom Roberts
Gary Harnagel
Jun 20, 2017, 10:07:30 AM6/20/17
to
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 5:51:52 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
> >
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > >
> > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > > travel in vacuum.
> >
> > So what?
>
> So it's not a physical theory.
Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates. The
>
> Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
> >
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > >
> > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > > travel in vacuum.
> >
> > So what?
>
> So it's not a physical theory.
invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed, as is the
principle of relativity as well as the other postulates.
> > QED does.
>
> QED is an interpretation of QM,
> which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
> That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> is all about, remember?
that particles aren't points and gravity is produced by gravitons. The
"kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make concrete predictions.
> > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
>
> Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
>
> > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
>
> Nope. Do you?
Ned Latham
Jun 20, 2017, 10:10:01 AM6/20/17
to
The Sloow Bot, aka Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > > >
> > > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > > > travel in vacuum.
> > >
> > > So what?
> >
> > So it's not a physical theory.
>
> But QED is,
Irrelevant.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > > >
> > > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > > > travel in vacuum.
> > >
> > > So what?
> >
> > So it's not a physical theory.
>
> But QED is,
> and QED incorporates special relativity.
Eisteinian relaticity.
> > > QED does.
> >
> > QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
> > relativity.
>
> No, you're confusing general relativity and special relativity.
"String Theory" it's defunct, which means SR is defunct.
> They are NOT the same thing. QM and special relativity are
> completely consistent with each other and have been since 1930.
----snip----
Ned Latham
Jun 20, 2017, 10:17:39 AM6/20/17
to
The Slow Bot, ala Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Slow Bot, aka Odd Bodkin wrote:
SR is NOT a physical theory.
----snip----
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > The Slow Bot, aka Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > > >
> > > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > > > travel in vaccuum.
> > >
> > > But quantum field theories do.
> >
> > Irrelevant. SR and GR predate all of them, and they're inconsistent with
> > them anyway.
>
> It's not irrelevant.
Wrong agaon. Skow Bot. SR and GR predate all quantum field theworues. IOW,
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > > >
> > > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > > > travel in vaccuum.
> > >
> > > But quantum field theories do.
> >
> > Irrelevant. SR and GR predate all of them, and they're inconsistent with
> > them anyway.
>
> It's not irrelevant.
SR is NOT a physical theory.
----snip----
Ned Latham
Jun 20, 2017, 11:24:55 AM6/20/17
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> >
> > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > travel in vaccuum.
>
> If you mean light, that is not within the domain of SR.
Vullshit.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> >
> > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > travel in vaccuum.
>
> If you mean light, that is not within the domain of SR.
> Moreover, light is not a waveform.
----snio----
> > QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
> > relativity.
>
> Completely wrong! QED is NOT an "interpretation of QM", it is a more
> fundamental theory,
treatment of some subatomic phenomena.
----snip----
Ned Latham
Jun 20, 2017, 11:38:07 AM6/20/17
to
iFawy Fuck Knuckloe wote:
> The invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed,
Bullshit. Observations and experiments have been *interpreted* that way.
Invalidly.
> as is the principle of relativity
*Which* principle of relativity? And how was it confirmed?
> as well as the other postulates.
And they are?
> > > QED does.
> >
> > QED is an interpretation of QM,
>
> Completely wrong, abysmal ignoramus.
You wish.
> > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
>
> Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
defunct.
> > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > is all about, remember?
>
> No, ridiculous ignoramus, string theory is based on QED with the
> assumption that particles aren't points and gravity is produced
> by gravitons.i
Bullshit. It's a mathematical attempt to reconcile GR and QM.
And it's a failure.
> The "kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make
> concrete predictions.
Crap. It's its inability ti reconcile GR and QM.
> > > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> >
> > Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> >
> > > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
> >
> > Nope. Do you?
>
> Nope.
So why'd you ask, moron?
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
> > >
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > > >
> > > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > > > travel in vacuum.
> > >
> > > So what?
> >
> > So it's not a physical theory.
>
> Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
And they are?
> > Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
> > >
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > > >
> > > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > > > travel in vacuum.
> > >
> > > So what?
> >
> > So it's not a physical theory.
>
> Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
> The invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed,
Invalidly.
> as is the principle of relativity
> as well as the other postulates.
> > > QED does.
> >
> > QED is an interpretation of QM,
>
> Completely wrong, abysmal ignoramus.
> > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
>
> Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
defunct.
> > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > is all about, remember?
>
> No, ridiculous ignoramus, string theory is based on QED with the
> assumption that particles aren't points and gravity is produced
Bullshit. It's a mathematical attempt to reconcile GR and QM.
And it's a failure.
> The "kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make
> concrete predictions.
> > > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> >
> > Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> >
> > > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
> >
> > Nope. Do you?
>
> Nope.
Gary Harnagel
Jun 20, 2017, 12:53:42 PM6/20/17
to
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 9:38:07 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
You are a really, really sad sack of baloney.
> > The invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed,
>
> Bullshit. Observations and experiments have been *interpreted* that way.
> Invalidly.
Nope. You are a yammering nut-job.
> > as is the principle of relativity
>
> *Which* principle of relativity? And how was it confirmed?
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, ignoramus.
> > as well as the other postulates.
>
> And they are?
So sad, ignoramus, that you don't know them.
> > > > QED does.
> > >
> > > QED is an interpretation of QM,
> >
> > Completely wrong, abysmal ignoramus.
>
> You wish.
You are an ignoramus. And you're stupid, too.
> > > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
> >
> > Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
>
> You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
> is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
> defunct.
My, but you are a yammering liar.
> > > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > > is all about, remember?
> >
> > No, ridiculous ignoramus, string theory is based on QED with the
> > assumption that particles aren't points and gravity is produced
> > by gravitons.i
>
> Bullshit. It's a mathematical attempt to reconcile GR and QM.
Based on certain experimental observations.
> And it's a failure.
YOU are the only fool bringing up the subject, dishonest weasel.
> > The "kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make
> > concrete predictions.
>
> Crap. It's its inability ti reconcile GR and QM.
Not "QM": QED
> > > > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> > >
> > > Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> > >
> > > > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
> > >
> > > Nope. Do you?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> So why'd you ask, moron?
Because figured that a stupid dishonest ignoramus like you would believe
that vacuum was nothing. So there's SOME hope for you.
>
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
>
> And they are?
So you yammer on and on and you don't even know what they are?
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
>
> And they are?
You are a really, really sad sack of baloney.
> > The invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed,
>
> Bullshit. Observations and experiments have been *interpreted* that way.
> Invalidly.
> > as is the principle of relativity
>
> *Which* principle of relativity? And how was it confirmed?
> > as well as the other postulates.
>
> And they are?
> > > > QED does.
> > >
> > > QED is an interpretation of QM,
> >
> > Completely wrong, abysmal ignoramus.
>
> You wish.
> > > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
> >
> > Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
>
> You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
> is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
> defunct.
> > > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > > is all about, remember?
> >
> > No, ridiculous ignoramus, string theory is based on QED with the
> > assumption that particles aren't points and gravity is produced
> > by gravitons.i
>
> Bullshit. It's a mathematical attempt to reconcile GR and QM.
> And it's a failure.
> > The "kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make
> > concrete predictions.
>
> Crap. It's its inability ti reconcile GR and QM.
> > > > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> > >
> > > Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> > >
> > > > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
> > >
> > > Nope. Do you?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> So why'd you ask, moron?
that vacuum was nothing. So there's SOME hope for you.
Eshiki Orakut
Jun 20, 2017, 12:54:24 PM6/20/17
to
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Ned Latham
napisał:
> Quit the bullshitting. QM isn't a physical theory: it's a mathematical
> treatment of some subatomic phenomena.
And theories in physics are not treating phenomena mathematically.
napisał:
> Quit the bullshitting. QM isn't a physical theory: it's a mathematical
> treatment of some subatomic phenomena.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 20, 2017, 12:56:53 PM6/20/17
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 5:57 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> [...]
>
> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is a
> PHYSICAL THEORY. The only VALID way to refute it is by experiment,
IBTD. Even a physical theory has to be internally consistent first.
> On 6/19/17 6/19/17 5:57 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> [...]
>
> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is a
> PHYSICAL THEORY. The only VALID way to refute it is by experiment,
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Ned Latham
Jun 20, 2017, 8:50:20 PM6/20/17
to
Fawy Fuvk Knickle wote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wote:
> You are a really, really sad sack of baloney.
Quit projecting, moron.
> > > The invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed,
> >
> > Bullshit. Observations and experiments have been *interpreted* that way.
> > Invalidly.
>
> Nope.
Describe any such observation or experiment.
> You are a yammering nut-job.
Put up or shut up, moron.
> > > as is the principle of relativity
> >
> > *Which* principle of relativity? And how was it confirmed?
>
> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, ignoramus.
So the priniple of relativity is *not* one of the four postulates
underlying SR? Why did you list it then, liar?
> > > as well as the other postulates.
> >
> > And they are?
>
> So sad, ignoramus, that you don't know them.
Quit ptojecting, liar.
> > > > > QED does.
> > > >
> > > > QED is an interpretation of QM,
> > >
> > > Completely wrong, abysmal ignoramus.
> >
> > You wish.
>
> You are an ignoramus. And you're stupid, too.
You wish.
> > > > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
> > >
> > > Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
> >
> > You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
> > is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
> > defunct.
>
> My, but you are a yammering liar.
Wrong again, liar, That's you. QED is NOT consistent with GR.
> > > > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > > > is all about, remember?
> > >
> > > No, ridiculous ignoramus, string theory is based on QED with the
> > > assumption that particles aren't points and gravity is produced
> > > by gravitons.i
> >
> > Bullshit. It's a mathematical attempt to reconcile GR and QM.
>
> Based on certain experimental observations.
No shit, sherlock. Did the tooth fairy tell you that?
> > And it's a failure.
>
> YOU are the only fool bringing up the subject, dishonest weasel.
Quit the posturing, ypou lying maggot. String theory has failed to
reconclie QM and GR and that means one of them has to go.
And it won't be QM.
And without GR, SR is untenable.
> > > The "kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make
> > > concrete predictions.
> >
> > Crap. It's its inability ti reconcile GR and QM.
>
> Not "QM": QED
Not 'not "QM:"', moron: "also:".
> > > > > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> > > >
> > > > Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> > > >
> > > > > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Do you?
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > So why'd you ask, moron?
>
> Because figured
Don't lie, you maggot.
> that a stupid dishonest ignoramus like you
There's no such animal.
> would believe that vacuum was nothing.
That's "is" moron.
> So there's SOME hope for you.
Get your habd off it. I reject *all* forms of religion.
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity,
> > > > > > > as it is a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a
> > > > > > waveform can travel in vacuum.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what?
> > > >
> > > > So it's not a physical theory.
> > >
> > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity,
> > > > > > > as it is a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a
> > > > > > waveform can travel in vacuum.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what?
> > > >
> > > > So it's not a physical theory.
> > >
> > > Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
> >
> > And they are?
>
> So you yammer on and on and you don't even know what they are?
So you can't name them? Quelle surprise.
> >
> > And they are?
>
> So you yammer on and on and you don't even know what they are?
> You are a really, really sad sack of baloney.
> > > The invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed,
> >
> > Bullshit. Observations and experiments have been *interpreted* that way.
> > Invalidly.
>
> Nope.
> You are a yammering nut-job.
> > > as is the principle of relativity
> >
> > *Which* principle of relativity? And how was it confirmed?
>
> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, ignoramus.
underlying SR? Why did you list it then, liar?
> > > as well as the other postulates.
> >
> > And they are?
>
> So sad, ignoramus, that you don't know them.
> > > > > QED does.
> > > >
> > > > QED is an interpretation of QM,
> > >
> > > Completely wrong, abysmal ignoramus.
> >
> > You wish.
>
> You are an ignoramus. And you're stupid, too.
> > > > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
> > >
> > > Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
> >
> > You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
> > is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
> > defunct.
>
> My, but you are a yammering liar.
> > > > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > > > is all about, remember?
> > >
> > > No, ridiculous ignoramus, string theory is based on QED with the
> > > assumption that particles aren't points and gravity is produced
> > > by gravitons.i
> >
> > Bullshit. It's a mathematical attempt to reconcile GR and QM.
>
> Based on certain experimental observations.
> > And it's a failure.
>
> YOU are the only fool bringing up the subject, dishonest weasel.
reconclie QM and GR and that means one of them has to go.
And it won't be QM.
And without GR, SR is untenable.
> > > The "kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make
> > > concrete predictions.
> >
> > Crap. It's its inability ti reconcile GR and QM.
>
> Not "QM": QED
> > > > > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> > > >
> > > > Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> > > >
> > > > > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Do you?
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > So why'd you ask, moron?
>
> Because figured
> that a stupid dishonest ignoramus like you
> would believe that vacuum was nothing.
> So there's SOME hope for you.
Tom Roberts
Jun 20, 2017, 9:06:04 PM6/20/17
to
On 6/20/17 6/20/17 10:24 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>> travel in vaccuum.
>>
>> If you mean light, that is not within the domain of SR.
>
> Vullshit.
Nope. To me, and to many/most physicists, SR today does not include
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>> travel in vaccuum.
>>
>> If you mean light, that is not within the domain of SR.
>
> Vullshit.
electrodynamics, as Einstein intermixed them in 1905. SR is easily separable as
the (local) geometry of the world, while electrodynamics describes
electromagnetic interactions (classically, or quantum mechanically in QED). In
particular, modern derivations of SR do not use Einstein's second postulate (or
any other reference to light), they are purely geometrical. SR is part of the
foundations of both classical electrodynamics and QED, which do describe light.
>> Moreover, light is not a waveform.
>
> So Einstein never postulated a "wave pacjet:?
He postulated and described MANY things throughout his long and illustrious
career. But this is NOT about what Einstein might or might not have said, it is
about the structure of light. Today the best description of light is BY FAR that
of QED, in which light is not any sort of wave (or waveform). In particular, no
wave (or waveform) model can describe the many observed quantum aspects of
light; QED does.
Of course QED accurately models experiments that display
waveLIKE behavior. Light can be extremely good at MIMICKING
a wave, but at base is NOT one.
>>> QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
>>> relativity.
>> Completely wrong! QED is NOT an "interpretation of QM", it is a more
>> fundamental theory,
>
> Quit the bullshitting.
much larger domain than QM, so QED cannot possibly be merely an interpretation
of QM. And SR is part of the foundations of QED, which is fully consistent with SR.
You should LEARN something about the subject before spouting off nonsense like that.
> QM isn't a physical theory: it's a mathematical
> treatment of some subatomic phenomena.
that's what the words MEAN. We have several layered PHYSICAL THEORIES of
subatomic phenomena; loosely from largest to narrowest:
* the standard model
* QCD
* electro-weak theory
* QED
* QM (the low-energy, slow-speed limit of QED)
* classical electrodynamics (the non-quantum limit of QED)
Apparently you have only a passing acquaintance with the last (narrowest) of
these, as it is the only one that could possibly called a "wave theory" (and
even that is a stretch).
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
Jun 20, 2017, 9:17:42 PM6/20/17
to
On 6/20/17 6/20/17 11:56 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. Proofs of mathematical consistency
don't get any better than that.
So any "argument" against the consistency of SR must take on the consistency of
the entire body of modern mathematics. Hopeless. Especially by the idiots around
here who doggedly cling to the notion that SR is inconsistent (such as Valev,
who started this thread).
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is a
>> PHYSICAL THEORY. The only VALID way to refute it is by experiment,
>
> IBTD. Even a physical theory has to be internally consistent first.
OK. But the math underlying SR has been proven to be as consistent as is
>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is a
>> PHYSICAL THEORY. The only VALID way to refute it is by experiment,
>
> IBTD. Even a physical theory has to be internally consistent first.
Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. Proofs of mathematical consistency
don't get any better than that.
So any "argument" against the consistency of SR must take on the consistency of
the entire body of modern mathematics. Hopeless. Especially by the idiots around
here who doggedly cling to the notion that SR is inconsistent (such as Valev,
who started this thread).
Tom Roberts
Gary Harnagel
Jun 20, 2017, 10:45:49 PM6/20/17
to
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 6:50:20 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Gary wote:
ignoramus like you?
> > You are a really, really sad sack of baloney.
>
> Quit projecting, moron.
Sorry, but I don't eat boloney.
> > > > The invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed,
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Observations and experiments have been *interpreted* that way.
> > > Invalidly.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Describe any such observation or experiment.
Why should I kow-tow to a dishonest ignoramus like you?
> > You are a yammering nut-job.
>
> Put up or shut up, moron.
I'm not a moron and neither are you. But you are just a loud, obnoxious
a$$hole who has no respect, even for himself.
> > > > as is the principle of relativity
> > >
> > > *Which* principle of relativity? And how was it confirmed?
> >
> > The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, ignoramus.
>
> So the priniple of relativity is *not* one of the four postulates
> underlying SR? Why did you list it then, liar?
See? You just proved once again that you are a dishonest obnoxious a$$hole.
The PoR is indeed one of the four postulates, as anyone with two neurons to
rub together knows.
> > > > as well as the other postulates.
> > >
> > > And they are?
> >
> > So sad, ignoramus, that you don't know them.
>
> Quit ptojecting, liar.
Quit projecting, liar.
> > > > > > QED does.
> > > > >
> > > > > QED is an interpretation of QM,
> > > >
> > > > Completely wrong, abysmal ignoramus.
> > >
> > > You wish.
> >
> > You are an ignoramus. And you're stupid, too.
>
> You wish.
No, I don't wish ANYONE to be a stupid ignoramus, but it happens frequently
in this group, as you just proved once again.
> > > > > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
> > >
> > > You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
> > > is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
> > > defunct.
> >
> > My, but you are a yammering liar.
>
> Wrong again, liar, That's you. QED is NOT consistent with GR.
Nobody said it was, dishonest nincompoop.
> > > > > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > > > > is all about, remember?
> > > >
> > > > No, ridiculous ignoramus, string theory is based on QED with the
> > > > assumption that particles aren't points and gravity is produced
> > > > by gravitons.i
> > >
> > > Bullshit. It's a mathematical attempt to reconcile GR and QM.
ALL quantum gravity theories fit that description.
> > Based on certain experimental observations.
>
> No shit, sherlock. Did the tooth fairy tell you that?
See? You prove once again that you are a dishonest obnoxious ignoramus.
> > > And it's a failure.
> >
> > YOU are the only fool bringing up the subject, dishonest weasel.
>
> Quit the posturing, ypou lying maggot.
Stop projecting.
> String theory has failed to reconclie QM and GR and that means one of them
> has to go.
>
> And it won't be QM.
"QM" has already gone, replaced by QED.
> And without GR, SR is untenable.
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
different.” – Steven Carlip
> > > > The "kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make
> > > > concrete predictions.
> > >
> > > Crap. It's its inability ti reconcile GR and QM.
> >
> > Not "QM": QED
>
> Not 'not "QM:"', moron: "also:".
You're projecting again.
> [Ridiculous and demeaning obnoxious bull plop deleted for sanitary reasons]
You ARE an ignoramus.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
>
> Gary wote:
> >
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > > Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
> > >
> > > And they are?
> >
> > So you yammer on and on and you don't even know what they are?
>
> So you can't name them? Quelle surprise.
Ah, but I can. But why should I kow-tow to the whims of a dishonest
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > > Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
> > >
> > > And they are?
> >
> > So you yammer on and on and you don't even know what they are?
>
> So you can't name them? Quelle surprise.
ignoramus like you?
> > You are a really, really sad sack of baloney.
>
> Quit projecting, moron.
> > > > The invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed,
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Observations and experiments have been *interpreted* that way.
> > > Invalidly.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Describe any such observation or experiment.
> > You are a yammering nut-job.
>
> Put up or shut up, moron.
a$$hole who has no respect, even for himself.
> > > > as is the principle of relativity
> > >
> > > *Which* principle of relativity? And how was it confirmed?
> >
> > The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, ignoramus.
>
> So the priniple of relativity is *not* one of the four postulates
> underlying SR? Why did you list it then, liar?
The PoR is indeed one of the four postulates, as anyone with two neurons to
rub together knows.
> > > > as well as the other postulates.
> > >
> > > And they are?
> >
> > So sad, ignoramus, that you don't know them.
>
> Quit ptojecting, liar.
> > > > > > QED does.
> > > > >
> > > > > QED is an interpretation of QM,
> > > >
> > > > Completely wrong, abysmal ignoramus.
> > >
> > > You wish.
> >
> > You are an ignoramus. And you're stupid, too.
>
> You wish.
in this group, as you just proved once again.
> > > > > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
> > >
> > > You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
> > > is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
> > > defunct.
> >
> > My, but you are a yammering liar.
>
> Wrong again, liar, That's you. QED is NOT consistent with GR.
> > > > > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > > > > is all about, remember?
> > > >
> > > > No, ridiculous ignoramus, string theory is based on QED with the
> > > > assumption that particles aren't points and gravity is produced
> > > > by gravitons.i
> > >
> > > Bullshit. It's a mathematical attempt to reconcile GR and QM.
> > Based on certain experimental observations.
>
> No shit, sherlock. Did the tooth fairy tell you that?
> > > And it's a failure.
> >
> > YOU are the only fool bringing up the subject, dishonest weasel.
>
> Quit the posturing, ypou lying maggot.
> String theory has failed to reconclie QM and GR and that means one of them
> has to go.
>
> And it won't be QM.
> And without GR, SR is untenable.
different.” – Steven Carlip
> > > > The "kerfuffle" over string theory is its inability to make
> > > > concrete predictions.
> > >
> > > Crap. It's its inability ti reconcile GR and QM.
> >
> > Not "QM": QED
>
> Not 'not "QM:"', moron: "also:".
> [Ridiculous and demeaning obnoxious bull plop deleted for sanitary reasons]
You ARE an ignoramus.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
Eshiki Orakut
Jun 21, 2017, 5:38:36 AM6/21/17
to
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Tom Roberts
napisał:
>> IBTD. Even a physical theory has to be internally consistent first.
>
> OK. But the math underlying SR has been proven to be as consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. Proofs of mathematical
> consistency don't get any better than that.
Conversing with that local village idiot of 'pointedhead', makes you look
bad, mister Tom. Leads you into evil saying 'math proven to be
consistent'. What am I crazy, Math HAS TO be always inherently 100%
consistent.
napisał:
>> IBTD. Even a physical theory has to be internally consistent first.
>
> OK. But the math underlying SR has been proven to be as consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. Proofs of mathematical
> consistency don't get any better than that.
bad, mister Tom. Leads you into evil saying 'math proven to be
consistent'. What am I crazy, Math HAS TO be always inherently 100%
consistent.
Lipek Mniak
Jun 21, 2017, 8:18:17 AM6/21/17
to
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Gary
Harnagel napisał:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 6:50:20 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>> Gary wote:
>> > Ned Latham wrote:
>> > > > Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
>> > >
>> > > And they are?
>> >
>> > So you yammer on and on and you don't even know what they are?
>>
>> So you can't name them? Quelle surprise.
>
> Ah, but I can. But why should I kow-tow to the whims of a dishonest
> ignoramus like you?
Any posters around the world, not appearing "dishonest" to you? You are
using that term merely in the sense of _non-local_.
*_B U M P_*
Harnagel napisał:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 6:50:20 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>> Gary wote:
>> > Ned Latham wrote:
>> > > > Abysmally wrong, ignoramus. It is deduced from four postulates.
>> > >
>> > > And they are?
>> >
>> > So you yammer on and on and you don't even know what they are?
>>
>> So you can't name them? Quelle surprise.
>
> Ah, but I can. But why should I kow-tow to the whims of a dishonest
> ignoramus like you?
using that term merely in the sense of _non-local_.
*_B U M P_*
Odd Bodkin
Jun 21, 2017, 12:12:18 PM6/21/17
to
On 6/20/17 9:09 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> The Sloow Bot, aka Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>>>> travel in vacuum.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So it's not a physical theory.
>>
>> But QED is,
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> and QED incorporates special relativity.
>
> Bullshit. It's am "interpretation" of QM, which is inconsistent with
> Eisteinian relaticity.
Uh, no, QED is quite a bit different than the original QM. It is an
> The Sloow Bot, aka Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>>>> travel in vacuum.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So it's not a physical theory.
>>
>> But QED is,
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> and QED incorporates special relativity.
>
> Bullshit. It's am "interpretation" of QM, which is inconsistent with
> Eisteinian relaticity.
incremental improvement on quantum mechanics, but quite a bit more. If
you didn't know this, then that's a pity.
>
>>>> QED does.
>>>
>>> QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
>>> relativity.
>>
>> No, you're confusing general relativity and special relativity.
>
> Wrong again. Slow Bot. GR is a "completion" of SR.
> And without
> "String Theory" it's defunct, which means SR is defunct.
invalidate the predecessors. What planet are you on?
>
>> They are NOT the same thing. QM and special relativity are
>> completely consistent with each other and have been since 1930.
>
> False. Einstein himsekf rejected that notion.
Happens to the best of them.
>
> ----snip----
Odd Bodkin
Jun 21, 2017, 12:12:24 PM6/21/17
to
On 6/20/17 10:38 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
>> Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
> You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
> is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
> defunct.
>
I'm trying to understand -- really I am -- how it is that you believe
>> Nope, abysmally-ignorant cochon, QED is based on special relativity.
> You mean its proponents tried to make it consistent with SR. Problem
> is, they didn't get consustency with GR, and without GR, SR is
> defunct.
>
that a lack of success of finding a SUCCESSOR theory somehow makes the
PREDECESSOR theories defunct.
Odd Bodkin
Jun 21, 2017, 12:12:31 PM6/21/17
to
one incremental step toward a better understanding was made before the
next step?
Odd Bodkin
Jun 21, 2017, 12:56:20 PM6/21/17
to
Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
> The Sloow Bot, aka Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>>>> travel in vacuum.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So it's not a physical theory.
>>
>> But QED is,
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> and QED incorporates special relativity.
>
> Bullshit. It's am "interpretation" of QM, which is inconsistent with
> Eisteinian relaticity.
>
>>>> QED does.
>>>
>>> QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
>>> relativity.
>>
>> No, you're confusing general relativity and special relativity.
>
> Wrong again. Slow Bot. GR is a "completion" of SR.
> The Sloow Bot, aka Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Gawy Fuck Knickle wote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>>>> travel in vacuum.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So it's not a physical theory.
>>
>> But QED is,
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> and QED incorporates special relativity.
>
> Bullshit. It's am "interpretation" of QM, which is inconsistent with
> Eisteinian relaticity.
>
>>>> QED does.
>>>
>>> QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
>>> relativity.
>>
>> No, you're confusing general relativity and special relativity.
>
> Wrong again. Slow Bot. GR is a "completion" of SR.
Sorry but no. SR is fine the way it is.
> And without
> "String Theory" it's defunct,
You wish. The failure to find a SUCCESSOR theory does not invalidate the
> "String Theory" it's defunct,
predecessors.
What planet are you on?
What planet are you on?
> which means SR is defunct.
>
>> They are NOT the same thing. QM and special relativity are
>> completely consistent with each other and have been since 1930.
>
> False. Einstein himsekf rejected that notion.
>
>> They are NOT the same thing. QM and special relativity are
>> completely consistent with each other and have been since 1930.
>
> False. Einstein himsekf rejected that notion.
And Einstein was WRONG about quantum theory and quantum field theory.
Happens to the best of them.
>
> ----snip----
>
Happens to the best of them.
>
> ----snip----
>
Odd Bodkin
Jun 21, 2017, 1:11:21 PM6/21/17
to
What does presaging have to do with anything, other than indicating that
one incremental step toward a better understanding was made before the next
step?
one incremental step toward a better understanding was made before the next
step?
Nicolaas Vroom
Jun 21, 2017, 4:22:24 PM6/21/17
to
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 16:07:30 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 5:51:52 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> >
> > So it's not a physical theory.
>
> wrong xxxxxxxx. It is deduced from four postulates. The
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 5:51:52 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> >
> > So it's not a physical theory.
>
> invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed, as is the
> principle of relativity as well as the other postulates.
The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> principle of relativity as well as the other postulates.
the same everywhere in the universe.
IMO this physical means that the time for a light pulse going from A to B,
being a distance d0, is always the same for any two points A and B when
the distance is d0.
IMO this is in general very difficult to establish experimental.
One "accepted" rule is that the speed of light is always the same in vacuum.
The problem with this rule is first exactly what is a vacuum and secondly is
there eveywhere in the universe a vacuum. Specific if the second condition
is not fullfilled how usefull is this accepted rule?
One experimental condition of how light pulses travel is not accordingly
to straight lines i.e. they are bended when an object (mass) interfers
in the path going from A to B. More general this path is influenced
by a gravitational field.
When that is true the next question is: does such a gravitaional field
also influence the speed of a light pulse?
To be more specific is the speed of light from a lightpulse emitted by the
Sun towards the earth always exactly the same?
There are two reasons which can influence the answer: as caused by the Sun
as caused by the Earth.
>
> > > QED does.
> >
> > QED is an interpretation of QM,
>
>
> > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
>
> Nope, xxx, QED is based on special relativity.
> > which is inconsistent with Einsteinian relativity.
>
>
> > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > is all about, remember?
>
> No, xxx , string theory is based on QED with the assumption
> > That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> > is all about, remember?
>
> that particles aren't points and gravity is produced by gravitons. The
> "kerfuffle" (commotion) over string theory is its inability to make
> concrete predictions.
>
> > > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> >
> > Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> >
> > > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
> >
> > Nope. Do you?
>
> Nope.
Nicolaas Vroom
>
> > > BTW, light travels in "vacuum" not "vacuum."
> >
> > Really? I always thought it was vacuum, myself.
> >
> > > Do you believe that "vacuum" is nothing?
> >
> > Nope. Do you?
>
> Nope.
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom
Gary Harnagel
Jun 21, 2017, 9:08:51 PM6/21/17
to
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:22:24 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 16:07:30 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > wrong xxxxxxxx. It is deduced from four postulates. The
> > invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed, as is the
> > principle of relativity as well as the other postulates.
>
> The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> the same everywhere in the universe.
It may not be since we haven't been anywhere but in our own solar system.
>
> On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 16:07:30 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > wrong xxxxxxxx. It is deduced from four postulates. The
> > invariance of the speed of light is experimentally confirmed, as is the
> > principle of relativity as well as the other postulates.
>
> The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> the same everywhere in the universe.
But it would not make sense to assert that it IS different without good
evidence.
> IMO this physical means that the time for a light pulse going from A to B,
> being a distance d0, is always the same for any two points A and B when
> the distance is d0.
the distance to the time it takes light to cover that distance is a constant.
But in fact, it is much more convenient to measure the round-trip time and
multiply the ratio by 2.
> IMO this is in general very difficult to establish experimental.
between A and B is changing.
> One "accepted" rule is that the speed of light is always the same in vacuum.
> The problem with this rule is first exactly what is a vacuum
characterized.
> and secondly is there eveywhere in the universe a vacuum.
> Specific if the second condition is not fullfilled how usefull is this
> accepted rule?
> One experimental condition of how light pulses travel is not accordingly
> to straight lines i.e. they are bended when an object (mass) interfers
> in the path going from A to B. More general this path is influenced
> by a gravitational field.
be detected when e/m radiation passes very close to a mass.
> When that is true the next question is: does such a gravitaional field
> also influence the speed of a light pulse?
> To be more specific is the speed of light from a lightpulse emitted by the
> Sun towards the earth always exactly the same?
> There are two reasons which can influence the answer: as caused by the Sun
> as caused by the Earth.
Nicolaas Vroom
Jun 22, 2017, 5:10:32 AM6/22/17
to
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 03:08:51 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:22:24 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> > the same everywhere in the universe.
>
> It may not be since we haven't been anywhere but in our own solar system.
> But it would not make sense to assert that it IS different without good
> evidence.
That is the same in both "directions". When you make either claim you need
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:22:24 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> > the same everywhere in the universe.
>
> It may not be since we haven't been anywhere but in our own solar system.
> But it would not make sense to assert that it IS different without good
> evidence.
evidence.
> > IMO this physical means that the time for a light pulse going from
> > A to B, being a distance d0, is always the same for any two points
> > A and B when the distance is d0.
>
> That's a very constrained view. What it REALLY means is that the ratio of
> the distance to the time it takes light to cover that distance is a constant.
In that view you always need a clock.
> > IMO this physical means that the time for a light pulse going from
> > A to B, being a distance d0, is always the same for any two points
> > A and B when the distance is d0.
>
> That's a very constrained view. What it REALLY means is that the ratio of
> the distance to the time it takes light to cover that distance is a constant.
> But in fact, it is much more convenient to measure the round-trip time and
> multiply the ratio by 2.
describes how photons move can be more subtle.
> > IMO this is in general very difficult to establish experimental.
>
> Not really. It is more difficult to measure the case where the distance
> between A and B is changing.
>
> > One "accepted" rule is that the speed of light is always the same in
> > vacuum. The problem with this rule is first exactly what is a vacuum
>
> Again, not really. The effects of index of refraction vs. pressure are
> well-characterized.
> > and secondly is there eveywhere in the universe a vacuum.
>
> We're not all over the universe, so that's irrelevant.
> > More general this path is influenced
> > by a gravitational field.
>
> This is also well-known: it's called Shapiro delay, and it can only
> be detected when e/m radiation passes very close to a mass.
>
> > When that is true the next question is: does such a gravitaional field
> > also influence the speed of a light pulse?
>
> Yes, see "Shapiro delay."
>
"invariance of the speed of light"?
I have my doubts.
Nicolaas Vroom
mlwo...@wp.pl
Jun 22, 2017, 5:52:03 AM6/22/17
to
W dniu czwartek, 22 czerwca 2017 11:10:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Nicolaas Vroom napisał:
> And is this in agreement with the concept of the:
> "invariance of the speed of light"?
> I have my doubts.
Learn the newspeak of a relativistic moron.
> And is this in agreement with the concept of the:
> "invariance of the speed of light"?
> I have my doubts.
When screaming "SPEED OF LIGHT IS INVARIANT!!!!!"
he means "in inertial frames", i.e. nowhere.
Nicolaas Vroom
Jun 22, 2017, 6:47:12 AM6/22/17
to
I only try to understand what people in this newsgroup mean
Sorry.
Nicolaas Vroom
mlwo...@wp.pl
Jun 22, 2017, 7:16:36 AM6/22/17
to
they mean.
Gary Harnagel
Jun 22, 2017, 9:17:29 AM6/22/17
to
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:10:32 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 03:08:51 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:22:24 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > >
> > > The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> > > the same everywhere in the universe.
> >
> > It may not be since we haven't been anywhere but in our own solar system.
> > But it would not make sense to assert that it IS different without good
> > evidence.
>
> That is the same in both "directions". When you make either claim you need
> evidence.
Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
>
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 03:08:51 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:22:24 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > >
> > > The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> > > the same everywhere in the universe.
> >
> > It may not be since we haven't been anywhere but in our own solar system.
> > But it would not make sense to assert that it IS different without good
> > evidence.
>
> That is the same in both "directions". When you make either claim you need
> evidence.
different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
> > > IMO this physical means that the time for a light pulse going from
> > > A to B, being a distance d0, is always the same for any two points
> > > A and B when the distance is d0.
> >
> > That's a very constrained view. What it REALLY means is that the ratio
> > of the distance to the time it takes light to cover that distance is a
> > constant.
>
> In that view you always need a clock.
up a distance d0. And you need an assumption that d0 doesn't chance when
you move it. And you need TWO synchronized clocks since you can't directly
compare time of flight at different locations and you're only measuring
one way. It's much easier to measure round-trip time since you only need
one clock. But you still need a distance tool.
> > But in fact, it is much more convenient to measure the round-trip time and
> > multiply the ratio by 2.
>
> In that view you calculate the average speed. The physical process that
> describes how photons move can be more subtle.
that any "physical process" occurs on the sub-picosecond level and thus
averages out over even very short distances. One might also speculate
that the "physical process" involves the virtual particle sea or quantum
foam.
> > > IMO this is in general very difficult to establish experimental.
> >
> > Not really. It is more difficult to measure the case where the distance
> > between A and B is changing.
> >
> > > One "accepted" rule is that the speed of light is always the same in
> > > vacuum. The problem with this rule is first exactly what is a vacuum
> >
> > Again, not really. The effects of index of refraction vs. pressure are
> > well-characterized.
>
> Sorry, IMO that does not clarify what a vacuum is.
> > > and secondly is there eveywhere in the universe a vacuum.
> >
> > We're not all over the universe, so that's irrelevant.
>
> As far as I know we don't live in a vacuum, so for us it is relevant.
space is pretty empty.
> > > More general this path is influenced
> > > by a gravitational field.
> >
> > This is also well-known: it's called Shapiro delay, and it can only
> > be detected when e/m radiation passes very close to a mass.
> >
> > > When that is true the next question is: does such a gravitaional field
> > > also influence the speed of a light pulse?
> >
> > Yes, see "Shapiro delay."
> >
>
> And is this in agreement with the concept of the:
> "invariance of the speed of light"?
> I have my doubts.
>
> Nicolaas Vroom
and measured the speed of light over a distance short enough so the g
field didn't significantly vary, you would measure it as c. The Shapiro
effect occurs when the light passes through a changing g field.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Jun 22, 2017, 9:40:37 AM6/22/17
to
W dniu czwartek, 22 czerwca 2017 15:17:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> The invariance of the speed of light is local. If you were in a g field
> and measured the speed of light over a distance short enough so the g
> field didn't significantly vary, you would measure it as c.
And walking street, you would see trees and buildings
> The invariance of the speed of light is local. If you were in a g field
> and measured the speed of light over a distance short enough so the g
> field didn't significantly vary, you would measure it as c.
running around you. It's obvious, isn't it? If it isn't
you're stupid and you don't understand, that great Galileo
said...
The same situation you have with measurements. You
can geat any result, but if your results won't match
the mumble of relativistic moron, he will scream and
spit until you deliver proper results to him.
Nicolaas Vroom
Jun 23, 2017, 5:30:07 AM6/23/17
to
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:17:29 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
> different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
> parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
Sorry, I'am not claiming anything.
> Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
> different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
> parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
I'am only asking the question if the speed of light is constant.
What you are saying (my interpretation): Yes locally.
My reply would be: that is not a full answer.
IMO a better answer would be: it depends.
>
> For your approach, you at least need a distance tool, else you can't set
> up a distance d0. And you need an assumption that d0 doesn't chance when
> you move it. And you need TWO synchronized clocks since you can't directly
> compare time of flight at different locations and you're only measuring
> one way.
of light, in order to answer my question is difficult.
> It's much easier to measure round-trip time since you only need
> one clock.
In that case you get an average speed.
> one clock.
> But you still need a distance tool.
Ofcourse.
> > > But in fact, it is much more convenient to measure the round-trip time and
> > > multiply the ratio by 2.
> >
> > In that view you calculate the average speed. The physical process that
> > describes how photons move can be more subtle.
>
> Without evidence it is sheer speculation.
a physical constant (locally), stopping all possible future experiments.
> > > > and secondly is there eveywhere in the universe a vacuum.
> > >
> > > We're not all over the universe, so that's irrelevant.
> >
> > As far as I know we don't live in a vacuum, so for us it is relevant.
>
> Only locally. Saying we don't live in a vacuum is obvious, but most of
> space is pretty empty.
the same.
> > And is this in agreement with the concept of the:
> > "invariance of the speed of light"?
> > I have my doubts.
>
> The invariance of the speed of light is local. If you were in a g field
> and measured the speed of light over a distance short enough so the g
> field didn't significantly vary, you would measure it as c. The Shapiro
> effect occurs when the light passes through a changing g field.
This implies that when the g field varies significant you can measure
> and measured the speed of light over a distance short enough so the g
> field didn't significantly vary, you would measure it as c. The Shapiro
> effect occurs when the light passes through a changing g field.
the it as not being equal to c (to c0).
It also means that when you measure it more accurately in a g field
that varies from place to place, you can measure different values for c.
(Even here on earth). This complies with my answer: it depends
Nicolaas Vroom
mlwo...@wp.pl
Jun 23, 2017, 6:49:29 AM6/23/17
to
W dniu piątek, 23 czerwca 2017 11:30:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Nicolaas Vroom napisał:
> > The invariance of the speed of light is local. If you were in a g field
> > and measured the speed of light over a distance short enough so the g
> > field didn't significantly vary, you would measure it as c. The Shapiro
> > effect occurs when the light passes through a changing g field.
>
> This implies that when the g field varies significant you can measure
> the it as not being equal to c (to c0).
> It also means that when you measure it more accurately in a g field
> that varies from place to place, you can measure different values for c.
> (Even here on earth). This complies with my answer: it depends
Not quite. Real answer is: physics can't tell how
> > The invariance of the speed of light is local. If you were in a g field
> > and measured the speed of light over a distance short enough so the g
> > field didn't significantly vary, you would measure it as c. The Shapiro
> > effect occurs when the light passes through a changing g field.
>
> This implies that when the g field varies significant you can measure
> the it as not being equal to c (to c0).
> It also means that when you measure it more accurately in a g field
> that varies from place to place, you can measure different values for c.
> (Even here on earth). This complies with my answer: it depends
to measure it and can't tell what the result would
be. It's beyond the range of its definitions.
Great job, isn't it?
Odd Bodkin
Jun 23, 2017, 8:32:19 AM6/23/17
to
On 6/23/17 4:30 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:17:29 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>> Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
>> different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
>> parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
>
> Sorry, I'am not claiming anything.
> I'am only asking the question if the speed of light is constant.
> What you are saying (my interpretation): Yes locally.
> My reply would be: that is not a full answer.
> IMO a better answer would be: it depends.
Actually his answer is better than that, because it's less wishy-washy
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:17:29 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>> Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
>> different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
>> parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
>
> Sorry, I'am not claiming anything.
> I'am only asking the question if the speed of light is constant.
> What you are saying (my interpretation): Yes locally.
> My reply would be: that is not a full answer.
> IMO a better answer would be: it depends.
than "it depends". It is not true that the speed of light is constant in
an absolute sense. But what IS true is that in any local environment
where the curvature of spacetime is smaller than experimental resolution
would be able to detect, the speed of light in vacuum will always be
measured to be constant. That's as definitive as it gets.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Jun 23, 2017, 8:53:52 AM6/23/17
to
W dniu piątek, 23 czerwca 2017 14:32:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 6/23/17 4:30 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:17:29 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> >> Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
> >> different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
> >> parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
> >
> > Sorry, I'am not claiming anything.
> > I'am only asking the question if the speed of light is constant.
> > What you are saying (my interpretation): Yes locally.
> > My reply would be: that is not a full answer.
> > IMO a better answer would be: it depends.
>
> Actually his answer is better than that, because it's less wishy-washy
> than "it depends".
:)
> On 6/23/17 4:30 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:17:29 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> >> Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
> >> different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
> >> parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
> >
> > Sorry, I'am not claiming anything.
> > I'am only asking the question if the speed of light is constant.
> > What you are saying (my interpretation): Yes locally.
> > My reply would be: that is not a full answer.
> > IMO a better answer would be: it depends.
>
> Actually his answer is better than that, because it's less wishy-washy
> than "it depends".
No, poor idiot. Your Shit has no answer for this case.
Assuming that common sense is a set of prejudices has
some side effects.
> It is not true that the speed of light is constant in
> an absolute sense. But what IS true is that in any local environment
> where the curvature of spacetime is smaller than experimental resolution
> would be able to detect, the speed of light in vacuum will always be
> measured to be constant.
wave hands, spit and scream "UNPROPER!!!!!"
Gary Harnagel
Jun 23, 2017, 9:38:44 AM6/23/17
to
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 3:30:07 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:17:29 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
> > different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
> > parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
>
> Sorry, I'am not claiming anything.
> I'am only asking the question if the speed of light is constant.
By asking the question you are making a claim by innuendo.
>
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:17:29 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Not really. If you claim without evidence that the laws of physics are
> > different from what they are locally, you are violating the law of
> > parsimony (Occam's razor). It amounts to sheer speculation.
>
> Sorry, I'am not claiming anything.
> I'am only asking the question if the speed of light is constant.
> What you are saying (my interpretation): Yes locally.
> My reply would be: that is not a full answer.
> IMO a better answer would be: it depends.
Observation of stars strongly imply that the same laws of physics which we
have discovered locally also apply in the observable universe.
> > For your approach, you at least need a distance tool, else you can't set
> > up a distance d0. And you need an assumption that d0 doesn't chance when
> > you move it. And you need TWO synchronized clocks since you can't directly
> > compare time of flight at different locations and you're only measuring
> > one way.
>
> This text is in agreement with my understanding that to measure the speed
> of light, in order to answer my question is difficult.
> > It's much easier to measure round-trip time since you only need
> > one clock.
>
> In that case you get an average speed.
specified why the speed would not be constant when traveling in different
directions, which I infer is what YOU mean by "average." Measurements
of light-speed isotropy refute that idea.
> > But you still need a distance tool.
>
> Ofcourse.
>
> > > > But in fact, it is much more convenient to measure the round-trip
> > > > time and multiply the ratio by 2.
> > >
> > > In that view you calculate the average speed. The physical process that
> > > describes how photons move can be more subtle.
> >
> > Without evidence it is sheer speculation.
>
> That is correct, but you "close the book" by calling the speed of light
> a physical constant (locally), stopping all possible future experiments.
been performed. Two-way plus isotropy experiments (i.e., using the
Mossbauer effect) refute the idea that light travels at different speeds
when moving in different directions.
> > > > > and secondly is there eveywhere in the universe a vacuum.
> > > >
> > > > We're not all over the universe, so that's irrelevant.
> > >
> > > As far as I know we don't live in a vacuum, so for us it is relevant.
> >
> > Only locally. Saying we don't live in a vacuum is obvious, but most of
> > space is pretty empty.
>
> This is also a reason to assume that the speed of light is not every where
> the same.
light throughout the solar system is quite constant, and any deviations
are well-explained by present theories.
> > > And is this in agreement with the concept of the:
> > > "invariance of the speed of light"?
> > > I have my doubts.
> >
> > The invariance of the speed of light is local. If you were in a g field
> > and measured the speed of light over a distance short enough so the g
> > field didn't significantly vary, you would measure it as c. The Shapiro
> > effect occurs when the light passes through a changing g field.
>
> This implies that when the g field varies significant you can measure
> the it as not being equal to c (to c0).
> It also means that when you measure it more accurately in a g field
> that varies from place to place, you can measure different values for c.
> (Even here on earth). This complies with my answer: it depends
>
> Nicolaas Vroom
depends" is an undefined, nebulous claim whereas the actual dependencies
are well-characterized.
Tom Roberts
Jun 23, 2017, 10:43:38 AM6/23/17
to
On 6/21/17 6/21/17 3:22 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> the same everywhere in the universe.
That's not really "central" in any useful or meaningful sense. But it is an
> The central question towards the speed of light is, if this speed is
> the same everywhere in the universe.
interesting question.
Theoretically, of course, GR predicts that the LOCAL speed of light in vacuum is
c everywhere and everywhen, and also that the non-local speed can vary.
Experimentally, that question is essentially impossible to answer directly,
because we cannot place measuring instruments everywhere in the universe.
But there are indirect tests that shed light on the question. In particular, one
can look at atomic lines in distant galaxies. Once an overall redshift is
accounted for, the patterns are the same as we observe on earth, implying that
the physical constants used in modeling them are the same. This includes both
hbar and c, as well as the masses of electrons and nuclei.
> IMO this physical means that the time for a light pulse going from A to B,
> being a distance d0, is always the same for any two points A and B when
> the distance is d0.
LOCALLY.
For instance, if you see two stars separated by a measured angle,
and independently you can measure their distance from earth, you
cannot reliably compute the distance between them using Euclidean
geometry, as you don't know that the geometry actually is
Euclidean. You cannot separate measurements of distance from the
geometry.
> One experimental condition of how light pulses travel is not accordingly
> to straight lines i.e. they are bended when an object (mass) interfers
> in the path going from A to B. More general this path is influenced
> by a gravitational field.
follows a null geodesic path through spacetime, not a straight line in space.
> When that is true the next question is: does such a gravitaional field
> also influence the speed of a light pulse?
Shapiro time delay.
> To be more specific is the speed of light from a lightpulse emitted by the
> Sun towards the earth always exactly the same?
a given path. At different radii, the speed varies, but by an amount that is not
measurable by any solar orbiter or other spacecraft flown so far.
Tom Roberts
Valok Planek
Jun 24, 2017, 6:27:57 AM6/24/17
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> In that case you get an average speed.
>
> You also get "an average speed" measuring one-way. And you have not
> specified why the speed would not be constant when traveling in
> different directions, which I infer is what YOU mean by "average."
> Measurements of light-speed isotropy refute that idea.
You too wrong. Light cannot have anything averaged. A propagation delay is
>> In that case you get an average speed.
>
> You also get "an average speed" measuring one-way. And you have not
> specified why the speed would not be constant when traveling in
> different directions, which I infer is what YOU mean by "average."
> Measurements of light-speed isotropy refute that idea.
either constant or wrong. Wrong timing. But is not. That's why we have
Relativity, explaining that the event propagation delay is NOT wrong.
0 new messages