R E L A T I V I T Y: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
S T R I C H
The Paradoxes of Relativity
===================================================================
INTRODUCTION: RELATIVITY MADE SIMPLE…
What is relativity? In layman’s terms, special relativity states that
the laws of physics follow the principle of frame independence (PFI),
and that the speed of light is a God-given rigid value (C). While
logical consistency dictates the former, the latter is but a
captivating but unproven assumption. From the latter belief arises
the notion that at velocities close to the fateful speed of light,
clock retardation and length diminution occurs. General relativity
extends special relativity and arrives at the strange conclusions that
acceleration and gravity are identical, that mass gives rise to a
crooked space, and gravity is merely the ‘natural’ tendency of objects
to follow these crooked paths. Thus special relativity (SR) is
basically a conjecture about slow clocks and shrunken rulers and
general relativity (GR) is a fancy idea about crooked space. That
both are meritless will be shown below...
THE SQUARE PEG AND ROUND HOLE
In layman’s terms, relativity is best summarized as the “square peg
and round hole synthesis”. Let me start with an example. A trucker
is driving south on his Volvo semi on interstate 55 at 55 miles an
hour on the slow lane. A motorist is driving on the same segment on
his Audi S5 at 55 miles an hour on the fast lane. According to the
driver, the trucker appears stationary. According to the hitchhiker
on the side of the road, both vehicles passed by at 55 miles an hour.
We all know velocity is relative, and Newton codified this intuition
into well defined laws of motion. Along comes Maxwell who codifies
the equations of electromagnetism, from which arises a constant
number, which turns out to be the speed of light. Since velocity is
relative, how does one reconcile the possibility of an absolute
constant velocity against the well-known relativity of velocity? A
normal mind would simply weigh which one is the deeper truth and ditch
the other. A schizophrenic would simply go against all preconceived
notions and slide the square peg into the round hole. Magical
thinking allows the square peg as it reaches the round hole to somehow
mutate and accept each other.
While all sorts of arguments can be made to fit a square peg into a
round hole, in the orderly world of nature, such an action would
inevitably result in contradictions, not just one, but many in fact.
The whole business of physics for the last century has been trying to
iron out these contradictions by creating more complicated minutiae to
justify the original square peg as it ‘sits’ in the round hole…
PARADOX 1: THE TWIN FALLACY
In the standard twin paradox, one twin travels to a distant place and
returns. In both legs of the journey, the twin is travelling at speed
v, and thus undergoes time dilation according to the Lorentz
transformations equations (LTE) of SR. The primary independent
variable in the LTE is velocity, such that only a zero relative
velocity gives rise to zero time dilation. Any non-zero relative
velocity gives rise to time dilation. However, from the standpoint of
the travelling twin, the earth bound twin is moving at speed v on each
leg of the journey, and therefore should also undergo an equal time
dilation, such that in the final reunion no twin is younger than the
other. Physics textbooks resolve the twin paradox simply be exempting
the earth bound twin from the supposed universal law of time
dilation. How can they do this? This is what is called an academe
fast shuffle. The square peg is shaved by the professor to fit the
round hole. The validity of relativity rests on this basic lie that
the earth bound twin is exempt from time dilation.
PARADOX 2: THE EPR FALLACY
In the EPR paradox, two entangled particles travel to opposite
directions. According to quantum mechanics (QM), if the spin of one
particle is measured, then the spin of the other particle is
automatically determined, no matter how far it is, implying
instantaneous transmission of information. We have another square peg
(SR) versus round hole (QM) dilemma. This time, Einstein, Podolsky
and Rosen argued uncharacteristically un-schizophrenically that one
theory must be ditched, and we all know which theory they favored. QM
was thus thought to be incomplete, if not wrong. This was later shown
by Bell to be not the case. Bell showed that QM was a complete
theory. The superluminal transmission of information is a QM fact,
and easily trumps the artificial luminal speed limit imposed by
relativity. We are again at the square peg-round hole dilemma. The
square peg is shaved by relabeling the information transmission with
the vague term of entanglement.
PARADOX 3: SPACE-TIME ALCHEMY
According to relativity, space and time are merely partial aspects of
a whole space-time interval. Each space-time interval has a space and
a time segment, in much the same way as each line segment in 2-
dimensional Cartesian coordinate system has an x and y component. We
all know that keeping the segment fixed, a simple rotation of the
Cartesian coordinate transforms the x and y coordinates into one
another. The question is, can space and time be correspondingly
transformed to one another? Relativity would have you believe that
this is done all the time! The relativist claims to fit the square
peg into the round hole all the time—he just does it so fast you
cannot see it. Experimentally, there has never been any corroboration
of space actually transforming to time or vice versa. Space and time
are not mutually inter-convertible, either by an actual physical
experiment or by any known theoretical mechanism. The concept of a
space-time continuum is pure fiction.
PARADOX 3: CONSTANT LIGHT SPEED
The speed of light comes up in Maxwell’s classical equations for
electromagnetic phenomenon as a constant (C). This supposed constant
arises from the two supposed constants of the permittivity and
permeability of free space. The well-known notion of the constancy of
the speed of light is but an assumption derived from two other
assumptions. No unequivocal experimental confirmation that the speed
of light is constant by all observers has ever been made. There are
only two possibilities. If light is particulate, then like all
particles, without exception, its relative speed is dependent upon
source and observer. If light is wave-lie, then like all waves,
without exception, its speed of propagation is constant with respect
to the medium only, and not to observer or source. Einstein,
struggling with the fact that there is no medium for light such as the
ether, mutated the second principle and came to the faulty idea that
light speed is constant with respect to no medium, meaning it is
constant… irregardless. This reasoning is interesting for its
complete disregard for any logic. It is like saying that given only a
square peg and a round hole, the two will have to fit… irregardless.
PARADOX 4: ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME
The whole theory of relativity rests on the premise that space and
time are relative, and attempts to dismiss the concept of an absolute
space and time. Yet, at the so-called big bang when the universe
started, this easily provides a starting point at which time=0. Since
then time has moved forward and as far as we know has never stopped or
slowed. Also, there is the existence of the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation (CMBR) which is visually similar to the random
static in an un-tuned TV set. An object travelling at great
velocities would observe the CMBR to be linear rather than random. In
fact, measurements against the CMBR have allowed real physicists to
determine that the absolute speed of the earth is around a few hundred
kilometers per second.
PARADOX 5: NEWTONIAN PHYSICS VERSUS EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS
Einsteinian physics (EP) supposedly does not dispute classical
Newtonian physics (NP). EP is supposed to be an extension of NP for
the so-called relativistic domain, meaning for velocities close to the
speed of light. It is often claimed that EP reduces to NP in non-
relativistic cases. This is another fallacy. Inherent in Newtonian
mechanics is the assumption that the speed of gravity is
instantaneous, while inherent in Einsteinian mechanics is the
assumption that the speed of gravity is no faster than light. This is
a crucial fallacy that the late Dr. Van Flandern has clearly pointed
out. How can EP reduce to NP, when the former clearly calls for a
different velocity of gravity than the latter? EP cannot reduce to NP
as the core principles of the two are contradictory.
PARADOX 6: LIGHT ABERRATION: DIRECTION AND SPEED OF LIGHT DEPENDENT ON
OBSERVER AND SOURCE
What is aberration? If an arrow were fired at you as you are moving,
the arrow would appear to you to follow an oblique angle. Similarly,
if the archer was moving while it fired the arrow, the arrow would
likewise follow an oblique angle. Any object fired, whether it is an
arrow, a bullet, or a particle follows this principle, and is thus
described as “ballistic”. Waves on the other hand, being disturbances
in a media, and not objects, are not ballistic. Thus a sound wave,
whether generated by a standing aircraft or a jet flying at mach
speeds, propagate at the same speed, with a direction of propagation
independent of the source. What property does light follow? The
direction of propagation of light is dependent on the motion of the
source and observer. This is undisputed as it is readily
demonstrated. The speed of the propagation of light is likewise
dependent on the motion of the source and observer. This is heavily
disputed as measurements of the speed of light are notoriously
difficult to make. Nonetheless, light is well known to follow
aberration. While its speed relative to source and observer is
subject to dispute, its direction relative to source and observer is
undeniable. That direction is dependent while velocity is claimed to
be independent is another example of fitting a square peg into a round
hole.
PARADOX 7: RELATIVITY OF TEMPERATURE
What is temperature? It is a measure of the average kinetic energy of
a population of particles. . The so-called stochastic nature in the
definition of temperature appears inherent, since the typical gas or
liquid has particles that are in random motion. However, there is no
prerequisite that the sample is truly stochastic. Energy is a
scalar. It is dependent on velocity. Since kinetic energy is frame
dependent according to relativity, if an observer travels at high
speeds, then the observer will see his surroundings, including the
molecules around him, to be travelling at this high velocity. It is
thus an unacknowledged implication of relativity that a speeding
observer would observe the temperature around him to go up. This is
not widely acknowledged, as it clearly goes against common sense, and
would not live up to experimental confirmation.
PARADOX 8: THE ABSENCE OF PROOF
What is the evidence for relativity? Relativity started with a post-
hoc prediction of the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of
Mercury (M1). It is obvious that when one is predicting a known fact,
then the prediction will bear out (E1). Relativity then followed this
dubious prediction with the bending of light (M2). This was falsely
confirmed by measurements of light during a solar eclipse which later
turned out to be inaccurate (E2). Then a few atomic clocks were
measured as they flew in jet planes and found to have a slight
discrepancy attributed to so-called time dilation (M3). Only a few
clocks and a few measurements were made such that this study does not
survive a proper statistical analysis (E3). No repeat study was
obviously done. The famous Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the
existence of an ether. This is cited as evidence for relativity
(M4). However, the MME is equally consistent with a ballistic/
emission theory of light (E4). The Hubble observed red shift of is
also cited as evidence for relativity (M5). The red shift is easily
accounted for by loss of energy (E5). That red shift is proportional
to distance all the more supports this explanation.
PARADOX 9: THE FAILED EXPERIMENTS
In view of all these so-called evidence which do not stand strong
scientific merit, attempts were made to confirm relativity by properly
designed experiments. The first major experiment was the LIGO (Laser
Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) experiment. Since
2002, the LIGO has not detected a single gravitational wave. In short
it is a negative study to date. The second major experiment is the GP-
B (Gravity Probe B) experiment. The study was supposed to detect
frame-dragging and geodetic effects due to spare-time curvature. The
study was negative, period. Like all negative experimental results,
these were not officially published. However, like all results of
scientific studies, they need to be presented to the scientific
community. This was done in the American Physical Society meeting on
April 2007. Its principal investigator, Dr. Everitt, has published
preliminary results of a post-hoc study in the June 7 2008 issue of
the relatively quaint journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. This is
not to be misinterpreted as the official results. Obviously, a
billion dollar project such as the GPB does not officially publish its
results in some obscure journal. Secondly, any statistician will
easily tell you that this is a post-hoc study, which is not the same
as the original study, and as such, all of its results are invalid,
though they may be used to guide future research.
David Strich
===================================================================
ADDENDUM:
Who is David Strich? He is an individual with an IQ of 200 who is
trying to correct the errors of physics. Not to equate himself with
Galileo, but like the genius before him, any individual going against
the orthodoxy, is bound to come against severe resistance. But truth
is beauty and its appeal is timeless. Somebody might ask, what is a
gifted individual with an IQ of 200 doing in usenet? Why, he could be
helping the economic recovery team (actually, I’d be glad to help but
nobody has asked for my help)! In truth, he has approached physicists
on this matter and the response has been consistent. No physicist has
God like powers to explain away the flaws of relativity. While it is
easy for a professor to gloss over the errors to unsuspecting college
students, is harder to do this to somebody familar with the errors.
The typical professor, when faced with the tough questions, suddenly
become busy with their schedules, only to once more find time when the
discussion moves to another matter.
I do not like to take full credit for the discovery of the errors of
relativity. Other Galileos before me have been disputing Einstein’s
fantasies over the past years. Among them are Androcles, Kooblee W,
Ken Seto, Henri W, Pentcho V, to name a few. I call them the modern
Galileos or MGs for short. They may not agree on a replacement theory,
but they all agree that relativity needs a replacement. I do not even
think a replacement is even necessary. QM is a good theory. It
merely needs to be extended.
And the RESPONSES...
Now for the expected responses. There will probably be a lot of ad
hominems from the so-called orthopdoxy. There is a demented chemist by
the name of AL who labels anything he cannot understand or refute
idiocy. There is a queer children’s book writer known as PD who will
reply with some strange reasoning; his triplets Doug and Dono will
back him up with additional drivel. There is an overstaying college
student named Eric who will lie about the things he does not know;
take note of his statistical ignorance; apparently the basic
statistics course he took as a first year student was so long ago that
he has forgotten most of it; his twin Dirk will attempt diversion
through his misquotes of past encounters. Then there are the other
annoyances from across the Atlantic such as Miguel, YBM, and Anderson,
and others too insignificant to mention. Sometimes some low level
academic pretends a counterargument, but as I and the other MGs can
easily show, more often they are merely lying, not to the MGs directly
since we can easily see through their deception, but more to the
lurkers whom they think can still be influenced one way or the other.
They are all of the same constitution. They will lie, deny or
bamboozle. And this is when they are thinking. When they get tired
of this, which all too often happens right away, they will start to
whine and throw a tantrum. Like children in a school-yard argument,
they may attempt to invoke everything unrelated, in the process
distorting past experiences to suit their points. Like a lynch mob,
they will attempt to drown out the ideas of their opponents. They
cannot tolerate being challenged, for they are unable to logically
defend what they believe in. If only they had the power, they will
excommunicate all those who think that Einstein and relativity are
wrong. They operate on the belief that they are correct. It is more
logical that they operate on the premise that they cannot learn. I
have seen these resident cranks in relativity over the past year so I
have become familiar with their responses. Of course, in the rare
exception where somebody does manage a coherent and logical rebuttal,
I will only be too glad to engage in an intellectual argument. In the
past I have sometimes engaged the ad hominems, but this needlessly
lengthens the threads, and the intellectual arguments are lost amongst
the mayhem. Since my whole point is to educate the budding astute
minds, I will as much as possible defer from participating in the
uneducated repartee.
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
It looks like David's dignity recovery break was successful!
Just to stir the pot, take a look: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
Paul B. Andersen
> PARADOX 1: THE TWIN FALLACY
>
> In the standard twin paradox, one twin travels to a distant place and
> returns. In both legs of the journey, the twin is travelling at speed
> v, and thus undergoes time dilation according to the Lorentz
> transformations equations (LTE) of SR. The primary independent
> variable in the LTE is velocity, such that only a zero relative
> velocity gives rise to zero time dilation. Any non-zero relative
> velocity gives rise to time dilation. However, from the standpoint of
> the travelling twin, the earth bound twin is moving at speed v on each
> leg of the journey, and therefore should also undergo an equal time
> dilation, such that in the final reunion no twin is younger than the
> other. Physics textbooks resolve the twin paradox simply be exempting
> the earth bound twin from the supposed universal law of time
> dilation. How can they do this? This is what is called an academe
> fast shuffle. The square peg is shaved by the professor to fit the
> round hole. The validity of relativity rests on this basic lie that
> the earth bound twin is exempt from time dilation.
Here you can see what SR really predicts for the twin paradox:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
No tricks are made to "resolve" anything, this is strictly
according to the Lorentz transform.
The Lorentz transform can predict nothing else than what
is shown here, there are no ambiguities.
You can run it from both twins' point of view.
Is there a contradiction?
Is twin A "excluded from time dilation" as observed by B?
--
Paul
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
The same phenomenon that allows women to forget the tortuous pain of
childbirth and do it again is at work with Strich9.
I, for one, will cheer Strich9 on as he screeches and wails through
the contractions of that clenched organ between his ears, as he
attempts to launch into the world another thought. The last one was
stillborn, unfortunately, and did not have the full complement of
fingers and toes.
Michael Moroney
>A normal mind would simply weigh which one is the deeper truth and ditch
>the other. A schizophrenic would simply go against all preconceived
>notions and slide the square peg into the round hole. Magical
>thinking allows the square peg as it reaches the round hole to somehow
>mutate and accept each other.
I suspected you may have had a mental illness of some sort, Strich, but I
didn't realize it was schizophrenia. It must be hard for you to come clean
and admit that to all of usenet.
Jeff▲Relf
People just want an excuse to hope, no matter how ludicrous.
Be it a church or a casino, it's all the same:
a big ass party, full of people hoping for the impossible.
Einstein dashes off-the-wall hopes, even more so than Darwin,
so he's hated ― even the sci-fi community rejected him.
Semi-randomness exists only in the mind of the semi-informed;
nature herself is fully causal, never random.
Time is yet another spatial dimension, 4-D static, 4-D motionless.
All so-called choices are virtual, never real.
Think about it. Should you live ( and die ) faster ?
it's no choice, not really.
Oxygen consumption is lethal indeed.
Like any drug, excercise will shorten your life.
Living faster means dying sooner.
Quoting NIH.GOV:
“ Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) life span
varies from a few weeks to more than 2 years.
This plasticity is largely controlled by environmental factors.
Thereby, although individuals are closely related genetically,
distinct life histories can emerge as
a function of social environmental change. ”
“ During favourable conditions with brood rearing,
life spans of workers vary between 2 and 8 weeks.
When workers switch from nest to foraging tasks,
the behavioural transition is accompanied by a demographic shift
due to a rapid increase in mortality as well as
by manifold physiological changes ( Robinson et al. 1992 ).
Since the age at foraging onset is usually far more variable than
the duration of the forager phase, the timing of this behavioural
switch is the major determinant of a bee’s overall life span.
Moreover, during unfavourable periods when brood rearing and
foraging ceases, a third worker sub-caste develops
( diutinus or ‘ winter ’ bees ).
This sub-caste is characterized by an extreme life
span potential of up to 1 year ( Maurizio 1950 ).
Thereby, sister worker bees can show
a vast but naturally occurring variation in longevity,
albeit sharing a highly similar genetic background. ”.
ZerkonXXXX
> What is relativity?
A special point in time marked by many family members showing up all at
once?
John J
Light Year - 365 days of fewer calories. (More taste ,too.)
Wavicle - Mass action during Green Bay Packers New Year's game at home
(I think you have to be a Wisconsinite to appreciate that one.)
BradGuth
trying to torment and torture your topic to death, is because your
free mindset represents a grave threat to everything they hold dearest
to their black Zionist Nazi hearts.
~ BG
PD
> The only reasons others are here, topic/author stalking and otherwise
> trying to torment and torture your topic to death, is because your
> free mindset represents a grave threat to everything they hold dearest
> to their black Zionist Nazi hearts.
>
> ~ BG
>
>
No, Brad, sometimes things are simply worthy of mockery, because they
are ridiculous. Lighten up. It's not ALL a black conspiracy.
Ed
been very useful; many technical achievements have their foundation in
them. An alternative theory or theories ought to be as useful before
discarding Einstein's versions.
It is not entirely clear that paradoxes absolutely imply that a theory
is "wrong"; there may actually be paradoxes in nature.
Ed
doug
Ed wrote:
> Relativity, special and general, may not be "true". However they have
> been very useful; many technical achievements have their foundation in
> them. An alternative theory or theories ought to be as useful before
> discarding Einstein's versions.
>
> It is not entirely clear that paradoxes absolutely imply that a theory
> is "wrong"; there may actually be paradoxes in nature.
>
> Ed
>
The "paradoxes" are teaching tools to help students avoid making
commmon mistakes of understanding the theory. If you understand
what the theory actually is rather than what you want it to be,
then there are no paradoxes in relativity. Strich has fallen
for all the freshman mistakes but is unable or unwilling to actually
learn anything.
Androcles
"Ed" <edg...@att.net> wrote in message
news:67ccc251-fd2f-4450...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Relativity, special and general, may not be "true".
===================================
Relativity, special and general, "may be" fucking garbage.
However they have
been very useful; many technical achievements have their foundation in
them. An alternative theory or theories ought to be as useful before
discarding Einstein's versions.
===================================
That statement "may" be complete and total bullshit.
It is not entirely clear that paradoxes absolutely imply that a theory
is "wrong"; there may actually be paradoxes in nature.
===================================
"It is clear" that paradoxes absolutely imply that a theory
is wrong; there are no actual paradoxes in nature.
"In the first place "it is clear" that the equations must be linear on
account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and
time." -- Albert Einstein.
In the second place the equations are not linear.
You don't "seem to" know how to punctuate or use "may" effectively.
"It is clear" you "seem to be" a fucking idiot.
BradGuth
True, as it's more like an extremely white Zionist Nazi conspiracy.
Others with similar topics of physics and scientific revision are not
nearly as topic/author stalked and bashed for all it's worth, as are
those which can't manage to get that square peg of yours to fit so
nicely into your mainstream status quo round hole of relativity. But
then I've never tried to stuff any flat end of a 4x4 up my butt like
the rest of you have managed.
~ BG
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 28, 8:28 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 9:17 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only reasons others are here, topic/author stalking and otherwise
> > > trying to torment and torture your topic to death, is because your
> > > free mindset represents a grave threat to everything they hold dearest
> > > to their black Zionist Nazi hearts.
>
> > > ~ BG
>
> > No, Brad, sometimes things are simply worthy of mockery, because they
> > are ridiculous. Lighten up. It's not ALL a black conspiracy.
>
> True, as it's more like an extremely white Zionist Nazi conspiracy.
I believe there is medication for what is wrong with you.
BradGuth
> Relativity, special and general, may not be "true". However they have
> been very useful; many technical achievements have their foundation in
> them. An alternative theory or theories ought to be as useful before
> discarding Einstein's versions.
>
> It is not entirely clear that paradoxes absolutely imply that a theory
> is "wrong"; there may actually be paradoxes in nature.
>
> Ed
I totally agree, that a theory (good or bad) can get us down the road,
but only if the whole truth and nothing but the truth comes to light.
If mainstream physics and the subsequent science obfuscates, we're
screwed into making the same mistakes over and over, whereas every
subsequent lie begets another and another.
~ BG
doug
BradGuth wrote:
Well, stop lying and learn some physics.
> ~ BG
BradGuth
You mean we all have to take whatever you're taking?
~ BG
BradGuth
You mean we're not supposed to trust what any other physics wizard has
ever had to say? and it's every man, woman and child for him or her
self?
~ BG
Sue...
> Relativity, special and general, may not be "true". However they have
> been very useful; many technical achievements have their foundation in
> them.
I couldn't agree more. Children used to play a
game of catch on train ride without adjusting
for the motion of the vehicle.
Thanks to relativity, children can now play
catch on an aeroplane without adjusting for
the motion of the vehicle.
Sue...
doug
BradGuth wrote:
No, we are telling you to stop lying to yourself and others. Read some
actual physics and learn to not be so stupid.
>
> ~ BG
Michael Moroney
>> > No, Brad, sometimes things are simply worthy of mockery, because they
>> > are ridiculous. Lighten up. It's not ALL a black conspiracy.
>>
>> True, as it's more like an extremely white Zionist Nazi conspiracy.
>I believe there is medication for what is wrong with you.
I'm not sure it's possible for medication for anyone apparently as far
gone as that. (Zionist Nazis? How delusional is _that_?)
Eric Gisse
Ask your doctor if Placebo(tm) right for /you/.
Dono
> snip ranting<
The new medication failed. Your doctor should try something stronger
(and a larger dose). :-)
namekuseijin
wrote:
As far as I understand their (Brad and Warhol) point-of-view, the Jews
are the most powerful people in the face of Earth (and perhaps they
also have a deal with alien invasors). They are so powerful that we
are mere puppets who don't even see their wires behind the scenes
manipulating us. Actually, the wires are disguised as financial
"credit" by Jewish banks.
They are so powerful, according to them, that they financed bolshevik
revolution in Russia, and even Hitler was all but a puppet: they
supposedly were the real source for the ideals of race purity and
supposedly commited the jew genocide (not true Holocaust) against
lesser people of their own to make the world feel guilty and be more
easily controled.
Or so I understand.
It could be true. But then again, all UFO sightings could be true
too...
These are the same people who wandered around for centuries without a
homeland, leaderless, scattered and impoverished. Until finding some
good luck at the activity of loaning money at the dawn of capitalism
and holding to it as a way to reverse their fortunes. Soon enough, of
course, not too many people in many countries were happy to be in debt
for foreigners in their own country. Which leads us to the events in
the XX century and yet now. Maybe I'm being too naive, but I don't
think that summary is far too inaccurate...
Anyway, I don't see the point of bothering star gazers and other
abstract thinkers with this stuff. We enjoy to have a broad view of
the universe, not one centered on our mediocre ape shit-throwing. And
I myself should apologize for the inconvenience.
BradGuth
You wouldn't know the truth, because you're always too busy brown-
nosing Einstein and otherwise obfuscating whatever rocks your boat of
relativity.
~ BG
BradGuth
Funny, not so.
BradGuth
wrote:
Muslim Nazis, I don't think so. Atheists Nazis, not hardly. Catholic
Nazis?
~ BG
BradGuth
For their relatively slight numbers of devout Zionists, they certainly
did a whole lot better than most for themselves. Their Ponzi Madoff
only recently slipped through the cracks in their faith-based armor,
proving that even the best of Zionist Nazis have a few bad days now
and then.
~ BG
S T R I C H
hominems. It is obvious the relativists do not have the right
equipment for this job. The points against relativity remain
logically un-refuted, and judging by the trend, would likely remain
so. In the meantime, here are some witty exchanges:
======================================================
Ed wrote:
It is not entirely clear that paradoxes absolutely imply that a theory
is "wrong"; there may actually be paradoxes in nature.
Androcles replied:
"It is clear" that paradoxes absolutely imply that a theory is wrong;
there are no actual paradoxes in nature.
======================================================
Eric Gisse wrote:
I believe there is medication for what is wrong with you.
Brad Guth replied:
You mean we all have to take whatever you're taking?
======================================================
While Androcles correctly describes nature and silences Ed, and Brad
appropriately gives Eric a dose of his own medicine, a point which
Eric is forced to admit, the relativists continue chewing collectively
on their square peg in the vain hope of rounding it...
Dono
> As I correctly predicted, the counter-arguments ran the gamut of ad
> hominems.
You forgot : "David, your new medication failed, you need a much
stronger one in a much bigger dose"
BradGuth
If we do not accept their mainstream status quo, we are doomed to
being forever banished and/or labeled as Einstein haters. This is
exactly what Hitler counted on, and for the most part got from his
Zionist Nazi minions.
The GP-B fiasco apparently was not quite good enough to point out that
relativity isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Perhaps we'll have
to blow yet another $B of our hard earned loot just to be certain.
~ BG
Eric Gisse
[...]
It appears David is no longer allowed to post continuously from 9 to 5
so he has to make the most of his one post.
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 28, 6:16=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> I'm not sure it's possible for medication for anyone apparently as far
>> gone as that. (Zionist Nazis? How delusional is _that_?)
>Muslim Nazis, I don't think so. Atheists Nazis, not hardly. Catholic
>Nazis?
Thanks for proving to everyone how much you really, really don't get it.
Double-A
How does one brown nose Einstein? It's not like they buried him with
his ass out of the ground so his friends could stop by for a cold one!
Double-A
BradGuth
wrote:
Unlike your all-knowing self, there's a lot I don't get, such as why
your faith-based wars are so racist and otherwise bigoted beyond the
point of no return.
Why do mainstream religions and their puppet governments so often feel
the need to false-flag and then obfuscate?
~ BG
BradGuth
You know what I meant, and that's all that really counts.
~ BG
ZerkonXXXX
> Wavicle - Mass action during Green Bay Packers New Year's game at home
>
> (I think you have to be a Wisconsinite to appreciate that one.)
Since the Packers are the only team in US sports today, I appreciate them
AND the Wisconsinites. 'wavicle' and all.
But getting back to much more serious matters:
String theory - An idea which is now all tied up in nots
Dark Matter - That missing nothing.
Sam Wormley
>
> Thanks to relativity, children can now play
> catch on an aeroplane without adjusting for
> the motion of the vehicle.
>
> Sue...
>
Dennis Sue refers to Galilean Relativity. Moreover, he was deprived of
playing catch on planes as a kid and did not experience how hard it is
to play catch during maneuvers involving accelerations.
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
>
I couldn't agree more. Children used to play a
game of catch on train ride without adjusting
for the motion of the vehicle.
Thanks to relativity, children can now play
catch on an aeroplane without adjusting for
the motion of the vehicle.
>
> > Sue...
>
> Sue refers to Galilean Relativity. Moreover, he was deprived of
> playing catch on planes as a kid and did not experience how hard it is
> to play catch during maneuvers involving accelerations.
Attack Dog Sam strikes another blow
against the theory which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
Sam Wormley
> On Mar 3, 11:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Sue... wrote:
>>
>
> I couldn't agree more. Children used to play a
> game of catch on train ride without adjusting
> for the motion of the vehicle.
>
> Thanks to relativity, children can now play
> catch on an aeroplane without adjusting for
> the motion of the vehicle.
>
>
>>> Sue...
>> Sue refers to Galilean Relativity. Moreover, he was deprived of
>> playing catch on planes as a kid and did not experience how hard it is
>> to play catch during maneuvers involving accelerations.
>
> Attack Dog Sam strikes another blow
> against the theory which states that:
>
> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> for the performance of all physical experiments.
Dennis Sue, of course the physics is the same in one inertial frame to
another.. Even Albert included that as a postulate in his 1905 paper
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES. He states:
"They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order
of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a
postulate, ..."
>
> In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
> experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
> between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
> laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
> Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
> same form in all inertial frames. >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
> Sue...
>
We are not disputing that premise, Dennis. I merely pointed
out that your comment in reference to kids on planes was in
the realm of Galilean relativity and did not require the tools
of special or general relativity.
Sue...
>
> We are not disputing that premise, I merely pointed
> out that your comment in reference to kids on planes was in
> the realm of Galilean relativity and did not require the tools
> of special or general relativity.
Unlicensed private eye Mad-Dog-Sam takes a yet
another swing at:
<< Einstein's relativity principle which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
When do children moving inertially on an aeroplane start
compensating their game of catch for the aeroplane's inertial
motion, Unlicensed incompetent private-eye Mad-Dog-Sam?
Sue...
Sam Wormley
You are experience-deprived, Dennis sue. Have you never flown in a
small airplane? Or tried to play catch in the car while your mommy
was braking hard? Newton's laws are more than adequate to explain
the phenomena.
What's with the "private-eye" comment? Your public information is
just that, public information. If you want to hide, use an alias!
Oh, I forgot, you are not clever enough to hide. And now you are
grumpy because Dirk and other's blew your gender cover.
One more suggestion--Why don't YOU articulate your physics arguments
instead of forcing readers to GUESS what point you might be trying
to make with a quote from course material offered in Austin... which
is often non-germain.
-Sam
Sue...
Note to readers:
Unlicensed private eye Mad-Dog-Sam seems to think
Einstein's relativity principle has something to do
aeroplane controls and braking systems.
Disregard his rantings.
<< Einstein's relativity principle which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
Sam Wormley
> On Mar 3, 2:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> Note to readers:
> Unlicensed private eye Mad-Dog-Sam seems to think
> Einstein's relativity principle has something to do
> aeroplane controls and braking systems.
Dear readers--I have been trying to convince Dennis sue tha Newton's laws
are more than adequate to explain the phenomena.
>
> Disregard his rantings.
>
> << Einstein's relativity principle which states that:
>
> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
> experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
> between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
> laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
> Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
> same form in all inertial frames. >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
> Sue...
>
>
I also suggest that Dennis Sue should articulate his physics arguments
instead of forcing readers to GUESS what point he might be trying
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 2:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Note to readers:
> > Unlicensed private eye Mad-Dog-Sam seems to think
> > Einstein's relativity principle has something to do
> > aeroplane controls and braking systems.
>
> Dear readers--I have been trying to convince Dennis sue tha Newton's laws
> are more than adequate to explain the phenomena.
> > Disregard his rantings.
>
>
> > Sue...
>
> I also suggest that Dennis Sue should articulate his physics arguments
> instead of forcing readers to GUESS what point he might be trying
> to make with a quote from course material offered in Austin... which
> is often non-germain.
You are the only reader that has to GUESS and your
interest is private investigation so no one cares.
Study for your licence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Other readers don't need any elaboration on
<< Einstein's relativity principle which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Otherwise they would post a question about it.
Sue...
>
> -Sam
Daryl McCullough
>
>Sue... wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 2:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Note to readers:
>> Unlicensed private eye Mad-Dog-Sam seems to think
>> Einstein's relativity principle has something to do
>> aeroplane controls and braking systems.
>
> Dear readers--I have been trying to convince Dennis sue tha Newton's laws
> are more than adequate to explain the phenomena.
It is very difficult to argue with Sue because she can never
put together a coherent thought. We're left guessing at whatever
her point is. Does she doubt the principle of relativity?
Does she agree with the principle of relativity, but doubt
that it has any relevance to experiments on an airplane?
Does she think that an accelerated airplane is an inertial
frame? What point can she possibly be making?
Once upon a time, I posted a challenge to the anti-relativity
"dissidents" in this group to post an actual *derivation* of
a contradiction from the assumptions of Einstein's theory of
Special Relativity. Nobody even tried. The concept of a
rigorous argument is foreign to these people. That's why
they're crackpots: not because they disagree with the
"establishment"---for example, I. Schmelzer has an "Aether"
theory that competes with Special and General Relativity,
and he isn't considered a crackpot. A crackpot is someone
who is incapable of constructing (or following) a coherent
argument for his beliefs, and so is not capable of making
any contribution to science. This includes Sue, Androcles,
Koobee Wublee, and most of the anti-relativity dissidents
in this newsgroup. (It also includes a few people who are
"relativists", but not very many.)
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Sue...
> Sam Wormley says...
>
>
>
> >Sue... wrote:
> >> On Mar 3, 2:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
Note to readers:
Unlicensed private eye Mad-Dog-Sam seems to think
Einstein's relativity principle has something to do
aeroplane controls and braking systems.
>
> > Dear readers--I have been trying to convince Dennis sue tha Newton's laws
> > are more than adequate to explain the phenomena.
>
> It is very difficult to argue with Sue because she can never
> put together a coherent thought. We're left guessing at whatever
> her point is. Does she doubt the principle of relativity?
> Does she agree with the principle of relativity, but doubt
> that it has any relevance to experiments on an airplane?
> Does she think that an accelerated airplane is an inertial
> frame? What point can she possibly be making?
>
> Once upon a time, I posted a challenge to the anti-relativity
> "dissidents" in this group to post an actual *derivation* of
> a contradiction from the assumptions of Einstein's theory of
> Special Relativity. Nobody even tried.
Why would I reply? I have argued the physical
validity of Einstein's relativity principle
which states that:
<<
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Perhaps you too have me confused with from some
phantom "Dennis". You will do well if you don't
accompany Sam Wormly in his obsession with someome
named Dennis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking
Sue...
Han de Bruijn
As far as I know, Dark matter was made up to explain why (all!) galaxies
rotate like a solid body rather than according their wrong calculations.
Han de Bruijn
Daryl McCullough
>> Once upon a time, I posted a challenge to the anti-relativity
>> "dissidents" in this group to post an actual *derivation* of
>> a contradiction from the assumptions of Einstein's theory of
>> Special Relativity. Nobody even tried.
>
>Why would I reply? I have argued the physical
>validity of Einstein's relativity principle
You haven't coherently argued anything. You've
quoted many things, but you haven't said what
point you were making, whether you agreed with
the things you were quoting or disagreed, whether
you thought the quoted material supported some
position under discussion or contradicted it.
You say that you agree with the physical validity
of Einstein's relativity principle, but you have
also called various arguments in relativity "pseudoscience"
and "parlour tricks". What are you talking about?
Nobody knows except perhaps you, and doubt even that.
You need to learn how to conduct an intelligible discussion.
Eric Gisse
I've found that Dennis will only express a self-generated thought when
he is criticizing me or physics in general.
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
> INTRODUCTION: RELATIVITY MADE SIMPLE…
>
> What is relativity? In layman’s terms, special relativity states that
> the laws of physics follow the principle of frame independence (PFI),
> and that the speed of light is a God-given rigid value (C). While
> logical consistency dictates the former, the latter is but a
> captivating but unproven assumption.
Actually, the laws of electrodynamics, plus the PFI, demand the second
postulate.
> From the latter belief arises
> the notion that at velocities close to the fateful speed of light,
> clock retardation and length diminution occurs. General relativity
> extends special relativity and arrives at the strange conclusions that
> acceleration and gravity are identical,
Actually, no, it does not say that. From what comic book did you
extract that statement?
> that mass gives rise to a
> crooked space, and gravity is merely the ‘natural’ tendency of objects
> to follow these crooked paths.
Actually, no. In general relativity, objects that are not subject to
other forces follow *straight lines* through curved space. Get it
right, please.
> Thus special relativity (SR) is
> basically a conjecture about slow clocks and shrunken rulers and
> general relativity (GR) is a fancy idea about crooked space.
Well, basically, Newtonian mechanics is about force and acceleration,
too, but that doesn't really do it justice, does it?
> That
> both are meritless will be shown below...
>
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
> THE SQUARE PEG AND ROUND HOLE
>
> In layman’s terms, relativity is best summarized as the “square peg
> and round hole synthesis”. Let me start with an example. A trucker
> is driving south on his Volvo semi on interstate 55 at 55 miles an
> hour on the slow lane. A motorist is driving on the same segment on
> his Audi S5 at 55 miles an hour on the fast lane. According to the
> driver, the trucker appears stationary. According to the hitchhiker
> on the side of the road, both vehicles passed by at 55 miles an hour.
> We all know velocity is relative, and Newton codified this intuition
> into well defined laws of motion.
Well, no. What he did was to determine laws of motion (dynamics) which
have nothing to do with this observation above. But what is *also*
true is that those dynamical laws of motion are the same, whether
viewed from the frame of the truck, the Volvo, or the hitchhiker. This
statement was also made by Galileo a century before Newton. It turns
out that this has some remarkable implications.
> Along comes Maxwell who codifies
> the equations of electromagnetism, from which arises a constant
> number, which turns out to be the speed of light. Since velocity is
> relative, how does one reconcile the possibility of an absolute
> constant velocity against the well-known relativity of velocity?
What is this "well-known relativity of velocity" of which you speak?
> A
> normal mind would simply weigh which one is the deeper truth and ditch
> the other.
Actually, no, it would be a bad idea to just ditch one, as that is
ignoring a large body of scientific evidence. In science that is
considered a No-No. A Bad No-No.
> A schizophrenic would simply go against all preconceived
> notions and slide the square peg into the round hole.
I don't know why you think that a normal mind sticks with preconceived
notions and a schizophrenic is the one who abandons preconceived
notions.
> Magical
> thinking allows the square peg as it reaches the round hole to somehow
> mutate and accept each other.
It could well be a preconceived notion that the peg is square (because
many people up to this point have told you "The peg is square. The Peg
is Square. Square. Square peg. Don't forget it.")
>
> While all sorts of arguments can be made to fit a square peg into a
> round hole, in the orderly world of nature, such an action would
> inevitably result in contradictions, not just one, but many in fact.
> The whole business of physics for the last century has been trying to
> iron out these contradictions by creating more complicated minutiae to
> justify the original square peg as it ‘sits’ in the round hole…
>
Or that the peg is not as square as you once thought.
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
> PARADOX 1: THE TWIN FALLACY
>
> In the standard twin paradox, one twin travels to a distant place and
> returns. In both legs of the journey, the twin is travelling at speed
> v, and thus undergoes time dilation according to the Lorentz
> transformations equations (LTE) of SR.
Note that this has to be applied twice for the twin, because the
Lorentz transformation only applies between two frames, and there are
at least three inertial frames involved here: the Earth twin's frame,
the traveling twin's outbound frame, and the traveling twin's inbound
frame. This turns out to be extremely important.
> The primary independent
> variable in the LTE is velocity, such that only a zero relative
> velocity gives rise to zero time dilation. Any non-zero relative
> velocity gives rise to time dilation. However, from the standpoint of
> the travelling twin, the earth bound twin is moving at speed v on each
> leg of the journey, and therefore should also undergo an equal time
> dilation, such that in the final reunion no twin is younger than the
> other.
This is of course the question that the twin puzzle is specifically
aimed to elicit from beginning students, who think that time dilation
is the direct result of relative motion. The purpose of the puzzle is
to make it clear that this comic-book representation of what time
dilation means is not correct.
> Physics textbooks resolve the twin paradox simply be exempting
> the earth bound twin from the supposed universal law of time
> dilation.
Actually, no, they do not, though I understand that this is what YOU
think is going on.
> How can they do this? This is what is called an academe
> fast shuffle. The square peg is shaved by the professor to fit the
> round hole. The validity of relativity rests on this basic lie that
> the earth bound twin is exempt from time dilation.
No such lie is made.
As was stated before, the fact that there are at least three frames
involved makes an enormous difference. It is also true that the
traveling twin has discoverable evidence of shifting from one inertial
frame to another inertial frame, where the Earth twin has no such
discoverable evidence. This also turns out to make an enormous
difference.
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
> PARADOX 2: THE EPR FALLACY
>
> In the EPR paradox, two entangled particles travel to opposite
> directions. According to quantum mechanics (QM), if the spin of one
> particle is measured, then the spin of the other particle is
> automatically determined, no matter how far it is,
Yes.
> implying
> instantaneous transmission of information.
No. This is specifically what QM says does NOT happen. There is no
transmission of information at all, and that's the point.
Einstein found this aspect of QM puzzling because he believed in a
quite separate assumption called the principle of locality, which says
that two objects that are separated by a spacelike interval (that's a
jargon term in physics and it is important to understand specifically
what it means) can only be correlated by means of a signal
transmission from one to the other. And according to relativity, that
signal transmission can happen no faster than d/c, where d is the
distance between them. But quantum mechanics says that the principle
of locality is simply wrong. Since this extra principle is not part of
relativity, dropping it as an assumption in no way affects relativity.
And in fact, special relativity and quantum mechanics are quite
compatible without the extra baggage of the principle of locality (for
which there is no experimental evidence).
> We have another square peg
> (SR) versus round hole (QM) dilemma. This time, Einstein, Podolsky
> and Rosen argued uncharacteristically un-schizophrenically that one
> theory must be ditched, and we all know which theory they favored.
Actually, they said no such thing. What they said in this paper is
that their proposed experiment would be a clear test whether the
principle of locality is in fact correct, and so they left it up to
experiment to decide the matter. Experimenters Aspect et al. did in
fact design and execute this experiment, and found that the principle
of locality does not in fact work and that quantum mechanics (which
chucks the principle of locality) does work.
Unfortunately, that experiment was not completed until after
Einstein's death, so he never got the question he posed in the EPR
paper answered in his lifetime. However, this doesn't matter for
physics, which carries information and open questions forward from
generation to generation.
Not a good idea to must make stuff up, Strich9.
> QM
> was thus thought to be incomplete, if not wrong. This was later shown
> by Bell to be not the case. Bell showed that QM was a complete
> theory.
No, he did not. What he did was elaborate on the EPR paper to outline
exactly the quantitative predictions made by quantum mechanics and by
the principle of locality, where the original EPR paper fell short.
These predictions were the ones matched against the results of Aspect
et al.
> The superluminal transmission of information is a QM fact,
No, there is no superluminal transmission of information. QM says no
such communication is required for that correlation to be observed.
> and easily trumps the artificial luminal speed limit imposed by
> relativity. We are again at the square peg-round hole dilemma. The
> square peg is shaved by relabeling the information transmission with
> the vague term of entanglement.
>
Get it right, Strich9.
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
>
> According to relativity, space and time are merely partial aspects of
> a whole space-time interval. Each space-time interval has a space and
> a time segment, in much the same way as each line segment in 2-
> dimensional Cartesian coordinate system has an x and y component. We
> all know that keeping the segment fixed, a simple rotation of the
> Cartesian coordinate transforms the x and y coordinates into one
> another. The question is, can space and time be correspondingly
> transformed to one another? Relativity would have you believe that
> this is done all the time!
Yes, indeed.
> The relativist claims to fit the square
> peg into the round hole all the time—he just does it so fast you
> cannot see it.
Nonsense. What were you expecting? A machine with a conveyor belt in
and a conveyor belt out?
> Experimentally, there has never been any corroboration
> of space actually transforming to time or vice versa.
That's flat wrong. Time dilation is exactly an experimental
confirmation of this, and that is experimentally well documented.
> Space and time
> are not mutually inter-convertible, either by an actual physical
> experiment or by any known theoretical mechanism.
The physical experiments are many. The theoretical mechanism has
actually been explained to you already -- relative motion causes it.
You claim you do not understand how this is possible. The fact that
you do not understand it does not mean that there is no known
theoretical mechanism. The fact that you do not understand how meiosis
happens does not mean that meiosis does not happen or that there is no
known mechanism.
> The concept of a
> space-time continuum is pure fiction.
>
Strich.Nein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/90cd290f6ea96cea
I have had extensive discussions with PD in the past and I am very
familiar with his style of arguments. He displays three main annoying
patterns. First, he seems to have a memory problem, as he easily
forgets things he states which later contradict him, and worse, he
never remembers any previous points you make, and worse still, what he
claims to remember are not exactly the points I made. In this regard
he confabulates. I am tempted to invoke a Wernicke-Korsakoff
psychosis as his underlying problem.
His second problem is that he is a pathological liar. He will claim
things that he cannot substantiate, and hardly provides any references
to what he states. When he does provide the occasional reference, it
is usually an irrelevant one. Now a Wernicke-Korsakoff psychotic does
not really lie, he just does not know what the truth is. Perhaps this
is the same problem.
His third problem is that he is notoriously scatterbrained. He will
argue various points under the sun, and is prone to non-sequitur
diversions, pursuing endless points when he is being cornered in the
main discussion. In this regard, he may be described a weasel.
Now I will counter his arguments. To make it easier for everybody, we
will start with the EPR paradox. Thre are many good references in
this topic so it is easy to see who knows the subject and who is
telling the truth.
===================================================
Strich states:
In the EPR paradox, two entangled particles travel to opposite
directions. According to quantum mechanics (QM), if the spin of one
particle is measured, then the spin of the other particle is
automatically determined, no matter how far it is,
PD agrees with the definition:
Yes.
Strich continues:
implying instantaneous transmission of information.
PD lies:
No. This is specifically what QM says does NOT happen. There is no
transmission of information at all, and that's the point.
Strich states:
If PD wishes to propagate this lie, then he should provide us with a
respectable reference.
PD continues:
... according to relativity, that signal transmission can happen no
faster than d/c, where d is the
distance between them. But quantum mechanics says that the principle
of locality is simply wrong. Since this extra principle is not part of
relativity...
Strich points out:
Another lie. The principle of locality follows from the finite speed
of light. If the speed of light (or any information transmission)
were infinite, then the principle of locality is violated.
PD continued:
... dropping it as an assumption in no way affects relativity...
Strich points out:
Another lie. That the principle of locality is invalid similarly
invalidates relativity, much to the chagrin of relativists.
PD concludes from his lies that:
..and in fact, special relativity and quantum mechanics are quite
compatible without the extra baggage of the principle of locality...
Strich muses:
A lie following another lie. SR and QM are incompatible. SR implies
locality. QM dismisses locality. SR is incompatible with non-
locality, which is a principle of QM.
Finally, let us see PD lie once more. Here is a yes-no question...
Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
Thank you very much.
PD
> On Mar 4, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/90cd290f6ea...
>
> I have had extensive discussions with PD in the past and I am very
> familiar with his style of arguments. He displays three main annoying
> patterns. First, he seems to have a memory problem, as he easily
> forgets things he states which later contradict him,
Such as?
> and worse, he
> never remembers any previous points you make,
Oh, I remember them. They were wrong the first time you made them, and
they're still wrong now.
> and worse still, what he
> claims to remember are not exactly the points I made.
Ah, well, in this case, it would be good for you to remind me of
"exactly the points" you made, so that I'll have two things to mock.
> In this regard
> he confabulates. I am tempted to invoke a Wernicke-Korsakoff
> psychosis as his underlying problem.
>
> His second problem is that he is a pathological liar. He will claim
> things that he cannot substantiate,
Sure I can.
> and hardly provides any references
> to what he states.
"Can" and "will" are not necessarily coupled, despite your profound
desire to get me to jump through a hoop that you're holding up. The
hoop is held low enough for you to jump through yourself. I can point
in the direction through which you should pass.
> When he does provide the occasional reference, it
> is usually an irrelevant one.
Well, it does help to be able to understand what you're reading.
> Now a Wernicke-Korsakoff psychotic does
> not really lie, he just does not know what the truth is. Perhaps this
> is the same problem.
>
> His third problem is that he is notoriously scatterbrained. He will
> argue various points under the sun, and is prone to non-sequitur
> diversions, pursuing endless points when he is being cornered in the
> main discussion. In this regard, he may be described a weasel.
>
> Now I will counter his arguments. To make it easier for everybody, we
> will start with the EPR paradox. Thre are many good references in
> this topic
None of which you point to, I note.
> so it is easy to see who knows the subject and who is
> telling the truth.
>
> ===================================================
>
> Strich states:
> In the EPR paradox, two entangled particles travel to opposite
> directions. According to quantum mechanics (QM), if the spin of one
> particle is measured, then the spin of the other particle is
> automatically determined, no matter how far it is,
>
> PD agrees with the definition:
> Yes.
>
> Strich continues:
> implying instantaneous transmission of information.
>
> PD lies:
> No. This is specifically what QM says does NOT happen. There is no
> transmission of information at all, and that's the point.
>
> Strich states:
> If PD wishes to propagate this lie, then he should provide us with a
> respectable reference.
>
> PD continues:
> ... according to relativity, that signal transmission can happen no
> faster than d/c, where d is the
> distance between them. But quantum mechanics says that the principle
> of locality is simply wrong. Since this extra principle is not part of
> relativity...
>
> Strich points out:
> Another lie. The principle of locality follows from the finite speed
> of light. If the speed of light (or any information transmission)
> were infinite, then the principle of locality is violated.
This is not right.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1-nhz2Ek-X8C&pg=PA578&dq=Principle+of+locality+quantum&ei=6vmuSemKDKKIyATM5biQBQ
>
> PD continued:
> ... dropping it as an assumption in no way affects relativity...
>
> Strich points out:
> Another lie. That the principle of locality is invalid similarly
> invalidates relativity, much to the chagrin of relativists.
Sorry, but no.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lSoRzxFye-4C&pg=PA183&dq=Principle+of+locality+relativity&lr=&ei=FfuuSemjK5PqyQTt24CMCA
>
> PD concludes from his lies that:
> ..and in fact, special relativity and quantum mechanics are quite
> compatible without the extra baggage of the principle of locality...
>
> Strich muses:
> A lie following another lie. SR and QM are incompatible.
That's incorrect. The Dirac equation is an example of a driving
equation in a fully relativistic quantum theory. That one's been
around a while.
> SR implies
> locality.
Uh, no. That's a separate assumption. Reference for your contention
please.
> QM dismisses locality.
Yes.
> SR is incompatible with non-
> locality, which is a principle of QM.
No.
>
> Finally, let us see PD lie once more. Here is a yes-no question...
> Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
Already done my quotas of yes and no. Your turn to provide references.
>
> Thank you very much.
Sue...
> On Mar 4, 3:41 pm, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/90cd290f6ea...
>
> > I have had extensive discussions with PD in the past and I am very
> > familiar with his style of arguments. He displays three main annoying
> > patterns. First, he seems to have a memory problem, as he easily
> > forgets things he states which later contradict him,
>
> Such as?
Forgot already didn't ya?
Sue...
Sam Wormley
Perhaps you can refresh us Dennis.
Double-A
They had to make it up because they couldn't see it. Thus "dark".
Double-A
Androcles
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> wrote in message
news:eebb66d1-4473-4965...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Double-A
The correct spelling is "dork" matter, since it was invented by dorks.
Androcles.
Double-A
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message
I stand corrected.
Double-A
P.S. I thought you had me killfiled!
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Now a Wernicke-Korsakoff psychotic does
> not really lie, he just does not know what the truth is.
The information a person posesses is directly related to their
experiences and interests. Mental health has not been one of your
visible interests, so I think I can reasonably conclude that it is one
of your experiences.
Sounds like you've heard of this particular disorder quite a few times
before if you are mentioning it out of the blue like this. Have the
doctors applied it to you before, David?
[...]
Androcles
I stand corrected.
Double-A
====================================
Once a year or whenever I buy a new computer the
kill files are cleaned out. Spring cleaning, y'know.
Depending on the level of dorkness, some dorks are
immediately returned to a new file and others are given
a second chance to prove they can be sensible.
You were not among the immediate re-files as Dork
Van de merde, Y.our B.asic M.oron and a few others I've
already forgotten were. Henry/Henri/Harry/Hari/Hairy
Wilson has also been allowed back, you are not unique.
This does not mean you are exempt from kill-filing, but
your statement concerning dork matter raised you 20
points above the kill-file threshold and I congratulate
you on your insightful comprehension.
I dub thee sound of mind. Arise, Sir Double-A.
Go forth and preach truth. Do not go fifth, I may lose
all my beer money on you.
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
> PARADOX 3: CONSTANT LIGHT SPEED
>
> The speed of light comes up in Maxwell’s classical equations for
> electromagnetic phenomenon as a constant (C). This supposed constant
> arises from the two supposed constants of the permittivity and
> permeability of free space.
Well, measured constants, not supposed constants, but let's move on.
> The well-known notion of the constancy of
> the speed of light is but an assumption derived from two other
> assumptions.
That's correct.
> No unequivocal experimental confirmation that the speed
> of light is constant by all observers has ever been made.
Well, this obviously depends on what you mean by "unequivocal".
Science never proves anything. There is however quite a bit of
evidence that the speed of light is constant for all observers. For
one thing, the constancy of the two-way speed of light has been
measured for different observers and has been found to be the same, in
multiple conditions. For another, the isotropy of both the one-way and
the two-way speed of light has been measured for different observers
and has been found to be highly, highly isotropic, in multiple
conditions. With these two constraints alone, it is awfully hard to
imagine how the speed of light could be different for different
observers. Add to this the *additional* measurement of both wavelength
and frequency (by independent means) from a variety of sources and
observers in different states of motion, and the resulting product
always being numerically c, makes it even harder to imagine how the
speed of light could be different for different observers and still be
consistent with all these data.
> There are
> only two possibilities.
In your mind, perhaps. You tend to like to restrict discussions to two
possibilities that you are willing to entertain, when the reality is
something that falls into neither category. Your insistence that those
categories are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive is an
unsupported assertion on your part, which you attempt to buttress by
repetition alone.
> If light is particulate, then like all
> particles, without exception, its relative speed is dependent upon
> source and observer.
This is incorrect. That statement is only true for a subset of
particles, those that travel with v < c. The assertion that the
statement is true for all particles, period, because it is true for
the subset, is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as the assertion that
all mammals walk on four legs because there is a subset that does, and
that all other cases are obviously exceptions to the rule that all
mammals walk on four legs. A rule that applies to a subset is NOT
necessarily a rule for the set. Claiming that the rule is also good
for the set, except for certain exceptions in the set, is a specious
and empty argument.
> If light is wave-lie, then like all waves,
> without exception, its speed of propagation is constant with respect
> to the medium only, and not to observer or source.
The same problem here. It is NOT true that *all* waves have a speed of
propagation that is constant with respect to the medium. It is true
that *some* waves have a speed of propagation that is constant with
respect to the medium. A rule that applies to a subset is not a rule
that can be claimed for the set, aside from exceptions. Empty and
specious argument.
> Einstein,
> struggling with the fact that there is no medium for light such as the
> ether, mutated the second principle and came to the faulty idea that
> light speed is constant with respect to no medium, meaning it is
> constant… irregardless. This reasoning is interesting for its
> complete disregard for any logic. It is like saying that given only a
> square peg and a round hole, the two will have to fit… irregardless.
>
"Irregardless" is not a word that means what you intend. Did you mean
"regardless"?
Does the fact that you are trying to shoehorn ALL particles and ALL
waves, including square ones, into a round rule that only fits SOME
particles and SOME waves, have something to do with it?
PD
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
>
> The whole theory of relativity rests on the premise that space and
> time are relative, and attempts to dismiss the concept of an absolute
> space and time.
I'm not sure what you mean by the statement "space and time are
relative".
> Yet, at the so-called big bang when the universe
> started, this easily provides a starting point at which time=0.
Not so. You could read Hawking's comic book, if you like, in which he
patiently explains to poets and children that the Big Bang does not
necessarily mark t=0.
Moreover, even allowing a common t=0 does NOT mean that events after
t=0 will be labeled with a common value of t, regardless of reference
frame. A event X may have value t(X) = 1.82E12 s in one reference
frame and t'(X)=1.95E12 s in another reference frame, even if they
shared a common t(BB) = t'(BB) = 0 s. Absolute time requires that t(X)
= t'(X) for all events X.
> Since
> then time has moved forward and as far as we know has never stopped or
> slowed.
Well, we know it's certainly slower for frames in relative motion.
That's been measured.
> Also, there is the existence of the Cosmic Microwave
> Background Radiation (CMBR) which is visually similar to the random
> static in an un-tuned TV set.
Actually, it's not visually similar. It actually comprises several
percent of the static in an un-tuned TV set. But I can understand how
your comic book might get this fouled up.
> An object travelling at great
> velocities would observe the CMBR to be linear rather than random.
Word salad. You're using English words but randomly selected and
without collective meaning.
> In
> fact, measurements against the CMBR have allowed real physicists to
> determine that the absolute speed of the earth is around a few hundred
> kilometers per second.
>
No, they have not. I'd be curious what reference you've found that
says that the *absolute* speed of the Earth is around a few hundred
kilometers per second. Explicitly.
PD
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
>
> Einsteinian physics (EP) supposedly does not dispute classical
> Newtonian physics (NP).
No, that's not quite what's said. What's true is that within a certain
restricted domain of circumstances, and within a certain measurement
resolution, the results of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are
indistinguishable. This is akin to saying that if you squint, you
can't tell Jennifer Lopez and Eva Mendez apart.
> EP is supposed to be an extension of NP for
> the so-called relativistic domain, meaning for velocities close to the
> speed of light. It is often claimed that EP reduces to NP in non-
> relativistic cases.
Again, not quite correct. What is claimed is that EP reduces to NP in
non-relativistic cases, for a certain limited set of situations, and
within a certain measurement resolution.
> This is another fallacy. Inherent in Newtonian
> mechanics is the assumption that the speed of gravity is
> instantaneous, while inherent in Einsteinian mechanics is the
> assumption that the speed of gravity is no faster than light.
That is a true statement, and this is exactly an example of what is
really claimed. For non-relativistic speeds and situations, where the
speed of light is so high that it is effectively indistinguishable
from being infinite, then Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity
are identical. However, as soon as your measurement resolution is
sufficiently fine that you can measure the difference between an
infinite speed of light and a finite speed of light, then NP and EP
can be easily distinguished.
> This is
> a crucial fallacy that the late Dr. Van Flandern has clearly pointed
> out.
And Tom, rest his soul, was a bit of a flake on this score, despite
his achievements elsewhere. This is not unusual. You may remember a
Nobel Prize winner named Shockley that had odd ideas about eugenics.
> How can EP reduce to NP, when the former clearly calls for a
> different velocity of gravity than the latter? EP cannot reduce to NP
> as the core principles of the two are contradictory.
It helps to know what is really claimed, rather than what your comic
book tells you.
PD
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
> What is the evidence for relativity?
Well, first, let's distinguish "evidence" and "proof". Science
provides the former, not the latter.
> Relativity started with a post-
> hoc prediction of the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of
> Mercury (M1). It is obvious that when one is predicting a known fact,
> then the prediction will bear out (E1).
This is true. But getting a single model with an exceptionally small
number of free parameters (one, in fact), and a single field equation,
to correctly fit the precession of the perihelion of a number of
planets, is still a commendable trick. Combine that with the fact that
this same single field equation and the one free parameter can
accurately fit a wide assortment of other measured quantities, makes
it exceptionally powerful. It's easy to fit a wide variety of
phenomena with a repertoire of different mechanisms and a large number
of free parameters -- but doing it with one equation and one free
parameter is a much different accomplishment.
> Relativity then followed this
> dubious prediction with the bending of light (M2). This was falsely
> confirmed by measurements of light during a solar eclipse which later
> turned out to be inaccurate (E2).
But for which said accuracy was vastly improved in subsequent
measurements, still in agreement with the theory.
Note that ALL measurements have a certain amount of experimental
uncertainty, and there will NEVER be a case where an experiment is
provided with infinite precision to compare absolutely with an
infinitely precise theoretical prediction. If this is your only
qualifying certificate of scientific "proof", then I'm afraid that
science of any kind will never satisfy that qualification. If you
believe that ANY measurement that has an experimental uncertainty is
therefore suspect and therefore cannot be used as a believable test of
a theory, then again you will find science as a whole to be
unsatisfactory.
> Then a few atomic clocks were
> measured as they flew in jet planes and found to have a slight
> discrepancy attributed to so-called time dilation (M3). Only a few
> clocks and a few measurements were made such that this study does not
> survive a proper statistical analysis (E3).
Subsequent measurements by independent investigators have amply
expanded the data pool here.
> No repeat study was
> obviously done.
You mean, it's not obvious to you that the repeat study has been done?
This I certainly believe. Lots of straightforward facts that could be
easily researched by you if you had the desire, are not obvious to
you.
> The famous Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the
> existence of an ether. This is cited as evidence for relativity
> (M4). However, the MME is equally consistent with a ballistic/
> emission theory of light (E4).
Yes, this is true, as the ballistic theory of light does not involve
an ether. The MMX only distinguished some ether theories from non-
ether theories. It did not serve to distinguish relativity from *all
other theories*. To serve the latter purpose, one needs to look at the
entire body of experimental literature, and even that will only work
for theories proposed *so far*.
> The Hubble observed red shift of is
> also cited as evidence for relativity (M5). The red shift is easily
> accounted for by loss of energy (E5).
But a model that invokes a loss of energy also makes predictions
*other than* red shift. While it gets the red shift right, it gets
those other predictions wrong. This model, like relativity, is not
judged by success or failure against a single experiment. It is judged
by success or failure against the collective body of applicable
experiments.
> That red shift is proportional
> to distance all the more supports this explanation.
>
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
> PARADOX 9: THE FAILED EXPERIMENTS
>
> In view of all these so-called evidence which do not stand strong
> scientific merit, attempts were made to confirm relativity by properly
> designed experiments. The first major experiment
Well, no, this was neither the first experiment to test relativity,
nor the first major experiment to test relativity.
> was the LIGO (Laser
> Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) experiment. Since
> 2002, the LIGO has not detected a single gravitational wave.
Nor would you even expect LIGO to detect a gravitational wave for the
period when it has not achieved design sensitivity. LIGO did not
achieve design sensitivity until much later than 2002.
Nor would you expect LIGO to detect a gravitational wave during *any*
period during which sources of gravitational waves did not appear
inside the observational window. We don't have any unambiguous,
independent evidence that there have been any occurrences of sources
of gravitational waves inside the observational window. If there had
been, then failure to observe gravitational waves in the presence of
those sources, would pose a problem for relativity. That condition has
not been met.
> In short
> it is a negative study to date.
This is not the scientific definition of a "negative result". The
scientific definition of a negative result is a reliable measurement
by an experiment that is in clear *disagreement* with the predictions
of a theory. An unreliable measurement or a measurement that is
neither in agreement or disagreement with the theory is NOT taken by
scientists to be a negative result. I doubt seriously that your desire
that it should be so taken will be considered seriously.
> The second major experiment is the GP-
> B (Gravity Probe B) experiment. The study was supposed to detect
> frame-dragging and geodetic effects due to spare-time curvature. The
> study was negative, period.
The same comments apply here. But in fact, the measurements here are
better than LIGO's because the conditions that would imply the
expected outcome DID prevail, and the results DID agree with theory,
even if the experimental uncertainty was not as good as intended. If
the theory predicts a value of 23.5, and the measurement is 21.6 +/-
4.2, when the design sensitivity of the experiment was +/- 1.8, this
is still AGREEMENT between theory and experiment, not a negative
result.
> Like all negative experimental results,
> these were not officially published.
You gotta love conclusions based on what is NOT said.
> However, like all results of
> scientific studies, they need to be presented to the scientific
> community. This was done in the American Physical Society meeting on
> April 2007. Its principal investigator, Dr. Everitt, has published
> preliminary results of a post-hoc study in the June 7 2008 issue of
> the relatively quaint journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. This is
> not to be misinterpreted as the official results. Obviously, a
> billion dollar project such as the GPB does not officially publish its
> results in some obscure journal.
I'd be interested in what journal you think a billion dollar project
such as the GPB *should* publish its official results in, for you to
consider them believable. Time Magazine?
> Secondly, any statistician will
> easily tell you that this is a post-hoc study, which is not the same
> as the original study, and as such, all of its results are invalid,
> though they may be used to guide future research.
>
Strich.Nein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/575687631ef66807
As predicted, the poster weasels out of a simple yes/no question. The
truthful answer to the question is a simple NO.
It is thus clear why it becomes pointless to argue with PD, who
manifests the symptoms of Wernicke-Koraskoff psychosis. He
confabulates.
PD
> On Mar 4, 5:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/575687631ef...
>
> > On Mar 4, 3:41 pm, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Finally, let us see PD lie once more. Here is a yes-no question...
> > > Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
>
> > Already done my quotas of yes and no. Your turn to provide references.
I see you've failed to provide references for your claims, though you
stated that it was scurrilous to make claims in that fashion. Glad to
see you enjoy flaunting your scurrilousness.
Androcles
"Strich.Nein" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f50dc044-9a91-4219...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
============================================
He's another victim of a self-induced hypnosis. He is mentally
INCAPACITATED, he is DISABLED, he needs a special parking
space for his brain when he goes to sleep so the rest of us don't
trip over its training wheels and textbooks propping it up.
He CANNOT answer your questions any more than I can run on
my arthritic ankle, even with my walking cane. It is simply not
possible no matter how much I want to.
Unless you are a trained psychiatrist you cannot help him, and nor
does he want any THERAPY. Clearly you are not a therapist, you
are just taking the piss out of him.
Keep it up, I got bored with it.
PD
It is always pointless from the outset to argue with anyone on a
subject that you know nothing about, especially if the purpose of the
argument is simple to start and prolong an argument.
Nevertheless, there are several venues for pointless arguing, where
the participants enthusiastically and openly express their intention
in so doing. Try alt.philosophy.debate, rec.wrestling.verbal.sweaty,
or sci.pointless.muttering.
PD
>
> It is thus clear why it becomes pointless to argue with PD, who
> manifests the symptoms of Wernicke-Koraskoff psychosis. He
> confabulates.
Confabulates?
con⋅fab⋅u⋅late [kuhn-fab-yuh-leyt]
–verb (used without object), -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing.
1. to converse informally; chat.
2. Psychiatry. to engage in confabulation.
PD
> On Mar 4, 3:41 pm, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/90cd290f6ea...
>
> > I have had extensive discussions with PD in the past and I am very
> > familiar with his style of arguments. He displays three main annoying
> > patterns. First, he seems to have a memory problem, as he easily
> > forgets things he states which later contradict him,
>
> Such as?
>
Such as, Strich9?
Eric Gisse
Methinks he's picked up a few new mental health terms over his dignity
recovery break.
Paul B. Andersen
> As I correctly predicted, the counter-arguments ran the gamut of ad
> hominems.
Why is this ad hominem?
S T R I C H wrote:
> PARADOX 1: THE TWIN FALLACY
>
> In the standard twin paradox, one twin travels to a distant place and
> returns. In both legs of the journey, the twin is travelling at speed
> v, and thus undergoes time dilation according to the Lorentz
> transformations equations (LTE) of SR. The primary independent
> variable in the LTE is velocity, such that only a zero relative
> velocity gives rise to zero time dilation. Any non-zero relative
> velocity gives rise to time dilation. However, from the standpoint of
> the travelling twin, the earth bound twin is moving at speed v on each
> leg of the journey, and therefore should also undergo an equal time
> dilation, such that in the final reunion no twin is younger than the
> other. Physics textbooks resolve the twin paradox simply be exempting
> the earth bound twin from the supposed universal law of time
> dilation. How can they do this? This is what is called an academe
> fast shuffle. The square peg is shaved by the professor to fit the
> round hole. The validity of relativity rests on this basic lie that
> the earth bound twin is exempt from time dilation.
Here you can see what SR really predicts for the twin paradox:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
No tricks are made to "resolve" anything, this is strictly
according to the Lorentz transform.
The Lorentz transform can predict nothing else than what
is shown here, there are no ambiguities.
You can run it from both twins' point of view.
Is there a contradiction?
Is twin A "excluded from time dilation" as observed by B?
--
Paul
Double-A
Thanks.
Double-A
PD
> Relativity: Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole
>
> The Paradoxes of Relativity
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
> Who is David Strich? He is an individual with an IQ of 200
Most people in that range have their IQ verified and documented in a
searchable database. You?
> who is
> trying to correct the errors of physics.
Which errors are those?
In science, the errors of physics are found by reliable experimental
measurements that are in direct contradiction with the predictions of
physical models. Have you tried this approach? If so, which reliable
experimental measurements are you referring to?
> Not to equate himself with
> Galileo, but like the genius before him, any individual going against
> the orthodoxy, is bound to come against severe resistance.
However, note that severe resistance is not an indicator of genius.
After all, there is severe resistance also to Weekly World News
reporters, door-to-door salesmen, and homeless park-bench mutterers
who scream at passers-by.
> But truth
> is beauty and its appeal is timeless. Somebody might ask, what is a
> gifted individual with an IQ of 200 doing in usenet? Why, he could be
> helping the economic recovery team (actually, I’d be glad to help but
> nobody has asked for my help)!
Please go help them. There, someone has asked.
> In truth, he has approached physicists
> on this matter and the response has been consistent.
On what matter? You mean the matter of economic recovery? Or the
matter of explaining the things you find puzzling about relativity.
> No physicist has
> God like powers to explain away the flaws of relativity.
I don't think any physicist has ever claimed to have God-like powers
to explain relativity. Who do you know who has claimed otherwise?
Furthermore, no physicist is under any obligation to explain
relativity to the confused, anymore than a chemist is under any
obligation to explain hybrid orbitals to the confused, or anymore than
a plumber is obligated to explain the rationale for building codes.
Now, there may be a contractual, for-hire arrangement where the
confused hires the expert for a fee to demystify the subject matter.
This fee can be in the form of tuition, direct payment for services,
or other arrangement. To my knowledge, you have not embarked on that.
> While it is
> easy for a professor to gloss over the errors to unsuspecting college
> students, is harder to do this to somebody familar with the errors.
What errors did you have in mind? Keep in mind how science discovers
errors.
> The typical professor, when faced with the tough questions, suddenly
> become busy with their schedules, only to once more find time when the
> discussion moves to another matter.
Again, I don't think you realize that daring a professor to answer
tough questions is not likely to garner the response you may be hoping
for, because the dare does not constitute entitlement on your part,
and because you have not entered into the fee-based arrangement
wherein your tough questions would be entertained.
>
> I do not like to take full credit for the discovery of the errors of
> relativity.
As well you shouldn't. You are no different than the long line of
goofballs before you.
> Other Galileos before me have been disputing Einstein’s
> fantasies over the past years. Among them are Androcles, Kooblee W,
> Ken Seto, Henri W, Pentcho V, to name a few.
Yes, as I said, a long line of goofballs before you. Thank you for
clearly naming the cadre you identify with. I'm sure they'll be
delighted to include you in their ranks.
> I call them the modern
> Galileos or MGs for short. They may not agree on a replacement theory,
> but they all agree that relativity needs a replacement.
Note too that there were a number of Aristoteleans who persisted long
after the work of Galileo and Newton was shown to be remarkably
successful. Like you, they thought the new-fangled theories made no
logical sense and was full of obvious errors ("Things continuing in
motion forever without a force sustaining the motion? Horrors!"
"Gravity reaching through empty space to influence objects at a
distance? Horrors!").
> I do not even
> think a replacement is even necessary. QM is a good theory. It
> merely needs to be extended.
>
> And the RESPONSES...
>
> Now for the expected responses. There will probably be a lot of ad
> hominems from the so-called orthopdoxy.
Especially ad-hominems about your ability to spell.
> There is a demented chemist by
> the name of AL who labels anything he cannot understand or refute
> idiocy.
And he also labels a lot of things he does understand and can refute
idiocy. Note that labeling it idiocy is how he chooses to respond to
idiocy, as opposed to refuting idiocy, which is what you are unable to
manipulate him into doing.
> There is a queer children’s book writer known as PD who will
> reply with some strange reasoning;
I don't know why you find it strange. It's all perfectly sensible.
Perhaps you can ask some others whether they are having the same
difficulty understanding what I say that you have suffered.
> his triplets Doug and Dono will
> back him up with additional drivel. There is an overstaying college
> student named Eric who will lie about the things he does not know;
> take note of his statistical ignorance; apparently the basic
> statistics course he took as a first year student was so long ago that
> he has forgotten most of it; his twin Dirk will attempt diversion
> through his misquotes of past encounters.
Note that these alleged misquotes always come with a direct link to
the archived original post, so that it can be determined independently
whether the statement was misquoted or not.
> Then there are the other
> annoyances from across the Atlantic such as Miguel, YBM, and Anderson,
> and others too insignificant to mention.
I don't know why you find these people annoying. What's annoying about
them? The fact that you cannot manipulate them in arguments?
> Sometimes some low level
> academic pretends a counterargument, but as I and the other MGs can
> easily show, more often they are merely lying, not to the MGs directly
> since we can easily see through their deception, but more to the
> lurkers whom they think can still be influenced one way or the other.
What lies, specifically?
> They are all of the same constitution. They will lie, deny or
> bamboozle. And this is when they are thinking. When they get tired
> of this, which all too often happens right away, they will start to
> whine and throw a tantrum. Like children in a school-yard argument,
> they may attempt to invoke everything unrelated, in the process
> distorting past experiences to suit their points. Like a lynch mob,
> they will attempt to drown out the ideas of their opponents.
What drowning out? Have any of your posts been suppressed? You do
know, don't you, that any post you make here is done under the
explicit agreement to the charter which says they are all subject to
responses from all comers. If you do not like this agreement, you
could consider another venue where you can control the responses, such
as your own blog.
> They
> cannot tolerate being challenged, for they are unable to logically
> defend what they believe in.
Sure I can. But I don't guarantee that I can convince a table leg, a
sow, a bag of river rocks, or you.
> If only they had the power, they will
> excommunicate all those who think that Einstein and relativity are
> wrong.
Excommunicate from what? What affiliation do you desire to claim that
you are being excluded or ejected from?
> They operate on the belief that they are correct.
About the things for which we have substantial experimental evidence,
yes. About more interesting things on the cutting edge, not so much.
But relativity, at least at the level that you are wrestling with it,
is not controversial, except in the minds of the confused and the
belligerent.
> It is more
> logical that they operate on the premise that they cannot learn. I
> have seen these resident cranks in relativity over the past year so I
> have become familiar with their responses. Of course, in the rare
> exception where somebody does manage a coherent and logical rebuttal,
> I will only be too glad to engage in an intellectual argument.
I'm sorry, you seem to have confused the purpose of a physics group. I
don't know that it is a forum for "intellectual argument". Perhaps you
where looking for rec.debate.for.kicks or
alt.philosophy.solipsism.endless.repetitive.
> In the
> past I have sometimes engaged the ad hominems, but this needlessly
> lengthens the threads, and the intellectual arguments are lost amongst
> the mayhem.
WHAT intellectual arguments? Science isn't about intellectual
arguments. It's about which models agree with experimental
measurement.
> Since my whole point is to educate the budding astute
> minds, I will as much as possible defer from participating in the
> uneducated repartee.
Oh, you mean like this overblown, uneducated post you started the
thread with?
PD
PD
It's a little hard to post while strapped down.
Androcles
Thanks.
Double-A
=======================================
That's it? A miserable "Thanks"? No deeply felt sentiments
of eternal gratitude, unending praise and everlasting loyalty to
thy Lord and King?
Oh well... I'll have to take what I can get...
You're grudgingly welcome.
Strich.Nein
wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/20d500d8ef52c66a
> Here you can see what SR really predicts for the twin paradox:
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
Let me give a brief background on Paul A. He claims to be a physics
teacher somewhere in Norway. In my last notable encounter with him,
he inadvertently disproved relativity by stating that the motion of an
observer is distinguishable from the motion of the light source.
Unlike PD, I believe he does not suffer from any notable malady,
unless one would call being average a malady. Now with his cartoon,
he is attempting to show that the twin paradox is not paradoxical.
With all due respect to his efforts, his cartoons do not mean
anything.
Any physical theory has a logical structure and a mathematical
counterpart. The former is primary, the latter secondary. The latter
merely quantifies the effects predicted by the former. For example,
Newtonian mechanics states that acceleration is directly proportional
to force, and the mathematical equation is F=ma. Another example is
Darwinian evolution, which states that the fittest survives, and the
mathematical equations are too complex that it has not been accurately
derived.
In Special Relativity, time dilation is postulated to be
'proportional' to velocity, and the equation is the Lorentz
Transformation Equation: t'=gamma(t-vx/cc)
In the twin paradox, if the travelling twin has relative velocity v on
its departure leg, and relative velocity -v on its return leg, then,
from the standpoint of the stay at travelling twin, the stay at home
twin has relative velocity -v on the 'departure leg' and relative
velocity v on the return leg. Note that the same equation governs any
leg, and since the velocities for the stay at home twin and the
travelling twin are equal, then the LTE demands an equal time dilation
for both. Thus no twin is younger than the other on reunion. Note we
have ignored the brief u-turn, as this can be made comparatively small
simply by lengthening the length of the journey.
The so-called twin paradox that the travelling twin returns younger
can only be maintained by EXEMPTING the earth bound twin from the
equal time dilation that it is supposed to undergo as demanded by the
LTE. The LTE demands that any relative VELOCITY should result in time
DILATION. This is the part where Paul's comprehension will fail, and
he will insist that his cartoon reflects reality. But as we have
shown, the reality is an equal time dilation for both twins.
Androcles
On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@somewhere.no>
wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/20d500d8ef52c66a
> Here you can see what SR really predicts for the twin paradox:
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
Let me give a brief background on Paul A. He claims to be a physics
teacher somewhere in Norway.
==========================================
HIA, Kristiansand, Agder. An ASSistant prof., he helps the disabled
students get their wheelchairs into the lecture halls.
http://www.norway.com/directories/d_company.asp?id=17007
Nice picture. You can just see the outhouse in the back.
Not sure about the translation of "Hogskolen"... "Pig school", perhaps.
==========================================
G=EMC^2 Glazier
does not create a squre peg. Round is in. round is symmetrical,and
gravity can never create a square planet. A square electron,or photon
TreBert
PD
> On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@somewhere.no>
>
> > Here you can see what SR really predicts for the twin paradox:
> >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
>
> Let me give a brief background on Paul A. He claims to be a physics
> teacher somewhere in Norway. In my last notable encounter with him,
> he inadvertently disproved relativity by stating that the motion of an
> observer is distinguishable from the motion of the light source.
I'm curious first of all about the statement you allege he made.
Reference please.
Secondly, I'm curious why you think such a statement would disprove
relativity.
Thirdly, I'm curious why this statement would constitute an ad
hominem.
> Unlike PD, I believe he does not suffer from any notable malady,
> unless one would call being average a malady. Now with his cartoon,
> he is attempting to show that the twin paradox is not paradoxical.
> With all due respect to his efforts, his cartoons do not mean
> anything.
Does this mean that they do not mean anything TO YOU because they
don't make things any clearer TO YOU?
>
> Any physical theory has a logical structure and a mathematical
> counterpart. The former is primary, the latter secondary. The latter
> merely quantifies the effects predicted by the former. For example,
> Newtonian mechanics states that acceleration is directly proportional
> to force, and the mathematical equation is F=ma.
I'm sorry, those are both the same thing, one said in words and the
other said in algebraic shorthand. Is it your contention that saying
it words is a logical structure and saying it in algebraic shorthand
is the mathematical counterpart?
> Another example is
> Darwinian evolution, which states that the fittest survives,
Well, actually, no, that's not what Darwinian evolution says, but
let's move on.
> and the
> mathematical equations are too complex that it has not been accurately
> derived.
>
> In Special Relativity, time dilation is postulated to be
> 'proportional' to velocity, and the equation is the Lorentz
> Transformation Equation: t'=gamma(t-vx/cc)
Actually, you'll note that since gamma is shorthand for an expression
involving v, then time dilation is not proportional to v.
Let me explain it to you this way. Suppose y = 2x^(3/2). Now clearly y
is not proportional to x. But if I use a shorthand to call c = 2x^
(1/2), then y = cx. Does this mean that y is now proportional to x?
>
> In the twin paradox, if the travelling twin has relative velocity v on
> its departure leg, and relative velocity -v on its return leg, then,
> from the standpoint of the stay at travelling twin, the stay at home
> twin has relative velocity -v on the 'departure leg' and relative
> velocity v on the return leg.
Yes, indeed. However, note that they still have differently shaped
world lines if drawn from ANY single inertial reference frame. (There
are three here you can pick from, for example.) The earth twin's world
line is straighter than the traveling twin's world line, in every
case. the straightness of the world line has everything to do with
time dilation.
> Note that the same equation governs any
> leg, and since the velocities for the stay at home twin and the
> travelling twin are equal, then the LTE demands an equal time dilation
> for both.
No it does not, and this is your difficulty. You believe that the
total time dilation effect is simply the sum of the dilated times for
the two legs the traveling twin makes. This stems from the novice
perception by comic-book-reading amateurs that time dilation is due
to, and solely to, the relative motion. This in term stems from not
being able to properly use the Lorentz transformation equations. There
is much in the way of these addled preconceptions that this puzzle is
designed to ferret out, much as you've replicated the addled
preconceptions that the very first people who viewed the puzzle a
century ago had. The difference is, those people said to their paid
instructors, "Well, if that's not right, what IS the right way to look
at time dilation?" whereas you've taken the approach, "Well, since
*I'm* mystified and I've declared myself too smart to be mystified,
there must be something wrong with it. Can't be me."
> Thus no twin is younger than the other on reunion. Note we
> have ignored the brief u-turn, as this can be made comparatively small
> simply by lengthening the length of the journey.
Note that brevity of the turn-around does not alter the magnitude of
its effect on the relative clock readings, only the swiftness of its
onset. This may come as a surprise to you.
>
> The so-called twin paradox that the travelling twin returns younger
> can only be maintained by EXEMPTING the earth bound twin from the
> equal time dilation that it is supposed to undergo as demanded by the
> LTE.
Not at all. Since you are unwilling to entertain other ideas, then
this is the only option left to you. This is common among those who
cannot stand to not understand something, and their immediate
conclusion is that it's a trick or a scam or sleight of hand. There is
no trick. There is only the stuff that you do not yet understand,
which you have denied the existence of.
> The LTE demands that any relative VELOCITY should result in time
> DILATION.
No, this is not correct and it is NOT what the Lorentz transform says.
It is helpful to actually run an explicit example using concrete
numbers for the coordinates of events, which is what those variables
in the Lorentz transform actually are.
Now, in the past, you've been unwilling to plug numbers into
equations, on the off chance that you'll make a numerical mistake and
feel like a fool for having made a mistake. And so you make assertions
like the incorrect one above as a mechanism for avoiding having to
plug numbers into equations. Rest assured this is not a better plan.
> This is the part where Paul's comprehension will fail, and
> he will insist that his cartoon reflects reality. But as we have
> shown, the reality is an equal time dilation for both twins.
I'm sorry, the original question was about the ad hominems that you
said were being leveled against you, but you haven't cited any. Are
you fond of making statements, and then when you are asked
specifically about your statements, avoiding the question?
BradGuth
> On Mar 4, 5:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/575687631ef...
>
> > On Mar 4, 3:41 pm, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Finally, let us see PD lie once more. Here is a yes-no question...
> > > Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
>
> > Already done my quotas of yes and no. Your turn to provide references.
>
> As predicted, the poster weasels out of a simple yes/no question. The
> truthful answer to the question is a simple NO.
>
> It is thus clear why it becomes pointless to argue with PD, who
> manifests the symptoms of Wernicke-Koraskoff psychosis. He
> confabulates.
Their confabulating must go nicely with their obfuscation.
~ BG
PD
Yes, I know that in your mind, the unwillingness of physicists to make
special relativity ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to you, for free and at your
command, qualifies them as Nazi Zionists or Communist Capitalists or
something.
After all, that's why you come to the newsgroup, right? To get this
all straightened out for you, because it makes no sense? And because
it should all be available for free on the internet, true information
always being free, right? And where else to go but a free place on the
internet where experts sometimes visit, right? If you dare them to in
just the right way, they'll have no choice but to rise to the
challenge and spoon-feed you this information, right? And if they
don't, then they're Nazi Zionists bent on restricting information and
keeping you in the dark and deluding the masses and making sure that
everyone is confused, homeless and jobless, right?
PD
BradGuth
> On Mar 5, 5:11 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 11:45 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 5:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/575687631ef...
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 3:41 pm, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Finally, let us see PD lie once more. Here is a yes-no question...
> > > > > Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
>
> > > > Already done my quotas of yes and no. Your turn to provide references.
>
> > > As predicted, the poster weasels out of a simple yes/no question. The
> > > truthful answer to the question is a simple NO.
>
> > > It is thus clear why it becomes pointless to argue with PD, who
> > > manifests the symptoms of Wernicke-Koraskoff psychosis. He
> > > confabulates.
>
> > Their confabulating must go nicely with their obfuscation.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Yes, I know that in your mind, the unwillingness of physicists to make
> special relativity ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to you, for free and at your
> command, qualifies them as Nazi Zionists or Communist Capitalists or
> something.
It's not just about little old me.
>
> After all, that's why you come to the newsgroup, right? To get this
> all straightened out for you, because it makes no sense? And because
> it should all be available for free on the internet, true information
> always being free, right? And where else to go but a free place on the
> internet where experts sometimes visit, right? If you dare them to in
> just the right way, they'll have no choice but to rise to the
> challenge and spoon-feed you this information, right? And if they
> don't, then they're Nazi Zionists bent on restricting information and
> keeping you in the dark and deluding the masses and making sure that
> everyone is confused, homeless and jobless, right?
>
> PD
Special relativity is a theory, not an objective proven matter of fact
(aka GP-B).
If I were a Zionist Nazi I'd have a darn good public funded job with
benefits, that doesn't hardly require anything of myself. You know,
just like yourself.
~ BG
PD
> On Mar 5, 3:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 5:11 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 5, 11:45 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 5:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/575687631ef...
>
> > > > > On Mar 4, 3:41 pm, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Finally, let us see PD lie once more. Here is a yes-no question...
> > > > > > Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
>
> > > > > Already done my quotas of yes and no. Your turn to provide references.
>
> > > > As predicted, the poster weasels out of a simple yes/no question. The
> > > > truthful answer to the question is a simple NO.
>
> > > > It is thus clear why it becomes pointless to argue with PD, who
> > > > manifests the symptoms of Wernicke-Koraskoff psychosis. He
> > > > confabulates.
>
> > > Their confabulating must go nicely with their obfuscation.
>
> > > ~ BG
>
> > Yes, I know that in your mind, the unwillingness of physicists to make
> > special relativity ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to you, for free and at your
> > command, qualifies them as Nazi Zionists or Communist Capitalists or
> > something.
>
> It's not just about little old me.
And what I said applies to anyone.
>
>
>
> > After all, that's why you come to the newsgroup, right? To get this
> > all straightened out for you, because it makes no sense? And because
> > it should all be available for free on the internet, true information
> > always being free, right? And where else to go but a free place on the
> > internet where experts sometimes visit, right? If you dare them to in
> > just the right way, they'll have no choice but to rise to the
> > challenge and spoon-feed you this information, right? And if they
> > don't, then they're Nazi Zionists bent on restricting information and
> > keeping you in the dark and deluding the masses and making sure that
> > everyone is confused, homeless and jobless, right?
>
> > PD
>
> Special relativity is a theory, not an objective proven matter of fact
> (aka GP-B).
As is the case with *all* scientific theories.
>
> If I were a Zionist Nazi I'd have a darn good public funded job with
> benefits, that doesn't hardly require anything of myself. You know,
> just like yourself.
My job is not publicly funded. Don't know where you got the impression
it was.
>
> ~ BG
Strich.Nein
http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2f44f51ab26d75f3
PD's symptoms of Wernicke-Korsakoff psychosis is getting more classic
with each post. Here are three examples. There are many more.
Example 1:
Strich: Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
PD: Already done my quotas of yes and no.
That would make this strike ONE.
The answer is an obvious NO and PD's avoidance is easily construed as
a deception.
--------------------------------
Example 2:
Strich: The LTE demands that any relative VELOCITY should result in
time DILATION.
PD: No, this is not correct and it is NOT what the Lorentz transform
says.
That would make this strike TWO.
A quick inspection of the LTE...
t'=gamma(t-vx/cc)
gamma=sqrt(1-vv/cc)
...shows that for a relative velocity v=0, t'=t and time dilation is
ZERO. For any other non-zero value of v, t'<t. Thus PD lies again.
--------------------------------
Strich: As I correctly predicted, the counter-arguments ran the gamut
of ad
hominems.
PD: I'm sorry, the original question was about the ad hominems that
you
said were being leveled against you, but you haven't cited any.
PD: (Just a few lines earlier) The same phenomenon that allows women
to forget the tortuous pain of childbirth and do it again is at work
with Strich.
That would make it strike THREE.
Unless Einstein is a grand-daughter of Christ, I don't see any
relevance of the comment on childbirth to relativity. PD's comment is
an ad-hominem which he seems to either have forgotten or is lying
about.
--------------------------------
Strich: Note we have ignored the brief u-turn, as this can be made
comparatively small simply by lengthening the length of the journey.
PD: Note that brevity of the turn-around does not alter the magnitude
of
its effect on the relative clock readings, only the swiftness of its
onset.
That would make it strike FOUR. PD would have us believe that the
travelling twin's u-turn of, let us say of one hour, would cancel 50
years worth of accumulated time dilation effect of the stay at home
twin. As I have siad earlier, relativity masks the validity of the so-
called twin paradox by exempting the stay-at-home twin from time
dilation, and this is precisely the false reasoning that is employed.
Note that the u-turn is too brief to reverse the accumulated time
dilation, and second, the u-turn is governed by general relativity,
not special relativity. Thus special relativity is unable to offer
any reason for the exemption of the stay at home twin from time
dilation, and the general relativity explanation is too small to
explain the total difference anyway.
--------------------------------
As I said, there are many more. But as in baseball, we only need
three strikes. Otherwise the dull players would want to play
forever. As it is, I already gave PD a handicap and allowed four
strike outs. He is advised to play in a smaller league, or play in a
different sport altogether, maybe cricket, where game fixing would be
to more to his liking. The next relativist can step up to the plate.
*plonk*
PD
> On Mar 5, 5:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2f44f51ab...
>
> PD's symptoms of Wernicke-Korsakoff psychosis is getting more classic
> with each post. Here are three examples. There are many more.
>
> Example 1:
> Strich: Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
> PD: Already done my quotas of yes and no.
>
> That would make this strike ONE.
> The answer is an obvious NO and PD's avoidance is easily construed as
> a deception.
I don't think so. Declining to answer a stupid question is not a
deception. It is a judgment on the value of the question and the lack
of interest in devoting attention to answering, however.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Example 2:
> Strich: The LTE demands that any relative VELOCITY should result in
> time DILATION.
> PD: No, this is not correct and it is NOT what the Lorentz transform
> says.
>
> That would make this strike TWO.
> A quick inspection of the LTE...
> t'=gamma(t-vx/cc)
> gamma=sqrt(1-vv/cc)
> ...shows that for a relative velocity v=0, t'=t and time dilation is
> ZERO. For any other non-zero value of v, t'<t. Thus PD lies again.
This is still wrong. For a non-zero value of v, t' is not necessarily
larger than t. I invited you to go through the exercise of
substituting numbers into these transforms so that you could
explicitly see how they worked. This you declined to do. I suppose I
should take this as a deception on your part.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Strich: As I correctly predicted, the counter-arguments ran the gamut
> of ad
> hominems.
> PD: I'm sorry, the original question was about the ad hominems that
> you
> said were being leveled against you, but you haven't cited any.
> PD: (Just a few lines earlier) The same phenomenon that allows women
> to forget the tortuous pain of childbirth and do it again is at work
> with Strich.
Yes, is that an ad hominem?
And is it of the same character as "symptoms of Wernicke-Korsakoff
psychosis"?
>
> That would make it strike THREE.
> Unless Einstein is a grand-daughter of Christ, I don't see any
> relevance of the comment on childbirth to relativity.
Ah, so now you seem to be confusing "ad-hominem" with "irrelevancy".
> PD's comment is
> an ad-hominem which he seems to either have forgotten or is lying
> about.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Strich: Note we have ignored the brief u-turn, as this can be made
> comparatively small simply by lengthening the length of the journey.
> PD: Note that brevity of the turn-around does not alter the magnitude
> of
> its effect on the relative clock readings, only the swiftness of its
> onset.
>
> That would make it strike FOUR. PD would have us believe that the
> travelling twin's u-turn of, let us say of one hour, would cancel 50
> years worth of accumulated time dilation effect of the stay at home
> twin.
Yes, indeed. And in fact, if you will look at something other than
your comic-book exposure to special relativity and the twin puzzle,
you will see this explicitly discussed.
> As I have siad earlier, relativity masks the validity of the so-
> called twin paradox by exempting the stay-at-home twin from time
> dilation, and this is precisely the false reasoning that is employed.
I'm sorry, this is STILL wrong. The fact that you find alternatives to
be incredulous is not really relevant.
> Note that the u-turn is too brief to reverse the accumulated time
> dilation,
The duration doesn't change its ability to reverse the accumulated
time dilation. It just makes the reversal more swift. It helps to
actually do the calculation to show that this is so, rather than just
guessing as you've done.
> and second, the u-turn is governed by general relativity,
> not special relativity.
No, that's not right either. Special relativity is certainly capable
of handling the u-turn.
> Thus special relativity is unable to offer
> any reason for the exemption of the stay at home twin from time
> dilation, and the general relativity explanation is too small to
> explain the total difference anyway.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> As I said, there are many more. But as in baseball, we only need
> three strikes.
Who is "we"? Is this a multiple-personality thing?
> Otherwise the dull players would want to play
> forever. As it is, I already gave PD a handicap and allowed four
> strike outs. He is advised to play in a smaller league, or play in a
> different sport altogether, maybe cricket, where game fixing would be
> to more to his liking. The next relativist can step up to the plate.
>
> *plonk*
Ah, so you invite me to find another venue and then YOU step away from
the engagement. That's fine. Thanks for playing.
This time the realization of what you're doing to your own dignity
seems to have come a lot more quickly. Note that spaceman was able to
come to this realization a lot earlier than you and found something
more suited to his interests and talents quite a while ago.
PD
BradGuth
It's getting a whole lot tougher to image those not receiving some
kind of public assistance. Indirectly funded from private sources
usually isn't without some kind of state or federal connections.
Individually private funded research is hard to imagine your not
having been public educated and/or having been employed by way of
something involving state or federal, so that you could afford to
accomplish your private research.
It's harder yet to image entirely private funded physics or science
getting mainstream accepted, and as such published into textbooks and
journals of required reading. If Usenet is any example, the
mainstream status quo is clearly out to nail anyone rocking their
boat. (revisionism simply is not allowed)
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Mar 5, 5:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2f44f51ab...
>
> PD's symptoms of Wernicke-Korsakoff psychosis is getting more classic
> with each post. Here are three examples. There are many more.
>
> Example 1:
> Strich: Is SR a non-local theory, YES or NO?
> PD: Already done my quotas of yes and no.
>
> That would make this strike ONE.
> The answer is an obvious NO and PD's avoidance is easily construed as
> a deception.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Strich: The LTE demands that any relative VELOCITY should result in
> time DILATION.
> PD: No, this is not correct and it is NOT what the Lorentz transform
> says.
>
> That would make this strike TWO.
> A quick inspection of the LTE...
> t'=gamma(t-vx/cc)
> gamma=sqrt(1-vv/cc)
> ...shows that for a relative velocity v=0, t'=t and time dilation is
> ZERO. For any other non-zero value of v, t'<t. Thus PD lies again.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> of ad
> hominems.
> PD: I'm sorry, the original question was about the ad hominems that
> you
> said were being leveled against you, but you haven't cited any.
> PD: (Just a few lines earlier) The same phenomenon that allows women
> to forget the tortuous pain of childbirth and do it again is at work
> with Strich.
>
> That would make it strike THREE.
> Unless Einstein is a grand-daughter of Christ, I don't see any
> relevance of the comment on childbirth to relativity. PD's comment is
> an ad-hominem which he seems to either have forgotten or is lying
> about.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> comparatively small simply by lengthening the length of the journey.
> PD: Note that brevity of the turn-around does not alter the magnitude
> of
> its effect on the relative clock readings, only the swiftness of its
> onset.
>
> That would make it strike FOUR. PD would have us believe that the
> travelling twin's u-turn of, let us say of one hour, would cancel 50
> years worth of accumulated time dilation effect of the stay at home
> twin. As I have siad earlier, relativity masks the validity of the so-
> called twin paradox by exempting the stay-at-home twin from time
> dilation, and this is precisely the false reasoning that is employed.
> Note that the u-turn is too brief to reverse the accumulated time
> dilation, and second, the u-turn is governed by general relativity,
> not special relativity. Thus special relativity is unable to offer
> any reason for the exemption of the stay at home twin from time
> dilation, and the general relativity explanation is too small to
> explain the total difference anyway.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> three strikes. Otherwise the dull players would want to play
> forever. As it is, I already gave PD a handicap and allowed four
> strike outs. He is advised to play in a smaller league, or play in a
> different sport altogether, maybe cricket, where game fixing would be
> to more to his liking. The next relativist can step up to the plate.
>
> *plonk*
PD is simply stuck in his wishful thinking mode, and even I have my
fair share of days like that. Perhaps three strikes and you're out is
a bit too hard on those bent upon polishing all things Einstein.
~ BD
Strich.Nein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/39b47a50c8393cde
Brad, you have a strong point there. Many so-called private
donations, unless philanthropically given, are tax-deductible. These
donations result in less tax revenue by the government that could be
used for other programs. Furthermore, many of these recipients are
tax-exempt themselves, further reducing the taxes collected.
Therefore, so-called private donations to private institutions end up
being subsidized by the public at large at both ends--at the giving
end and at the receiving end. President Obama hit the nail in the
head by restricting tax exemption of donations, and he may go further
by restricting tax exempt status for many of these institutions.
Going back to relativity, it is interesting that the similar exemption
from the rules of time dilation leads to an asymmetric distribution of
time dilation resources.
PD
Oh, I was publicly educated. But I paid tuition for that. Education is
still a publicly funded exercise, at least in part. Does that make it
distasteful? Did you go to elementary school? What about high school?
>
> It's harder yet to image entirely private funded physics or science
> getting mainstream accepted, and as such published into textbooks and
> journals of required reading.
Proprietary work does not need to make it into journals. You are
assuming that "mainstream acceptance" means the way that academics are
judged. In fact, a lot of mainstream work now that is being funded by
the government is being marked "Not for Export", which means it will
not make it into published journals or textbooks, so that this
knowledge does not leak out of the US.
> If Usenet is any example, the
> mainstream status quo is clearly out to nail anyone rocking their
> boat. (revisionism simply is not allowed)
The Usenet is IN NO WAY representative of the culture of the physics
community.
PD
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@somewhere.no>
> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/20d500d8ef52c66a
>> Here you can see what SR really predicts for the twin paradox:
>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
>
> Let me give a brief background on Paul A. He claims to be a physics
> teacher somewhere in Norway. In my last notable encounter with him,
> he inadvertently disproved relativity by stating that the motion of an
> observer is distinguishable from the motion of the light source.
Thanks.
This give me an opportunity to pick up the thread
where you chickened out from our 'last encounter'.
This is what I stated in our 'last encounter':
Strich claims that the relative velocity between the Earth
and the star should affect the stellar aberration we observe
from the Earth.
This is indeed a move worthy of an ultra-smart anti-relativist. :-)
Because:
We observe that the light from both the stars in a spectroscopic
binary come from the same direction, even if the two stars move at high
velocities in opposite directions. The velocity difference between
the stars can be up to 600 km/s, 20 times higher than the orbital
velocity of the Earth. The difference in the velocities
of the stars relative to the Earth will obviously be the same.
It is thus a fact that the velocity of the star relative to
the Earth doesn't affect the direction in which we see the star,
and there is no aberration of the light from the star due to
the velocity of the star relative to the Earth.
So it is an experimentally proven fact that the velocity of the star
relative to the Earth contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
Stellar aberration depend _only_ on the _change_ of the velocity
of the observer. That's why the semi-major axis in the ellipse
the star appears to move along _always_ is v/c radians = 20.5",
were v is the orbital velocity of the Earth.
You have yet again made a fool of yourself by claiming what
is experimentally proven to be wrong.
I repeat my challenge from our 'last encounter':
Do you dare to yet again repeat your claim?
===========================================
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
[..]
Bach to the 'twin paradox':
It is obvious that you haven't run my simulation.
So for your benefit, I have ran it for you and made
two screen shots where we see the same scenario
from both twin's point of view.
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/images/TwinAview.jpg
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/images/TwinBview.jpg
> In Special Relativity, time dilation is postulated to be
> 'proportional' to velocity, and the equation is the Lorentz
> Transformation Equation: t'=gamma(t-vx/cc)
> In the twin paradox, if the travelling twin has relative velocity v on
> its departure leg, and relative velocity -v on its return leg, then,
> from the standpoint of the stay at travelling twin, the stay at home
> twin has relative velocity -v on the 'departure leg' and relative
> velocity v on the return leg. Note that the same equation governs any
> leg, and since the velocities for the stay at home twin and the
> travelling twin are equal, then the LTE demands an equal time dilation
> for both.
Quite right.
As long as both twin's are stationary in (different) inertial frames
then the LTE demands an equal time dilation for both.
This is clearly shown in the screen shots above.
While the rocket is not burning:
TwinAview shows that the rate of B's clock observed by A dtB/dtA = (1-0.17)
TwinBview shows that the rate of A's clock observed by B dtA/dtB = (1-0.17)
The 'other' clock is running slow. Symmetric, mutual time dilation!
> Thus no twin is younger than the other on reunion. Note we
> have ignored the brief u-turn, as this can be made comparatively small
> simply by lengthening the length of the journey.
And that is your gross error, you have ignored the u-turn.
In my simulation, there is no physically impossible abrupt change of speed,
the consequences of which you can wave off by statements like yours above.
There is a very realistic acceleration of 1 c per year - approximately 1g -
which lasts for approximately 1.3 years.
So what does the LT say twin B will observe while he is accelerating,
that is when he is stationary _in an accelerated frame_?
If we consider the event when B is instantly at rest relative to A,
we can by differentiation of the LTE find that:
dtA/dtB = (1 + a*d/c^2)
where a is B's acceleration and d is the distance between A and B.
Inserting the concrete numbers in our scenario:
d = 10 ly, a = 1 ly/y^2, c = 1 ly/y yields:
dtA/dtB = (1 + 10) = 11, that is as seen from B, A's clock
runs 11 times faster than his own clock.
Look at TwinBview, and you will see that's what the simulation
show.
Note that this is strictly according to the LTE.
You don't have to guess (and guess horribly wrong - like you did)
what the LTE predicts will happen when B turns around - you can
calculate it and get it right.
(Well - some of us can calculate it, even if you can't)
> The so-called twin paradox that the travelling twin returns younger
> can only be maintained by EXEMPTING the earth bound twin from the
> equal time dilation that it is supposed to undergo as demanded by the
> LTE. The LTE demands that any relative VELOCITY should result in time
> DILATION. This is the part where Paul's comprehension will fail, and
> he will insist that his cartoon reflects reality. But as we have
> shown, the reality is an equal time dilation for both twins.
There is indeed a completely symmetric, mutual time dilation while
both twins are inertial. How did you miss that?
But your naive guess that the Lorentz transform predicts that
B's acceleration is without consequences for his observations
of clock A, is plain wrong.
My simulation shows what the LTE _actually_ predicts.
No naive guesses.
You can have whatever opinion you wish about whether or not
the LT reflects reality.
(Even if all experimental evidence to date indicate that it does.)
But you cannot refute that the LTE predicts exactly what
is shown in my simulation.
You should try it. You can see the impact of variation of
the duration and strength of the acceleration.
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mar 5, 3:40 pm, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/20d500d8ef5...
>>
>>> Here you can see what SR really predicts for the twin paradox:
>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
>> Let me give a brief background on Paul A. He claims to be a physics
>> teacher somewhere in Norway. In my last notable encounter with him,
>> he inadvertently disproved relativity by stating that the motion of an
>> observer is distinguishable from the motion of the light source.
>
> I'm curious first of all about the statement you allege he made.
> Reference please.
> Secondly, I'm curious why you think such a statement would disprove
> relativity.
Of course I never stated that.
See my response to Strich to see what I did state.
--
Paul
BradGuth
>
> Oh, I was publicly educated. But I paid tuition for that. Education is
> still a publicly funded exercise, at least in part. Does that make it
> distasteful? Did you go to elementary school? What about high school?
That's my point. Few of us are without our having been publicly
funded.
>
> > It's harder yet to image entirely private funded physics or science
> > getting mainstream accepted, and as such published into textbooks and
> > journals of required reading.
>
> Proprietary work does not need to make it into journals. You are
> assuming that "mainstream acceptance" means the way that academics are
> judged. In fact, a lot of mainstream work now that is being funded by
> the government is being marked "Not for Export", which means it will
> not make it into published journals or textbooks, so that this
> knowledge does not leak out of the US.
Correct, like how we'd managed to walk on our moon without getting so
much as a scratch or any traumatized DNA, whereas without having to
give away secrets is still taboo/nondisclosure rated. Those DARPA
conditional laws of physics and their rad-hard DNA must have been
rather special.
>
> > If Usenet is any example, the
> > mainstream status quo is clearly out to nail anyone rocking their
> > boat. (revisionism simply is not allowed)
>
> The Usenet is IN NO WAY representative of the culture of the physics
> community.
>
> PD
You can't fool me. The brown-nosed clowns of mainstream physics and
science is 99.9% of Usenet.
~ BG
S T R I C H
wrote:
http://groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/944be57fc21e62af
Paul's ignorance is so gigantic that sometimes it becomes scary.
Paul states that stellar aberration is due to the motion of the earth,
but not the star. In that statement, Paul is claiming that the motion
of the star is distinguishable from the motion of the earth, in clear
violation of the principle of relativity. He does not deny his
statement, but he does deny its implication. Another Einsteinian
paradox right there.
What is an Einsteinian paradox? It is simply an a dead-end
conlusion. One makes a conclusion or statement, but does not proceed
further, and denies the existence of any of its implications, for the
simple reason that the latter are obviously wrong. Thus Paul's claim
is another example of an Einsteinian paradox. The classic example is
the twin paradox where Einstein claimed the travelling twin will
return younger, period. The implication that the earth bound twin
escaped time dilation is simply denied.
Now let us take a simplified version of stellar aberration for
illustration. Paul is hovering at 10 miles above an ideal flat
earth. He holds a flashlight and beams it directly downwards. Strich
is an observer on the earth. As Strich drives at first gear on his
Nissan GTR at 55mph, Strich observes the light beam at an angle. Paul
and Strich agree that the beam angled because of Strich's motion. Now
Strich takes a pit-stop and Paul hitches a ride with a passing vulture
at 55mph. Strich and Paul should observe the lightbeam to be angled
at the same degree.
In both cases, the light is observed to be angled from the vertical.
In both cases, horizontal motion caused the light beam to be
aberrated.
QUESTION: Would Paul deny that one motion cannot cause aberration
(source), while claiming the other can (observer)?
--------------------------------------------
Having proved Paul's scary ignorance once more, and even more scary is
him not ever realizing this, let us procees to his twin simulation.
This can be dismissed with a simple question.
QUESTION: How is the earth bound twin's relative velocity unable to
create its own time dilation? (Or simply how is the earth-bound twin
exempted from time dilation?)
--------------------------------------------
Please answer the question so that we can proceed in an intellectual
fashion.