Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #622528 > unrolled thread

Evidence suggestive of relativity.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Evidence suggestive of relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-10-05 16:29 -0700
    Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-10-05 17:25 -0700
      Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-10-05 17:47 -0700
        Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-10-05 19:03 -0700
          Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-10-05 19:21 -0700
            Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-10-05 19:41 -0700
            Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-10-05 23:04 -0700
              Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-10-06 13:53 -0700
                Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2023-10-06 14:42 -0700
                  Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Lauren Bakanov <babk@vrabaraa.ae> - 2023-10-07 12:50 +0000
    Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-10-05 18:22 -0700
    Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2023-10-05 21:02 -0700
      Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-10-05 21:21 -0700
        Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2023-10-06 06:02 -0700
          Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Jaimie Poogelman <jeem@oagoaooo.ji> - 2023-10-06 16:03 +0000
        Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-10-06 18:45 +0200
          Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-10-06 18:52 +0200
            Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2023-10-06 10:25 -0700
          Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-10-06 10:34 -0700
      Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-10-05 22:48 -0700
      Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-10-06 02:19 -0700
        Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-10-06 02:27 -0700
          Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-10-06 05:37 -0700
    Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-10-06 20:20 -0700
      Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-10-06 22:36 -0700
      Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-10-08 11:16 -0700
        Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-10-08 20:47 +0200
          Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-10-10 11:01 -0700
            Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-10-13 13:06 -0700
              Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Lloyd Dogadaev <dooo@ldlyylgd.dy> - 2023-10-14 18:22 +0000
                Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-10-16 17:27 -0700
                  Re: Evidence suggestive of relativity. Manoid Bakshtanowsky <nmak@nysakdsb.ab> - 2023-10-17 08:59 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#622528 — Evidence suggestive of relativity.

I like criticizing reincarnation claims.
Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best:
"evidence suggestive of reincarnation."

I recommend relativists adopt the same policy.

List of evidence suggestive of relativity:

1. Of time travel.
2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer.
3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass.
4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing.
5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them.
6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light.
7. Of length contraction.
8. Of the reification of space and curving of it.
9. Of a mass-velocity relationship.
10. 

-Trying to keep an open mind to relativity.

Laurence Clark Crossen - Skeptic of ghosts, bigfoot, and relativity.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#622533

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> I like criticizing reincarnation claims. 
> Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best: 
> "evidence suggestive of reincarnation." 

What evidence would that be, exactly?

> I recommend relativists adopt the same policy. 
> 
> List of evidence suggestive of relativity: 
> 
> 1. Of time travel. 
> 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer. 
> 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass. 
> 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing. 
> 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them. 
> 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light. 
> 7. Of length contraction. 
> 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it. 
> 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship. 
> 10. 
> 
> -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity. 

Having an open mind is a fine idea... just not so open that your brains fall out!

Yes, there is evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are incorrect?

Be specific.

\Paul the Heckler, who only heckles those who absolutely do not know what they do not know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622535

Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > I like criticizing reincarnation claims.
> > Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best:
> > "evidence suggestive of reincarnation."
> 
> What evidence would that be, exactly?
> 
> > I recommend relativists adopt the same policy.
> >
> > List of evidence suggestive of relativity:
> >
> > 1. Of time travel.
> > 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer.
> > 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass.
> > 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing.
> > 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them.
> > 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light.
> > 7. Of length contraction.
> > 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it.
> > 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship.
> > 10.
> >
> > -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity.
> 
> Having an open mind is a fine idea... just not so open that your brains fall out!
> 
> Yes, there is evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are incorrect?
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> \Paul the Heckler, who only heckles those who absolutely do not know what they do not know.


No, there is evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?


Start with the first one if you dare:

1. Of time travel.


(but, everybody already knows you don't dare because you are chicken)







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622541

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > I like criticizing reincarnation claims.
> > > Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best:
> > > "evidence suggestive of reincarnation."
> >
> > What evidence would that be, exactly?
> >
> > > I recommend relativists adopt the same policy.
> > >
> > > List of evidence suggestive of relativity:
> > >
> > > 1. Of time travel.
> > > 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer.
> > > 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass.
> > > 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing.
> > > 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them.
> > > 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light.
> > > 7. Of length contraction.
> > > 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it.
> > > 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship.
> > > 10.
> > >
> > > -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity.
> >
> > Having an open mind is a fine idea... just not so open that your brains fall out!
> >
> > Yes, there is evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are incorrect?
> >
> > Be specific.
> >
> > \Paul the Heckler, who only heckles those who absolutely do not know what they do not know.
> 
> No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?
> 
> Start with the first one if you dare:
> 
> 1. Of time travel.
> 
> (but, everybody already knows you don't dare because you are chicken)
> 
(correction: I forgot to add the word NO.)

 No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?
 
 Start with the first one if you dare:
 
 1. Of time travel.
 
 (but, everybody already knows you don't dare because you are chicken)
 


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622545

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:03:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > I like criticizing reincarnation claims. 
> > > > Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best: 
> > > > "evidence suggestive of reincarnation." 
> > > 
> > > What evidence would that be, exactly? 
> > > 
> > > > I recommend relativists adopt the same policy. 
> > > > 
> > > > List of evidence suggestive of relativity: 
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Of time travel. 
> > > > 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer. 
> > > > 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass. 
> > > > 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing. 
> > > > 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them. 
> > > > 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light. 
> > > > 7. Of length contraction. 
> > > > 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it. 
> > > > 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship. 
> > > > 10. 
> > > > 
> > > > -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity. 
> > > 
> > > Having an open mind is a fine idea... just not so open that your brains fall out! 
> > > 
> > > Yes, there is evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are incorrect? 
> > > 
> > > Be specific. 
> > > 
> > > \Paul the Heckler, who only heckles those who absolutely do not know what they do not know. 
> >
> > No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?
> > 
> > Start with the first one if you dare: 
> > 
> > 1. Of time travel. 
> > 
> > (but, everybody already knows you don't dare because you are chicken) 
> >
> (correction: I forgot to add the word NO.) 
> 
> No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622546

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:21:25 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:03:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > The Starmaker wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > I like criticizing reincarnation claims. 
> > > > > Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best: 
> > > > > "evidence suggestive of reincarnation." 
> > > > 
> > > > What evidence would that be, exactly? 
> > > > 
> > > > > I recommend relativists adopt the same policy. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > List of evidence suggestive of relativity: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. Of time travel. 
> > > > > 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer. 
> > > > > 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass. 
> > > > > 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing. 
> > > > > 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them. 
> > > > > 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light. 
> > > > > 7. Of length contraction. 
> > > > > 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it. 
> > > > > 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship. 
> > > > > 10. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity. 
> > > > 
> > > > Having an open mind is a fine idea... just not so open that your brains fall out! 
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, there is evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are incorrect? 
> > > > 
> > > > Be specific. 
> > > > 
> > > > \Paul the Heckler, who only heckles those who absolutely do not know what they do not know. 
> > > 
> > > No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct? 
> > > 
> > > Start with the first one if you dare: 
> > > 
> > > 1. Of time travel. 
> > > 
> > > (but, everybody already knows you don't dare because you are chicken) 
> > > 
> > (correction: I forgot to add the word NO.) 
> > 
> > No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

How would you measure the difference between relative and absolute?
The atom can compete with light staying ahead of it at a motion BH.
If the atom can compete with light and it is absolute... does that
not prove it has an absolute relationship of its own motion?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622554

Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:03:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > I like criticizing reincarnation claims.
> > > > > Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best:
> > > > > "evidence suggestive of reincarnation."
> > > >
> > > > What evidence would that be, exactly?
> > > >
> > > > > I recommend relativists adopt the same policy.
> > > > >
> > > > > List of evidence suggestive of relativity:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Of time travel.
> > > > > 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer.
> > > > > 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass.
> > > > > 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing.
> > > > > 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them.
> > > > > 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light.
> > > > > 7. Of length contraction.
> > > > > 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it.
> > > > > 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship.
> > > > > 10.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Having an open mind is a fine idea... just not so open that your brains fall out!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there is evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are incorrect?
> > > >
> > > > Be specific.
> > > >
> > > > \Paul the Heckler, who only heckles those who absolutely do not know what they do not know.
> > >
> > > No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?
> > >
> > > Start with the first one if you dare:
> > >
> > > 1. Of time travel.
> > >
> > > (but, everybody already knows you don't dare because you are chicken)
> > >
> > (correction: I forgot to add the word NO.)
> >
> > No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?
> 
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

You're hiding behind a link of "summaries" by someone named Tom Roberts
in 2007???? dats suppose to mean something?

chicken.





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622584

On Thu, 05 Oct 2023 23:04:30 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Paul Alsing wrote:
>> 
>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:03:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> > The Starmaker wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Paul Alsing wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> > > > > I like criticizing reincarnation claims.
>> > > > > Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best:
>> > > > > "evidence suggestive of reincarnation."
>> > > >
>> > > > What evidence would that be, exactly?
>> > > >
>> > > > > I recommend relativists adopt the same policy.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > List of evidence suggestive of relativity:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. Of time travel.
>> > > > > 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer.
>> > > > > 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass.
>> > > > > 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing.
>> > > > > 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them.
>> > > > > 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light.
>> > > > > 7. Of length contraction.
>> > > > > 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it.
>> > > > > 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship.
>> > > > > 10.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity.
>> > > >
>> > > > Having an open mind is a fine idea... just not so open that your brains fall out!
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, there is evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are incorrect?
>> > > >
>> > > > Be specific.
>> > > >
>> > > > \Paul the Heckler, who only heckles those who absolutely do not know what they do not know.
>> > >
>> > > No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?
>> > >
>> > > Start with the first one if you dare:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Of time travel.
>> > >
>> > > (but, everybody already knows you don't dare because you are chicken)
>> > >
>> > (correction: I forgot to add the word NO.)
>> >
>> > No, there is NO evidence in support of all those points, so my question for you is... what evidence do *you* have that any of them are correct?
>> 
>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
>You're hiding behind a link of "summaries" by someone named Tom Roberts
>in 2007???? dats suppose to mean something?
>
>chicken.


There is no mention ....Of time travel on dat page.


https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html


stupid chicken.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622587

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 2:53:48 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2023 23:04:30 -0700, The Starmaker 
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: 
> >
> > Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > 
> > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html 
> > 
> > You're hiding behind a link of "summaries" by someone named Tom Roberts 
> > in 2007???? dats suppose to mean something? 
> > 
> > chicken.
> There is no mention ....Of time travel on dat page. 
> 
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html 

Remember this, drumstick?

"SR admits only to time travel into the future. Time dilation has conclusive
experimental evidence'and is suggestive of time travel into the future."

The only way to possibly get time travel into the past is to exceed the speed
of light, e.g., if tachyons exist.  I have shown that even if they did exist and
could exceed the speed of light, a message could not be sent into one's own
past.  DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.  I suspect that similar limitations
would apply to wormholes and warp metrics, see

Friedman J., Morris M. S., Novikov I.D., Echeverria F., Klinkhammer G., Thorne
K. S., Yurtsever U., “Cauchy problem in spacetimes with closed timelike curves,”
Physical Review. D, 42, pp. 1915-1930, 1990. DOI:10.1103/physrevd.42.1915.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622615

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> The only way to possibly get time travel into the past is to exceed the
> speed of light, e.g., if tachyons exist.  I have shown that even if they
> did exist and could exceed the speed of light, a message could not be
> sent into one's own past.  DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.  I suspect
> that similar limitations would apply to wormholes and warp metrics, see

we agree. You modulate the tachyons to encapsulate a human. But

Don't forget that the President of Ukraine 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿, his 
advisers 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝗺, and his chief of 
staff Ermak was the producer of this show. Now they are filming another 
show for you: in real time, as realistic and bloody as possible, until 
there is money or the last actor dies on air. Everything they do is just 
another part of the show. The explosion of the Crimean Bridge 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 
𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗺𝘆, but allowed this picture to be broadcast on the 
covers of all news publications. Bombing nearby towns 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 
𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗺𝘆, but it does create 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 
𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴. Even 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲’𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀 are also part of the show 
to pity the rest of the world.

https://r%74.com/news/584209-french-mayor-zelensky-flag/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622537

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:29:09 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> I like criticizing reincarnation claims. 
> Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best: 
> "evidence suggestive of reincarnation." 
> 
> I recommend relativists adopt the same policy. 
> 
> List of evidence suggestive of relativity: 
> 
> 1. Of time travel. 

If you have slow time the universe around you can age faster...

> 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer. 

Light has its own motion.

> 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass. 

The limb of the solar atmosphere material scatters light. Sobral did not measure that.
It measured what gravity would do in a preferred direction not scattering of light by matter.
> 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing. 
Singularities require infinite gravity manifesting
where that math does not manifest.
Gravity strength cannot jump from large finite to the infinite.

> 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them. 
Gravity does move. Look at the Earth's field orbiting the solar...
> 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light. 
Light leaving the Sun decreases in energy or wavelength expands...
> 7. Of length contraction. 
Atom's are round. They cannot contract or it would change Pi math.

> 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it. 
Gravity is not a parabolic metric. It is a closed curve with a center
of order. Gravity is a round metric extending in space.

> 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship. 

Kinetic energy is from atom's own speed.

> 10. 
> 
> -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity. 

If you begin to move you see an opposite appearance around you.
How can your frame give kinetic energy to all others comparable? 


> Laurence Clark Crossen - Skeptic of ghosts, bigfoot, and relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622550

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:29:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> I like criticizing reincarnation claims. 
> Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best: 
> "evidence suggestive of reincarnation." 
> 
> I recommend relativists adopt the same policy. 
> 
> List of evidence suggestive of relativity: 
> 
> 1. Of time travel. 

SR admits only to time travel into the future.  Time dilation has conclusive experimental evidence'and is
suggestive of time travel into the future.

> 2. Of a speed limit for everything, electromagnetic or not, of C, including relative motion involving the observer.

Light is always measured (locally) to travel at c, even when its source and detector are in relative motion.
This suggests that there is a speed limit for light.

Particles have been accelerated to 99.9999% of c but cannot be made to reach c, even though their energy
continues to increase.  This suggests that there is a speed limit for objects with mass.

> 3. Of gravity bending the path of photons even though they have no mass.

Experiments during the Cassini mission communicated with earth when the earth was behind the sun,
confirming Eddington's measurement during a solar eclipse.  Both agreed with the GR prediction rather
than the Newtonian prediction.


> 4. Of singularities, a mathematical fiction actually existing.

Pictures of matter circling black holes, but singularities are hidden behind the event horizons.  Frankly,
I doubt that zero-size objects can exist..

> 5. Of gravity, moving the speed of light without causing angular momentum to throw off all orbital
> dynamics completely instead of fine-tuning them. 

> 6. Of Newtonian gravitational redshift instead of twice Newtonian as in bending of light. 

See 3. above.

> 7. Of length contraction. 

Length contraction is suggested by the magnetic field produced by electrons moving down a wire.
LC is due to the relativity of simultaneity, causing different measures of what is simultaneous in
the stationary vs. the moving frames.

> 8. Of the reification of space and curving of it.

 
> 9. Of a mass-velocity relationship. 

Actually, it's an energy-velocity relationship (see 2. above).  Mass is considered to be invariant.

> -Trying to keep an open mind to relativity. 
> 
> Laurence Clark Crossen - Skeptic of ghosts, bigfoot, and relativity.

"I try to be skeptical of everything (I don't believe there's any
other way to learn about how the world really works)."
-- Lawrence M. Krauss

However, you need to work on having an open mind, that is, HONESTLY
evaluating the evidence.

“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
-- Lawrence M. Krauss

Scientist were dragged kicking and screaming into those disciplines.
They finally relented because they had to or deny voluminous experimental
evidence and become unsane.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622551

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:29:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > I like criticizing reincarnation claims.
> > Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best:
> > "evidence suggestive of reincarnation."
> >
> > I recommend relativists adopt the same policy.
> >
> > List of evidence suggestive of relativity:
> >
> > 1. Of time travel.
> 
> SR admits only to time travel into the future.


Name one known scientists that 'believes' SR admits only to time travel into the future. Name one!



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622565

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:21:02 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > 
> > SR admits only to time travel into the future.
>
> Name one known scientists that 'believes' SR admits only to time travel into the future. Name one!
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge the unchallengeable.

" It is solutions that correspond to the world, not the equations themselves.
IOW: it does not matter if physical models are invariant under time reversal
if there is no possible way to implement it in the real world." -- T. J. Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622569

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:21:02 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Name one known scientists that 'believes' SR admits only to time travel
>> into the future. Name one!
>
> " It is solutions that correspond to the world, not the equations
> themselves. IOW: it does not matter if physical models are invariant
> under time reversal if there is no possible way to implement it in the
> real world." -- T. J. Roberts

yes indeed. You don't even know how many directions are in an arrow. If 
you travel faster then light, you are the first in the world I know, 
beating Entropy. You probably think with your ass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622571

On 2023-10-06 04:21:16 +0000, The Starmaker said:

> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> 
>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:29:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark 
>> Crossen wrote:
>>> I like criticizing reincarnation claims.
>>> Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best:
>>> "evidence suggestive of reincarnation."
>>> 
>>> I recommend relativists adopt the same policy.
>>> 
>>> List of evidence suggestive of relativity:
>>> 
>>> 1. Of time travel.
>> 
>> SR admits only to time travel into the future.
> 
> 
> Name one known scientists that 'believes' SR admits only to time travel 
> into the future. Name one!

"One known scientist" is not enough. You need someone who knows 
something about the subject. It's easy to find "known scientists", even 
quite distinguished ones, like James Tour, who promulgate rubbish that 
they don't understand about biological evolution. I imagine one can 
find similar people among physicists.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622573

On 2023-10-06 16:45:50 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> On 2023-10-06 04:21:16 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> 
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:29:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark 
>>> Crossen wrote:
>>>> I like criticizing reincarnation claims.
>>>> Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best:
>>>> "evidence suggestive of reincarnation."
>>>> 
>>>> I recommend relativists adopt the same policy.
>>>> 
>>>> List of evidence suggestive of relativity:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Of time travel.
>>> 
>>> SR admits only to time travel into the future.
>> 
>> 
>> Name one known scientists that 'believes' SR admits only to time travel 
>> into the future. Name one!
> 
> "One known scientist" is not enough. You need someone who knows 
> something about the subject. It's easy to find "known scientists", even 
> quite distinguished ones, like James Tour, who promulgate rubbish that 
> they don't understand about biological evolution. I imagine one can 
> find similar people among physicists.

I suppose Herbert Dingle would qualify, as he was reasonably well 
considered in what he knew best.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622575

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:52:54 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> On 2023-10-06 16:45:50 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said: 
> >
> > On 2023-10-06 04:21:16 +0000, The Starmaker said: 
> > >
> > > Name one known scientists that 'believes' SR admits only to time travel 
> > > into the future. Name one! 
> > 
> > "One known scientist" is not enough. You need someone who knows 
> > something about the subject. It's easy to find "known scientists", even 
> > quite distinguished ones, like James Tour, who promulgate rubbish that 
> > they don't understand about biological evolution. I imagine one can 
> > find similar people among physicists.
>
> I suppose Herbert Dingle would qualify, as he was reasonably well 
> considered in what he knew best.
> -- 
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

I presume H.D. qualifies because he "promulgates rubbish" concerning
relativity?  Another would be Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock.

I have an old book by Dingle entitled "Relativity for All" written before he
jumped off the wagon.  It doesn't appear that he really understood it
even then.

Gary - physicist, not a biochemist, but judges by the message, not by the
messenger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622576

On Friday, 6 October 2023 at 18:45:55 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-10-06 04:21:16 +0000, The Starmaker said: 
> 
> > Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:29:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark 
> >> Crossen wrote: 
> >>> I like criticizing reincarnation claims. 
> >>> Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best: 
> >>> "evidence suggestive of reincarnation." 
> >>> 
> >>> I recommend relativists adopt the same policy. 
> >>> 
> >>> List of evidence suggestive of relativity: 
> >>> 
> >>> 1. Of time travel. 
> >> 
> >> SR admits only to time travel into the future. 
> > 
> > 
> > Name one known scientists that 'believes' SR admits only to time travel 
> > into the future. Name one!
> "One known scientist" is not enough. You need someone who knows 
> something about the subject. It's easy to find "known scientists", even 
> quite distinguished ones, like James Tour, who promulgate rubbish that 
> they don't understand about biological evolution. I imagine one can 
> find similar people among physicists. 

Of course, well, all of them. As well as yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622553

On Friday, 6 October 2023 at 06:02:03 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:29:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > I like criticizing reincarnation claims. 
> > Even scientists studying such claims only claim they have, at best: 
> > "evidence suggestive of reincarnation." 
> > 
> > I recommend relativists adopt the same policy. 
> > 
> > List of evidence suggestive of relativity: 
> > 
> > 1. Of time travel.
> SR admits only to time travel into the future. Time dilation has conclusive experimental evidence'and is 

fabricated by fanatic idiots like you, and in the meantime
in the real world - forbiddwn by them "improper" clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.


> Light is always measured (locally) to travel at c, 

But the absurdic system of measurements you've invented
to secure the "confirmations" of your mad mumble can only
work in  a small scale.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web