Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"

Richard Hertz

unread,

Feb 3, 2023, 8:37:03 PM2/3/23

to

I reproduce here my reply to prokariotic, because I think it deserves to have
a dedicated thread. It's related to the title of the P&R 1960 paper, and contain
a "derivation" of the gravitational frequency shift that is believed to be real.

******************************************************************

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the
> theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not
> depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity
> will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
> equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed
> on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real
> phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually
> measured it, correct?

I don't believe that gravitational time dilation is REAL. I did post, weeks ago and in a trolling way, how could Einstein
have had such heuristic insight between 1907 and 1911. I can't find the thread now, as I'm kind of lazy, but let me to
state the WRONG basis of such heuristic/hallucinogenic proposal.

1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning).

2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and
the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²).

3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK
performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a
TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²).

4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"):

IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² (Planck), and I do with it what's described in 3), THEN THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE PHOTON IS:

E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁

THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND

f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²)

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE?

BECAUSE IT'S A FAILED HEURISTIC PROPOSITION. A FAIRY TALE. SOMETHING THAT EINSTEIN THOUGHT THAT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH.

But it's WRONG, through and through. BECAUSE PHOTONS DON'T HAVE MASS!!

Then, saving the relativity GOBBLEDYGOOK, and trying to derive it from TWO KNOWN AND VALID THEORIES (Newton and Planck) PLUS
using a 1:1 relationship mass-energy (Hassenhorl was close to it by 1905, as Poincaré by 1900, and MANY OTHERS), you can derive
such STUPID FALLACY about GRAVITY affecting TIME.

BUT such assertion IS FALSE, because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY HAS NO MASS INVOLVED. Einstein thought that it had, but it was
a FAULTY, WRONG proposition.

Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE.

A messiah for you.

An imbecile for me.

********************************************************************

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

unread,

Feb 3, 2023, 10:48:32 PM2/3/23

to

Nowadays, even amateur hobbyists routinely demonstrate
gravitational time dilation.

How do you deny results such as the following?
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

Dono.

unread,

Feb 4, 2023, 1:12:20 AM2/4/23

to

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:37:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> An imbecile like me.
>
You got this right , Dick
Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

Richard Hertz

unread,

Feb 4, 2023, 7:58:32 AM2/4/23

to

It's the only thing that you can say, fucking imbecile.

Who are you to refute Einstein and, now, your new worshiping icon, Robert Pound?

Dono.

unread,

Feb 4, 2023, 9:14:00 AM2/4/23

to

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 4:58:32 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:12:20 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:37:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > An imbecile like me.
> > >
> > You got this right , Dick
> > Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

> It's the only thing that I can say: I am a fucking imbecile.
>
Right

Johni Luzzatto

unread,

Feb 4, 2023, 1:50:01 PM2/4/23

to

Richard Hertz wrote:

> I reproduce here my reply to prokariotic, because I think it deserves to
> have a dedicated thread. It's related to the title of the P&R 1960
> paper,

Foos Research

unread,

Feb 22, 2023, 4:54:44 AM2/22/23

to

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 1:50:01 AM UTC+7, Johni Luzzatto wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I reproduce here my reply to prokariotic, because I think it deserves to
> > have a dedicated thread. It's related to the title of the P&R 1960
> > paper,

Why bother with photons? You're right, there is no mass and no photons, only hv. Einstein wasn't an imbecile, he was a clever fake. As for the difference in g between two heights, Einstein's phony relativity formula that claims to have adjusted for it cannot be just an error, but only one of many fakeries. Do you NOT recognize the simple act of integrating g over the distance in question to obtain an averaged value of g? I see nobody who pretends to understand Einstein and is yet so adept at juggling complex formulas is able to recognize this and other fake formulas or the simple math problem required to find the right answer. Sheez, boys, did you forget freshman calculus? Did you ever solve for Einstein's formula? It falls outside the range of g for fractional frequencies for upper and lower levels over distance h, not that any idiot can't see it won't work. But you're wrong about time dilation. I hate such misleading terms. Right, you don't need the Pound-Rebka experiment or atomic clocks or fancy theories to figure that out. Just ponder the definition of a meter until the light dawns. But why do I bother?

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Feb 22, 2023, 10:04:00 AM2/22/23

to

Foos Research <cusanus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 1:50:01 AM UTC+7, Johni Luzzatto wrote:
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > I reproduce here my reply to prokariotic, because I think it deserves to
> > > have a dedicated thread. It's related to the title of the P&R 1960
> > > paper,
>
> Why bother with photons? You're right, there is no mass and no photons,
> only hv. Einstein wasn't an imbecile, he was a clever fake. As for the
> difference in g between two heights, Einstein's phony relativity formula
> that claims to have adjusted for it cannot be just an error, but only one
> of many fakeries. Do you NOT recognize the simple act of integrating g
> over the distance in question to obtain an averaged value of g? I see
> nobody who pretends to understand Einstein and is yet so adept at juggling
> complex formulas is able to recognize this and other fake formulas or the
> simple math problem required to find the right answer.

[-]

Finding 'an average value of g' is merely your misinterpretation.
What is actually computed is the Newtonian potential difference,

Jan

Tom Roberts

unread,

Feb 22, 2023, 12:13:27 PM2/22/23

to

On 2/22/23 3:54 AM, Foos Research wrote:
> [... complete nonsense]

Why bother to make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?

Tom Roberts

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

unread,

Feb 22, 2023, 12:19:04 PM2/22/23

to

My revisions to the Wiki article on Pound-Rebka should be
available in a week or two. Right now, the article is a dreadful
mess.

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Feb 22, 2023, 2:41:06 PM2/22/23

to

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes.
There is a mix-up between descriptions in terms of general relativity
and descriptions in terms of the Newtonian approximation to general
relativity.
You should do either one one, or the other.
In terms of the Newtonian approximation all this talk in terms of
potentials, work, and weight of photons is correct.

Jan

Richard Hertz

unread,

Feb 22, 2023, 4:07:55 PM2/22/23

to

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 2:13:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

> Why bother to make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?
>
> Tom Roberts

What about this made up stuff?

1. According to Einstein, moving clocks run slow (SR), and elevated clocks run fast (GR).
2. According to Einstein, heavy masses twist and bend surrounding 3D space.
3. According to Einstein, sudden catastrophic changes in celestial bodies causes "irradiation" of scalar traversal gravitational waves,
that travel at the speed of light, deforming temporarily 3D space.

4. More irrelevant, worthless crap. Just add whatever you want, it will be made true by relativists.

Dono.

unread,

Feb 22, 2023, 5:09:23 PM2/22/23

to

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:07:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 4. I keep posting worthless crap.

This is what makes you the village clown, Dick

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Feb 23, 2023, 7:07:43 PM2/23/23

to

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:07:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

Wallace Kantor (Relativistic Propagation of Light Coronado Press 1976) disproved all the experiments allegedly proving special relativity. He was a respected spectroscopist. Have you read him? You should like him. Thomas Phipps appreciated his book in the introduction. He was pleased that not only is general relativity false, but so is special relativity.

JanPB

unread,

Feb 24, 2023, 1:15:03 AM2/24/23

to

All of the above represent a model which agrees with experimental results.
You can do nothing about it. Calling it names is infantile.

--
Jan

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Feb 24, 2023, 2:30:27 AM2/24/23

to

But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
it GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forbidden
by it old seconds.

Volney

unread,

Feb 24, 2023, 12:19:23 PM2/24/23

to

On 2/24/2023 2:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
> it GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forbidden
> by it old seconds.

What happened to our janitor? He tried to parrot his usual nonsense, but
it's babble (more than usual, that is)? Beginnings of dementia? Or did
our janitor try to get drunk on some sort of cleaning fluid?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Feb 24, 2023, 1:27:49 PM2/24/23

to

I counted it as a regular repetition, but maybe I shouldn't have. He's
now at 618. I've stopped reporting it after every 10, and will now do
it only every 25.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Richard Hertz

unread,

Feb 24, 2023, 1:59:21 PM2/24/23

to

Obviously, enzymes don't know shit about elementary arithmetic.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2023, 2:00:36 PM2/24/23

to

If energy can decrease and increase how is it conserved?
Gravity can red shift and blue shift. Doppler motion
shifts energy. An average is not conservation.

Mitchell Raemsch

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Feb 25, 2023, 1:26:14 AM2/25/23

to

On Friday, 24 February 2023 at 18:19:23 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 2/24/2023 2:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
> > it GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forbidden
> > by it old seconds.
> What happened to our janitor? He tried to parrot his usual nonsense, but

And do you still believe that adjusting clocks
to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?
You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Feb 25, 2023, 1:27:19 AM2/25/23

to

On Friday, 24 February 2023 at 19:27:49 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-24 17:19:24 +0000, Volney said:
>
> > On 2/24/2023 2:30 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> >> But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
> >> it GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forbidden
> >> by it old seconds.
> >
> > What happened to our janitor? He tried to parrot his usual nonsense,
> > but it's babble (more than usual, that is)? Beginnings of dementia? Or
> > did our janitor try to get drunk on some sort of cleaning fluid?
> I counted it as a regular repetition, but maybe I shouldn't have. He's
> now at 618.

So you can count to that much? An amazing skill
as for a relativistic idiot. A pity that's all you can.

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 4:30:31 AM3/1/23

to

As you can see, in my current revision to the article, I
covered the Newtonian approximation with only a brief
reference to general relativity. This seemed appropriate to me
since my main concern was on the experimental protocols
and data analysis, not on the theory underlying gravitational
redshift.

Dono thinks that this is being a cop-out on my part. We have
opposing goals. He likes showing off his math skills, whereas
I like writing articles that are readable by a wide audience.

Richard Hertz

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 8:47:02 AM3/1/23

to

Dono's mathematical skills are WAY overrated, in particular by himself. And he sucks with stochastic events,
You can check his 120+ papers here, at ReseachGate. He's only an "online lonely bully".

https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?q=adrian%20sfarti

You'll appreciate how CHILDISH, IMMATURE are his "mathematical skills".

Can you get a look at my approximation to the P&R almost final equation for the accumulation of discrete shifts at the DETECTOR,
prior emission of photons to the scintillator?

It contemplates the emission-absorption process for COUPLED PAIRS of recoil-less 57Fe atoms, which happens all over the
Mossbauer bandwidth, with a Lorentzian spectrum.

What is missing is the final step to include a discrete probabilistic function to simulate the generation of gamma photons, and
adjust the induced Doppler effect to the random timing for each of the N photons per run.

The final equation will have to be written as a sum of discrete events, by using random trains of Dirac impulses.

This type of equations are of common use in this kind of process.

I don't want to try to write the final discrete series here, because it's messy and difficult in a text based page.

Dono.

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 9:07:18 AM3/1/23

to

Rubish

PR ran their experiment in 1960, not 1911. You are just simply dumbing down the theory of the experiment. You never answered why you included the idiotic footnote 1. You seem to be pandering to cranks like Richard Hertz. Why?

Dono.

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 9:09:34 AM3/1/23

to

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:47:02 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Can you get a look at my approximation to the P&R almost final equation for the accumulation of discrete shifts at the DETECTOR,
> prior emission of photons to the scintillator?
>

It is an imbecility. I'll give you a clue: you have no clue how error analysis is being done.

Message has been deleted

Dono.

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 10:47:04 AM3/1/23

to

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 11:09:34 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>

> > It is an imbecility. I'll give you a clue: you have no clue how error analysis is being done.

> snip Dick's frothing at the mouth<

You still have no clue, crank. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

Richard Hertz

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 11:05:20 AM3/1/23

to

I'm increasingly being convinced that you are a sort of "bitchy queen bee" here.

You act like a woman, a very hurt one, with the most destructive attitude: resentment for being dumped.

I should have understood this a long time ago but, hell, I'm not a shrink and I don't give a fuck about your disturbed mind.

Dono.

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 11:54:02 AM3/1/23

to

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:05:20 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 12:47:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 11:09:34 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > It is an imbecility. I'll give you a clue: you have no clue how error analysis is being done.
> > > snip Dick's frothing at the mouth<
> >
> > You still have no clue, crank. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

> I'm increasingly being convinced that I am a sort of "bitchy queen bee" here.
>
...and an utter crank as well, Dick

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 2:21:17 PM3/1/23

to

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:30:31 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Dono thinks that this is being a cop-out on my part. We have
> opposing goals. He likes showing off his math skills, whereas
> I like writing articles that are readable by a wide audience.

It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. I appreciate your accessible criticisms. The Lorentz transformations have no purpose other than to save the ether wind from the null result yet Einstein has no ether. The transformations for the perpendicular and horizontal beams in the Michelson-Morley experiment have to differ, showing how ad hoc they are. That is sufficient grounds to refute them on elementary logic alone. To cling to those transformations is illogical nonsense.

Tom Roberts

unread,

Mar 1, 2023, 11:54:45 PM3/1/23

to

On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.

Then why has nobody been able to do so?

I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
of General Relativity.

The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
done so.

> The Lorentz transformations have no purpose other than to save the
> ether wind from the null result yet Einstein has no ether.

Nonsense. You CLEARLY do not understand this at all. It is USELESS to
just make stuff up and pretend it is true.

> [... further nonsense omitted]

Tom Roberts

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 12:10:20 AM3/2/23

to

Many people have already been able to do so. What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason. It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't listened, and your replies are not substantial. It is relativity that is made up and pretended to be true. It is full of ad hoc reasoning. Look that up on Google since your knowledge of logic is so weak. It means making things up. Specifically, making up exceptions to rules makes it thoroughly self-contradictory nonsense. Experiments cannot prove an illogical theory true because that theory does not predict anything.

Message has been deleted

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 1:31:09 AM3/2/23

to

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 05:54:45 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
>
> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real

Even having consistent math underlying your Shit
remains obviously inconsistent; and speaking of
EG it's always good to remind that your idiot
guru has announced it false as well, in his next
step.

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 4:37:50 AM3/2/23

to

Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
>
> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
>
> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
> analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
> of General Relativity.
>
> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
> done so.

Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory
that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one.

Experiments will follow.
And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise?

Experimenters cannot really measure anything
until told what it is that they should be measuring.
Conversely, if they just happen to measure something somehow
no one will understand what it means, until told.

In other words, just follow the example set in 1915 by Einstein,

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 5:23:04 AM3/2/23

to

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 10:37:50 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
> >
> > Then why has nobody been able to do so?
> >
> > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
> > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
> > analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
> > of General Relativity.
> >
> > The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
> > done so.
> Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.

Of course. He is an idiot physicist.

> The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory
> that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one.

You greatly overestimate the power of beauty.
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper GPS and TAI
keep measuring forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper seconds.

> Experimenters cannot really measure anything
> until told what it is that they should be measuring.

And when told to measure time dilation idiocy - they
measure time dilation idiocy. You're right.
But, somehow, they are still unable to measure your
interval idiocy.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 6:53:03 AM3/2/23

to

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 10:37:50 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
> >
> > Then why has nobody been able to do so?
> >
> > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
> > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
> > analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
> > of General Relativity.
> >
> > The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
> > done so.
> Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
> The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory
> that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one.

That's EXACTLY the cryterium of Hachel, Seto and others,
BTW. You're no way different. Neither your fellow idiots are.

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 7:33:29 AM3/2/23

to

Wozniak didn't understand your tongue in cheek. Who else?

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 8:03:10 AM3/2/23

to

A baseless lie, as expected from relativistic trash.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 11:40:30 AM3/2/23

to

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
> done so.

> Tom Roberts
Wallace Kantor disproved all the experimental evidence for special relativity completely.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 11:54:33 AM3/2/23

to

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:

Tesla knew it was nonsense because he knew space is not curved. Rutherford and Soddy knew it was nonsense. No one needed to refute it for them to understand. Ritz listed about six faults with relativity he said would have disqualified it as a legitimate theory. Any one of them is enough.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 12:00:22 PM3/2/23

to

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:

Thousands have recognized it as pure nonsense and published their criticisms. It is a priori nonsense because it is illogical. It is not paradoxical. It is self-contradictory.

Tom Roberts

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 1:52:49 PM3/2/23

to

On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute
>>> relativity.
>> Then why has nobody been able to do so?

> Many people have already been able to do so.

Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will
"listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.

Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first
understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have examined
in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then "refute" their
misconceptions.

> What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
> It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
> listened, and your replies are not substantial.

When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims,
experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this, but
I have chosen to humor you, for now.

In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best
"refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it
a) up to the point a gross error is made.
or
b) up to the point it actually shows an inconsistency in SR
("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).

I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.

[Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of
reading, because that is what has happened previously
whenever I have done this sort of thing. But I'm open
to the possibility of (b).]

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 2:00:47 PM3/2/23

to

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 19:52:49 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute
> >>> relativity.
> >> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
> > Many people have already been able to do so.
> Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will
> "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.
> Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first
> understanding it.

And we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!!
Because poor idiot Tam has SAID!!!!!

Richard Hertz

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 2:31:07 PM3/2/23

to

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

I COULDN'T RESIST TO THE TEMPTATION:

Relativity (SR) is a perceptual pseudo-science, based on what you MATHEMATICALLY think that's happening
in the reference with relative motion wrt to YOUR SENSES:

1) You, guided by your altered perception of length, see things to contract in the axial direction from your eyes to the moving object.
Mathematics FORCES YOU to perceive such MIRAGE. Curiously, once motion STOPS, the illusion disappears, and x' = x.

2) You, guided by your altered perception of SIGHT, see how the moving clock RUN SLOWER. You can even "see" how a 30 digits
atomic clock moving away from you, at constant speed, is slowing down COMPARED WITH your exact clone clock standing by you.
THE PROBLEM IS, in this pseudo-science, the product of believing that MATHEMATICS IS PHYSICS, that ONCE THE MOTION STOP
the previously moving clock doesn't recover to show the same reading than yours, in the 30 digits time duration counter.

And this STUPID ASYMMETRY between 1) and 2) virtual PHENOMENA has been making imbeciles arguing about it 1,000 times
MORE IMBECILES than before.

Because they (you) are LOST in fallacies, paradoxes, pseudo-philosophy, NON REAL EVENTS.

And, as with any other thing in life, like RELIGION, once you have been ASSIMILATED through HEAVY INDOCTRINATION, you are DONE.
You can't go back to think as A NORMAL PERSON AGAIN. And worse, YOU LIKE IT.

Let the crap of GR for another occasion, because it's a much more severe mental PERTURBATION. A team of shrinks wouldn't help.

Now, save your comments.

Volney

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 3:15:52 PM3/2/23

to

On 3/2/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:52:49 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I COULDN'T RESIST TO THE TEMPTATION:
>
> Relativity (SR) is a perceptual pseudo-science, based on what you MATHEMATICALLY think that's happening
> in the reference with relative motion wrt to YOUR SENSES:

Then you should do what Tom told Laurence.

Find a paper which finds an inconsistency in SR or an experiment which
refutes SR and ask Tom to look at it.

No, neither the voices in your head nor the foam from your mouth qualify.

Tom R. writes:

>> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
>> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
>> analysis.

Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of
transformations which could represent spacetime and still be
mathematically consistent. The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz
transformation and a third one. You mentioned how the Galilean
transformation was ruled out and the third one obviously does not
describe our universe leaving the Lorentz transformation as the only
possibility. What is the name of this third one?

Volney

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 3:26:29 PM3/2/23

to

On 3/2/2023 4:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
>>
>> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
>>
>> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
>> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
>> analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
>> of General Relativity.
>>
>> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
>> done so.
>
> Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
> The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory
> that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one.
>
> Experiments will follow.
> And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise?

Sort of. What is needed is an overarching theory with some sort of
limiting case, which describes SR/GR. SR/GR is correct within this
limit. So far every experiment is within the limit so SR/GR are seen as
completely true.

This is analogous to Newtonian mechanics and SR. Newtonian mechanics
work just fine -- as long as it's used within its limit of speeds which
are slow relative to c. Of course SR works fine at such slow speeds as
well. When the speeds involved are a significant percentage of c,
Newtonian mechanics breaks down but SR works fine.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 3:33:00 PM3/2/23

to

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 21:15:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

> Find a paper which finds an inconsistency in SR or an experiment which
> refutes SR and ask Tom to look at it.

Oh, a very simple proof of inconsistency was written here
meny times, and poor idiot Tom could only pretend he
doesn't see it.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 3:34:44 PM3/2/23

to

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 21:26:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/2/2023 4:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
> >>
> >> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
> >>
> >> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
> >> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
> >> analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
> >> of General Relativity.
> >>
> >> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
> >> done so.
> >
> > Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
> > The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory
> > that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one.
> >
> > Experiments will follow.
> > And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise?
> Sort of. What is needed is an overarching theory with some sort of
> limiting case, which describes SR/GR. SR/GR is correct within this
> limit. So far every experiment is within the limit so SR/GR are seen as
> completely true.

Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
bunch of idiots old seconds.
Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 4:21:33 PM3/2/23

to

Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/2/2023 4:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
> >>
> >> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
> >>
> >> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
> >> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
> >> analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
> >> of General Relativity.
> >>
> >> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
> >> done so.
> >
> > Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
> > The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory
> > that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one.
> >
> > Experiments will follow.
> > And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise?
>
> Sort of. What is needed is an overarching theory with some sort of
> limiting case, which describes SR/GR. SR/GR is correct within this
> limit. So far every experiment is within the limit so SR/GR are seen as
> completely true.

You shouldn't lump SR and GR,
because they are quite different in character.
SR is kinematics only, and it cannot be falsified by experiment.
GR otoh is a physical theory of gravity.
It can be replaced by a better one, preferably combined with QM.

> This is analogous to Newtonian mechanics and SR. Newtonian mechanics
> work just fine -- as long as it's used within its limit of speeds which
> are slow relative to c. Of course SR works fine at such slow speeds as
> well. When the speeds involved are a significant percentage of c,
> Newtonian mechanics breaks down but SR works fine.

Note that Newton's creation of his theory of gravity
and Einstein's creation of GR have much in common.
(despite Newton's pretence to the contrary)
Both were postulated rather than derived from experiment.
Both predicted a lot of new phenomena, and retrodicted old ones.

Jan

Richard Hertz

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 4:34:52 PM3/2/23

to

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:21:33 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Note that Newton's creation of his theory of gravity
> and Einstein's creation of GR have much in common.
> (despite Newton's pretence to the contrary)

This paragraph, alone, is a complete and absolute proof of YOUR MENTAL INSANITY.

You are a mentally sick and VERY STUPID PERSON. Figure out why, fucking relativist.

Volney

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 8:50:00 PM3/2/23

to

Maybe you should point out this purported inconsistency, Janitor, so we
can all laugh at it.

Volney

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 10:01:14 PM3/2/23

to

On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
> forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
> forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
> bunch of idiots old seconds.
> Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.

You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
should be able to parrot it perfectly, but that's babbling nonsense.

What's the matter, Russian vodka is no longer available so you've been
drinking rubbing alcohol or something? Don't do it; get drunk on your
native Polish vodka or Finnish vodka, they're as good as the Russian
vodka you crave.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 1:21:13 AM3/3/23

to

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
> > forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
> > forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
> > bunch of idiots old seconds.
> > Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you

See, stupid Mike - I'm one of the best logicians
the humanity ever had, and you're just a fanatic
religious maniac of the third sort. Of course you
can't discuss against me - you can only bark,
spit and slander. But you'll do what you can for
The Shit you love.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 4:26:02 AM3/3/23

to

On 2023-03-03 03:01:14 +0000, Volney said:

> On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
>> bunch of idiots old seconds.
>> Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
>
> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
> should be able to parrot it perfectly, but that's babbling nonsense.

If I wanted to post the same thing 627 times I wouldn't try to remember
the exact words. I'd trust my computer to do that. Until the garbled
versions we've seen lately I had assumed that that was what our Polish
genius did.

> What's the matter, Russian vodka is no longer available so you've been
> drinking rubbing alcohol or something? Don't do it; get drunk on your
> native Polish vodka or Finnish vodka, they're as good as the Russian
> vodka you crave.

We have Russian vodka at home, but we bought it before Putin sent his
tanks into Ukraine. I understand that Polish vodka is good, better even.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 6:02:10 AM3/3/23

to

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-03-03 03:01:14 +0000, Volney said:
>
> > On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
> >> forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
> >> forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
> >> bunch of idiots old seconds.
> >> Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
> >
> > You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
> > should be able to parrot it perfectly, but that's babbling nonsense.
>
> If I wanted to post the same thing 627 times I wouldn't try to remember
> the exact words. I'd trust my computer to do that. Until the garbled
> versions we've seen lately I had assumed that that was what our Polish
> genius did
>

> > What's the matter, Russian vodka is no longer available so you've been
> > drinking rubbing alcohol or something? Don't do it; get drunk on your
> > native Polish vodka or Finnish vodka, they're as good as the Russian
> > vodka you crave.
>
> We have Russian vodka at home, but we bought it before Putin sent his
> tanks into Ukraine. I understand that Polish vodka is good, better even.

Vodka/Wodka is a generic term, 'anyone' can make it.
(and 'everyone' does) You can even find French vodka.

As for taste, vodka is much overrated.
Most drinkers won't be able to distinghuish a Vodka
from appropriately diluted chemically pure alcohol,
in a double-blind test.
I guess those Russians drink so much of it
because they cannot afford anything better,

Jan

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 11:55:39 AM3/3/23

to

On 2023-03-03 11:02:07 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-03-03 03:01:14 +0000, Volney said:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
>>>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
>>>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
>>>> bunch of idiots old seconds.
>>>> Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
>>>
>>> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
>>> should be able to parrot it perfectly, but that's babbling nonsense.
>>
>> If I wanted to post the same thing 627 times I wouldn't try to remember
>> the exact words. I'd trust my computer to do that. Until the garbled
>> versions we've seen lately I had assumed that that was what our Polish
>> genius did
>>
>>> What's the matter, Russian vodka is no longer available so you've been
>>> drinking rubbing alcohol or something? Don't do it; get drunk on your
>>> native Polish vodka or Finnish vodka, they're as good as the Russian
>>> vodka you crave.
>>
>> We have Russian vodka at home, but we bought it before Putin sent his
>> tanks into Ukraine. I understand that Polish vodka is good, better even.
>
> Vodka/Wodka is a generic term, 'anyone' can make it.
> (and 'everyone' does) You can even find French vodka.
>
> As for taste, vodka is much overrated.

I agree. That's why the bottle we bought before the invasion of Ukraine
still has plenty of vodka in it.

> Most drinkers won't be able to distinghuish a Vodka
> from appropriately diluted chemically pure alcohol,
> in a double-blind test.
> I guess those Russians drink so much of it
> because they cannot afford anything better,
>
> Jan

Tom Roberts

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 2:49:20 PM3/3/23

to

On 3/2/23 1:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Relativity (SR) is a perceptual pseudo-science, based on what you MATHEMATICALLY think that's happening
> in the reference with relative motion wrt to YOUR SENSES:

Gross error in what SR is. So I stopped reading.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 2:51:06 PM3/3/23

to

On 3/2/23 2:32 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> Oh, a very simple proof of inconsistency was written here

> meny times, [...]

Then re-post it in this thread. I will not do your homework.

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 2:53:13 PM3/3/23

to

Why not.

Tom Roberts

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 2:59:01 PM3/3/23

to

On 3/2/23 3:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date
>> nobody has done so.
>
> Not really.

Yes, really.

> You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.

No. This is what science is: developing theories and testing them
experimentally.

> The right way beyond GR [...]

The issue here is SR, not GR, and not unknown future theories "beyond GR".

> Experimenters cannot really measure anything until told what it is
> that they should be measuring.

While this is indeed an issue for unknown future theories, it is not
applicable to SR -- there have been literally hundreds of experiments
testing various predictions of SR; none of their results are
inconsistent with the predictions of SR.

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 3:06:45 PM3/3/23

to

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 20:59:01 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/2/23 3:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date
> >> nobody has done so.
> >
> > Not really.
> Yes, really.
> > You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
> No. This is what science is: developing theories and testing them

Science, poor idiot, isn't a part of your precious physics.
You're simply incompetent in the subject. That's why
you are so sure.

> applicable to SR -- there have been literally hundreds of experiments
> testing various predictions of SR; none of their results are

But in the meantime in the real world - improper
clocks keep measuring improper t=t' in improper
old seconds.

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 3:22:18 PM3/3/23

to

Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 3/2/23 3:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date
> >> nobody has done so.
> >
> > Not really.
>
> Yes, really.
>
> > You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
>
> No. This is what science is: developing theories and testing them
> experimentally.

If you snip most of what I wrote and continue with a straw man argument
there is no point in having a discussion,

Jan

Tom Roberts

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 3:28:54 PM3/3/23

to

On 3/2/23 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> SR is kinematics only, and it cannot be falsified by experiment.

This is just plain wrong. SR makes many predictions that can be directly
tested by experiment. A few are:
* the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to
every locally inertial frame.
* a high-energy pion beam, traveling with speed
indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), can travel
1 km in the lab with less than 10% losses due to decays.
* The detailed balance of momenta in high-energy collisions
and interactions of elementary particles.
* ... lots more

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 3:46:03 PM3/3/23

to

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:28:54 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/2/23 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > SR is kinematics only, and it cannot be falsified by experiment.
> This is just plain wrong. SR makes many predictions that can be directly
> tested by experiment.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks

keep measuring forbidden by your bunch of

idiots improper t'=t in forbidden by your bunch
of idiots improper old seconds.

Tom Roberts

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 3:49:35 PM3/3/23

to

On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote:
> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of
> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be
> mathematically consistent.

This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not
general spacetimes.

> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third
> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and
> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the
> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of
> this third one?

Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, so it
is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations.

The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are:
A. The Galilei group
B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group)
C. The Euclid group (in 4D).

(A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic
observations about the world refute (C):
1. space and time are handled identically, contrary
to everyday experience.
2. increasing relative velocity between two inertial frames
suddenly reverses the direction of their relative
velocity; increasing still further reverses direction
again; and again and again ad infinitum.

Tom Roberts

J. J. Lodder

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 4:24:32 PM3/3/23

to

Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 3/2/23 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > SR is kinematics only, and it cannot be falsified by experiment.
>
> This is just plain wrong. SR makes many predictions that can be directly
> tested by experiment.

There you go again.
You seemed to agree with the point after a previous posting.

> A few are:
> * the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to
> every locally inertial frame.
> * a high-energy pion beam, traveling with speed
> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), can travel
> 1 km in the lab with less than 10% losses due to decays.
> * The detailed balance of momenta in high-energy collisions
> and interactions of elementary particles.
> * ... lots more

All those experiments test -Lorentz-invariant theories-,
not Lorentz invariance itself. (only theories can be tested)

That the results of such test agree with Lorentz invariance
is totally unsurprising, for all of those theories
are Lorentz invariant to begin with, by construction.

Typical example: all those thought experiments
with trains, flashlights, conductors and so on
that you find in popular relativity books
have heuristic and explanatory value only.

What they would test, if they were actually done,
is that Maxwell's equations correctly predict
the behaviour of light beams.
(which of course they do, because, by construction,
they cannot possibly predict anything else)

Jan

Richard Hachel

unread,

Mar 3, 2023, 5:32:36 PM3/3/23

to

Le 03/03/2023 à 20:58, Tom Roberts a écrit :

> While this is indeed an issue for unknown future theories, it is not
> applicable to SR -- there have been literally hundreds of experiments
> testing various predictions of SR; none of their results are
> inconsistent with the predictions of SR.

Effet quantique à distance (Alain Aspect)?

Explicable chez Hachel ; inexplicable chez les physiciens relativistes.

Bourde relativiste théorique dans le voyageur de Langevin en vitesses
apparente?

Explicable chez Hachel ; inexplicable chez les physiciens relativistes.

Equations relativistes erronées en milieu accélérés?

Explicable chez Hachel ; inexplicable chez les physiciens relativistes.

Il faut parfois un peu plus de modestie et un peu plus de science.

Pour le reste, oui, évidemment qu'il y a des preuves que le théorie de
la relativité à des bases intéressantes (pas forcément toutes
correctes, mais intéressantes).

Evidemment.

> Tom Roberts

R.H.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:26:11 AM3/4/23

to

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:49:35 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote:
> > Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of
> > transformations which could represent spacetime and still be
> > mathematically consistent.
> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not
> general spacetimes.
> > The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third
> > one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and
> > the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the
> > Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of
> > this third one?
> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group,

Because some idiot has assumed and asserted so.

so it
> is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations.
>
> The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are:
> A. The Galilei group
> B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group)
> C. The Euclid group (in 4D).
>
> (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic
> observations about the world refute (C):

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper t'=t

in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:27:57 AM3/4/23

to

No. They're - simply - examples to train you
to get the results The Shit wants.

Volney

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:27:13 PM3/4/23

to

On 3/3/2023 3:49 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote:
>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of
>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be
>> mathematically consistent.
>
> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not
> general spacetimes.

Yes I did mean to state that.

>
>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third
>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and
>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the
>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of
>> this third one?
>
> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, so it
> is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations.
>
> The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are:
> A. The Galilei group
> B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group)
> C. The Euclid group (in 4D).

I was thinking it would be a 4 dimensional space, 4 space dimensions and
no time. Static and boring if so. I was also guessing perhaps it had an
imaginary speed of light, i*c but that seemed to make time into a space
dimension.

>
> (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic
> observations about the world refute (C):
> 1. space and time are handled identically, contrary
> to everyday experience.

4D space as I guessed?

> 2. increasing relative velocity between two inertial frames
>      suddenly reverses the direction of their relative
>      velocity; increasing still further reverses direction
>      again; and again and again ad infinitum.

That doesn't sound like a static 4D space! What is velocity if there is
no time? I take it this weirdness happens at its "c"? What is its
metric, if applicable? Excuse the silly questions, this type of theory
is just an interest for me, I know I have the language wrong. Off to
Google now I have a name for the group.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:35:51 PM3/4/23

to

How does a photon create weight we can measure?
No.

Richard Hertz

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:40:30 PM3/4/23

to

It's disgusting, repulsive to read how you and Dono suck Roberts dick.
I'm warning you for a long time about your increasingly open gayness, but you don't pay attention.

Soon, you'll start posting as Volneya.

Volney

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:40:54 PM3/4/23

to

On 3/4/2023 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:49:35 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote:
>>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of
>>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be
>>> mathematically consistent.
>> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not
>> general spacetimes.
>>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third
>>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and
>>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the
>>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of
>>> this third one?
>> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group,
>
> Because some idiot has assumed and asserted so.

Janitor, this is a discussion for grownups. You need to go back to the
little kids' table and leave the grownups alone.

>> The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are:
>> A. The Galilei group
>> B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group)
>> C. The Euclid group (in 4D).
>>
>> (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic
>> observations about the world refute (C):
>
> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
> bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
> forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper t'=t
> in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.

Not the kiddie table but the pet shop. I hope they accept returns for
retarded parrots.

Volney

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:43:21 PM3/4/23

to

On 3/3/2023 1:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

>> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
>

> I'm one of the worst logicians the humanity ever had,
There. I corrected your mistake. Don't complain that you didn't write
that, instead be thankful your mistake was corrected.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:48:31 PM3/4/23

to

On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 18:40:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:49:35 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote:
> >>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of
> >>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be
> >>> mathematically consistent.
> >> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not
> >> general spacetimes.
> >>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third
> >>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and
> >>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the
> >>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of
> >>> this third one?
> >> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group,
> >
> > Because some idiot has assumed and asserted so.
> Janitor, this is a discussion for grownups. You need to go back to the
> little kids' table and leave the grownups alone.

See, stupid Mike: I'm one of the best logicians the
humanity ever had and you're just a fanatic religious
maniac of 3 sort. Of course you can't discuss
against me, you can only bark, spit or slander,
but you'll do what you can for The Shit you love.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 12:49:16 PM3/4/23

to

On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 18:43:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/3/2023 1:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>
> >> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
> >
> > I'm one of the worst logicians the humanity ever had,

No, I didn't write it. Stupid Mike is lying, as
expected from relativistic trash.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 1:38:32 PM3/4/23

to

On 2023-03-04 17:40:55 +0000, Volney said:

> On 3/4/2023 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:49:35 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of
>>>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be
>>>> mathematically consistent.
>>> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not
>>> general spacetimes.
>>>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third
>>>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and
>>>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the
>>>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of
>>>> this third one?
>>> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group,
>>
>> Because some idiot has assumed and asserted so.
>
> Janitor, this is a discussion for grownups. You need to go back to the
> little kids' table and leave the grownups alone.

No hope of that, I fear.

>
>>> The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are:
>>> A. The Galilei group
>>> B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group)
>>> C. The Euclid group (in 4D).
>>>
>>> (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic
>>> observations about the world refute (C):
>>
>> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
>> bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper t'=t
>> in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
>
> Not the kiddie table but the pet shop. I hope they accept returns for
> retarded parrots.

Python

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 10:12:28 PM3/4/23

to

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had

This one will stay the best of your jokes Maciej...

Volney

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 10:34:54 PM3/4/23

to

You deliberately snipped where I said I was fixing your mistake, and you
did what I said not to do.

Volney

unread,

Mar 5, 2023, 1:22:43 AM3/5/23

to

Quit projecting your own gayness on us.

> I'm warning you for a long time about your increasingly open gayness, but you don't pay attention.

I "don't pay attention" to you because I don't swing that way, and no,
quit hoping for a date. Females only for me.

>
> Soon, you'll start posting as Volneya.
>

You are looking for a drag queen? Again, sorry, I'm straight. Now fuck off.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 5, 2023, 1:43:28 AM3/5/23

to

On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 04:34:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 12:49 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 18:43:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 3/3/2023 1:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
> >>>
> >>> I'm one of the worst logicians the humanity ever had,
> >
> > No, I didn't write it. Stupid Mike is lying, as
> > expected from relativistic trash.
> You deliberately snipped where I said I was fixing your mistake

It doesn't change the fact that I didn't write
and you lied, as expected from relativistic
trash.

what you e

>, and you
> did what I said not to do.

And why would I do what a stupid Mike
told me to do, stupid Mike?

> >> There. I corrected your mistake.

No, stupid Mike, you lied.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 5, 2023, 1:44:42 AM3/5/23

to

And do you still believe that adjujsting clocks to
your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?
You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,

Mar 5, 2023, 1:45:30 AM3/5/23

to

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

Tom Roberts

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 2:49:27 PM9/1/23

to

This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that
claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No
surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and
its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern
theoretical physics.

If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your
claim. I will examine it as described below.

Tom Roberts

On 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
>> wrote:
>>> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute
>>>> relativity.
>>> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
>> Many people have already been able to do so.
>
> Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will
> "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my
> time.
>
> Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first
> understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
> examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then
> "refute" their misconceptions.
>
>> What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
>> It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
>> listened, and your replies are not substantial.
>
> When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims,
> experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
> but I have chosen to humor you, for now.
>
> In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best
> "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
> error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
> inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an
> experiment).
>
> I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.
>
> [Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
> that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
> of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]
>
> Tom Roberts

Bobby Hegai

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 2:58:10 PM9/1/23

to

Tom Roberts wrote:

> This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that
> claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No
> surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and
> its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern
> theoretical physics.
>
> If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
> show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your
> claim. I will examine it as described below.

yes indeed. But you never make 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 just because the math 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀
𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲. It may mean something completely else. Like my "𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳
𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹", where the 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀. But
please remark, it's a completely different theory.

patdolan

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 3:06:42 PM9/1/23

to

Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun as the solar system rapidly approaches the observer.

Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?

Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.

patdolan

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 5:42:15 PM9/1/23

to

Your challenge was answered in a heartbeat, Tom Roberts. Where did you disappear too. Relativity lives by the gedanken and has now DIED by the gedanken. There exist no empirical experiments for which a myriad of other explanations suffice in addition to, as Mitch might put it, gamma math.

patdolan

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 5:48:00 PM9/1/23

to

And how did you come by this crazy, reckless idea to take on all comers against relativity? Like Athel, have you been reading James Tour too?

Bill

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 7:08:57 PM9/1/23

to

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:06:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:

> Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation... In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...

Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of the coordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.

> Invariant spacetime curvature...

No, the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, but the intrinsic curvature and the metric of the spacetime manifold are COvariant.

> Will the earth spiral into the sun?

Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic implies 1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.

patdolan

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 8:06:58 PM9/1/23

to

Ludicrous, Lunkhead, Legion, your response is more of an incantation than an explanation. Besides, I just worked out the outside and inside curvature for this gedanken and it turns out that both are invariant. Prove me wrong! It would be a disaster if either curvature co-varied with gamma. It they did then curvature would perforce go to zero for photons ( I've just triggered Jan's PTSD (remember Jan?)) because then the sun could not bend starlight during eclipses.

You're an amateur Legion. Just wait until Tom Roberts shows up. He'll show you a thing or two! Right Tom?

Bill

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 9:43:40 PM9/1/23

to

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:06:58 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system...

> > > In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity
> > > necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...
> >
> > Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of the coordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.
> >

> > > Will the earth spiral into the sun?
> >
> > Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic implies 1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.
>

> The outside and inside curvature for this gedanken both are invariant.

I've set a new record for efficient debunking... it took only a single post to reduce you to spouting intentional gobbledegook as you flee. LOL. Case closed.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 1, 2023, 9:56:44 PM9/1/23

to

At an event horizon Pound Rebka blue shift would cause infinite EM heat energy for a wave entering a BH.
Leaving the event horizon the red shifting would go infinite.
Mathematical energy shows BHs have never existed.
We observe their red shift look a likes and claim them to be BHs instead.

Gravity inner drop off can not apply at a BH.
Feynman's inner drop off to center zero does not
work at a BH. But gravity cannot be different
in that way. Einstein never believed in a star
singularity. He said no to the modern BH...
He solved his equations first.

Mitchell Raemsch

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Sep 2, 2023, 2:29:16 PM9/2/23

to

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 5:37:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I reproduce here my reply to prokariotic, because I think it deserves to have
> a dedicated thread. It's related to the title of the P&R 1960 paper, and contain
> a "derivation" of the gravitational frequency shift that is believed to be real.
>
> ******************************************************************
>
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the
> > theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not
> > depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity
> > will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
> > equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed
> > on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real
> > phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually
> > measured it, correct?
>
> I don't believe that gravitational time dilation is REAL. I did post, weeks ago and in a trolling way, how could Einstein
> have had such heuristic insight between 1907 and 1911. I can't find the thread now, as I'm kind of lazy, but let me to
> state the WRONG basis of such heuristic/hallucinogenic proposal.
>
> 1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning).
>
> 2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and
> the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²).
>
> 3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK
> performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a
> TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²).
>
> 4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"):
>
> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² (Planck), and I do with it what's described in 3), THEN THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE PHOTON IS:
>
> E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁
>
> THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND
>
> f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²)
>
> HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE?
>
> BECAUSE IT'S A FAILED HEURISTIC PROPOSITION. A FAIRY TALE. SOMETHING THAT EINSTEIN THOUGHT THAT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH.
>
> But it's WRONG, through and through. BECAUSE PHOTONS DON'T HAVE MASS!!
>
> Then, saving the relativity GOBBLEDYGOOK, and trying to derive it from TWO KNOWN AND VALID THEORIES (Newton and Planck) PLUS
> using a 1:1 relationship mass-energy (Hassenhorl was close to it by 1905, as Poincaré by 1900, and MANY OTHERS), you can derive
> such STUPID FALLACY about GRAVITY affecting TIME.
>
> BUT such assertion IS FALSE, because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY HAS NO MASS INVOLVED. Einstein thought that it had, but it was
> a FAULTY, WRONG proposition.
>
> Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE.
>
> A messiah for you.
>
> An imbecile for me.
>
> ********************************************************************
A massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all. I suspect that to be the case. Is it possible for energy to exist without mass?

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Sep 2, 2023, 2:31:31 PM9/2/23

to

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 1:54:44 AM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:

> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 1:50:01 AM UTC+7, Johni Luzzatto wrote:
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > I reproduce here my reply to prokariotic, because I think it deserves to
> > > have a dedicated thread. It's related to the title of the P&R 1960
> > > paper,

> Why bother with photons? You're right, there is no mass and no photons, only hv. Einstein wasn't an imbecile, he was a clever fake. As for the difference in g between two heights, Einstein's phony relativity formula that claims to have adjusted for it cannot be just an error, but only one of many fakeries. Do you NOT recognize the simple act of integrating g over the distance in question to obtain an averaged value of g? I see nobody who pretends to understand Einstein and is yet so adept at juggling complex formulas is able to recognize this and other fake formulas or the simple math problem required to find the right answer. Sheez, boys, did you forget freshman calculus? Did you ever solve for Einstein's formula? It falls outside the range of g for fractional frequencies for upper and lower levels over distance h, not that any idiot can't see it won't work. But you're wrong about time dilation. I hate such misleading terms. Right, you don't need the Pound-Rebka experiment or atomic clocks or fancy theories to figure that out. Just ponder the definition of a meter until the light dawns. But why do I bother?
Foos doesn't accept time dilation. He does everything with length contraction, another reification fallacy.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Sep 2, 2023, 2:32:20 PM9/2/23

to

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/22/23 3:54 AM, Foos Research wrote:
> > [... complete nonsense]
>
> Why bother to make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?
>
> Tom Roberts
That's all relativity does.

Tom Roberts

unread,

Sep 2, 2023, 4:13:49 PM9/2/23

to

On 9/2/23 1:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> A massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all.

You really should learn some basic physics before attempting to write
about it. Your unsupported opinions are worthless. Why bother to make

patdolan

unread,

Sep 2, 2023, 9:24:30 PM9/2/23

to

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

Tom Roberts, I have more than answered your challenge with the BBP and continue to await your pleasure on the physics field of honor. But so far only the lugubrious Legion has butted in and made reply for you; in so doing he has even managed to earn a rare Gibberish Award from a disinterested third party, the esteemed Foos Research Institute.

I suspect you have ruled out option a) in the case of the BBP because you boast below that you would most likely exercise that option within the first few minutes of reading my challenge. It has been, what, three days now? That leaves you your option b) "up to the point it actually shows an inconsistency in SR". That the earth must perforce death spiral into the sun merely because it is observed from another (any other) FoR is certainly inconsistent with relativity; not only relativity, but any semblance of science, common sense and the laws of gravitation.

On the other hand, if the earth does not death spiral into the sun under said circumstances then general relativity is proven to be an utter chimera, with only Lunatic Legion's award-wining gibberistic explanation to guide us.

Laurence Clark Crossen

unread,

Sep 2, 2023, 11:40:59 PM9/2/23

to

Relativity is nothing but making things up ad hoc, pure fiction.