Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #601931 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-02-22 01:54 -0800 |
| Last post | 2023-02-24 22:26 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 01:54 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-22 16:03 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-22 11:13 -0600
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 09:19 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-22 20:41 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 01:30 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 05:47 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz perseveres Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 07:44 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 07:47 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz perseveres Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 08:05 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz comes to the realization he's a bitch "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 06:07 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-01 11:21 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-01 22:54 -0600
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-01 21:10 -0800
Claim that SR has been "refuted" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-02 12:52 -0600
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 11:00 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 11:31 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 15:15 -0500
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 12:32 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 20:49 -0500
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 13:50 -0600
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 11:53 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 14:49 -0600
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 21:26 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 12:40 -0500
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 09:48 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-03-05 04:12 +0100
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 22:45 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 19:38 +0100
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 12:27 -0500
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 09:35 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 09:40 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-05 01:22 -0500
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 22:44 -0800
Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 13:49 -0600
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 22:12 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 22:31 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-02 10:37 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 02:23 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 03:53 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 04:33 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 05:03 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 15:26 -0500
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 12:34 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 22:01 -0500
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 22:21 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 12:43 -0500
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 09:49 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 22:34 -0500
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 22:43 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 10:25 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-03 12:02 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 17:55 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-02 22:21 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 13:34 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 14:28 -0600
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 12:46 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-03 22:24 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 21:27 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 13:58 -0600
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 12:06 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-03 21:22 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-03 22:32 +0000
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-02 08:40 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-02 08:54 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-02 09:00 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 13:07 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz comes to terms with the fact he's the village clown "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 14:09 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 16:07 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 22:15 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 23:30 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-24 12:19 -0500
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 19:27 +0100
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 10:59 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 11:00 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 22:27 -0800
Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 22:26 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-02 12:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <c1c66df8-cbe9-4c2c-9fd5-3fe12320d072n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602702 |
On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 21:15:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > Find a paper which finds an inconsistency in SR or an experiment which > refutes SR and ask Tom to look at it. Oh, a very simple proof of inconsistency was written here meny times, and poor idiot Tom could only pretend he doesn't see it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-02 20:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <ttrjo5$ej6s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602705 |
On 3/2/2023 3:32 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 21:15:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> Find a paper which finds an inconsistency in SR or an experiment which >> refutes SR and ask Tom to look at it. > > Oh, a very simple proof of inconsistency was written here > meny times, and poor idiot Tom could only pretend he > doesn't see it. Maybe you should point out this purported inconsistency, Janitor, so we can all laugh at it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-03 13:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <LiudnarQ9rM90p_5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #602705 |
On 3/2/23 2:32 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > Oh, a very simple proof of inconsistency was written here > meny times, [...] Then re-post it in this thread. I will not do your homework. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-03 11:53 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <9ba9d2c1-20ee-4ba1-9b09-a9187a95bb11n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602804 |
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 20:51:06 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/2/23 2:32 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > Oh, a very simple proof of inconsistency was written here > > meny times, [...] > > Then re-post it in this thread. I will not do your homework. Why not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-03 14:49 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <l5ScnVgO2dPPwJ_5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #602702 |
On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote:
> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of
> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be
> mathematically consistent.
This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not
general spacetimes.
> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third
> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and
> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the
> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of
> this third one?
Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, so it
is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations.
The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are:
A. The Galilei group
B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group)
C. The Euclid group (in 4D).
(A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic
observations about the world refute (C):
1. space and time are handled identically, contrary
to everyday experience.
2. increasing relative velocity between two inertial frames
suddenly reverses the direction of their relative
velocity; increasing still further reverses direction
again; and again and again ad infinitum.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-03 21:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <29a1cd74-0b43-458e-ad0e-f22cb75f7be3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602818 |
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:49:35 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: > > Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of > > transformations which could represent spacetime and still be > > mathematically consistent. > This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not > general spacetimes. > > The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third > > one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and > > the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the > > Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of > > this third one? > Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, Because some idiot has assumed and asserted so. so it > is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations. > > The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are: > A. The Galilei group > B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) > C. The Euclid group (in 4D). > > (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic > observations about the world refute (C): And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper t'=t in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 12:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <ttvvr3$111o8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602850 |
On 3/4/2023 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:49:35 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: >>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of >>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be >>> mathematically consistent. >> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not >> general spacetimes. >>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third >>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and >>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the >>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of >>> this third one? >> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, > > Because some idiot has assumed and asserted so. Janitor, this is a discussion for grownups. You need to go back to the little kids' table and leave the grownups alone. >> The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are: >> A. The Galilei group >> B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) >> C. The Euclid group (in 4D). >> >> (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic >> observations about the world refute (C): > > And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your > bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring > forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper t'=t > in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds. Not the kiddie table but the pet shop. I hope they accept returns for retarded parrots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 09:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <6a3a81db-9bf9-4438-9f53-c1becd5c02d8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602879 |
On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 18:40:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 3/4/2023 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:49:35 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: > >>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of > >>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be > >>> mathematically consistent. > >> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not > >> general spacetimes. > >>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third > >>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and > >>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the > >>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of > >>> this third one? > >> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, > > > > Because some idiot has assumed and asserted so. > Janitor, this is a discussion for grownups. You need to go back to the > little kids' table and leave the grownups alone. See, stupid Mike: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had and you're just a fanatic religious maniac of 3 sort. Of course you can't discuss against me, you can only bark, spit or slander, but you'll do what you can for The Shit you love.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-05 04:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <tu11an$17e00$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602883 |
Maciej Wozniak wrote: > I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had This one will stay the best of your jokes Maciej...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 22:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <9f1cdf1f-c444-4d88-9c0b-ca3f48469aaan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602944 |
On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 04:12:28 UTC+1, Python wrote: > Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had > This one will stay the best of your jokes Maciej... Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, and trying to pretend he knows something. Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic? See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory, it has to be formulable in the language of the theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for that, poor stinker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 19:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <k6hhh4Fhtd2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #602879 |
On 2023-03-04 17:40:55 +0000, Volney said: > On 3/4/2023 12:26 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:49:35 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: >>>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of >>>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be >>>> mathematically consistent. >>> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not >>> general spacetimes. >>>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third >>>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and >>>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the >>>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of >>>> this third one? >>> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, >> >> Because some idiot has assumed and asserted so. > > Janitor, this is a discussion for grownups. You need to go back to the > little kids' table and leave the grownups alone. No hope of that, I fear. > >>> The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are: >>> A. The Galilei group >>> B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) >>> C. The Euclid group (in 4D). >>> >>> (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic >>> observations about the world refute (C): >> >> And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your >> bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring >> forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper t'=t >> in forbidden by your bunch of idiots old seconds. > > Not the kiddie table but the pet shop. I hope they accept returns for > retarded parrots. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 12:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <ttvv1d$111o8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602818 |
On 3/3/2023 3:49 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: >> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of >> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be >> mathematically consistent. > > This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not > general spacetimes. Yes I did mean to state that. > >> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third >> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and >> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the >> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of >> this third one? > > Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, so it > is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations. > > The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are: > A. The Galilei group > B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) > C. The Euclid group (in 4D). I was thinking it would be a 4 dimensional space, 4 space dimensions and no time. Static and boring if so. I was also guessing perhaps it had an imaginary speed of light, i*c but that seemed to make time into a space dimension. > > (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic > observations about the world refute (C): > 1. space and time are handled identically, contrary > to everyday experience. 4D space as I guessed? > 2. increasing relative velocity between two inertial frames > suddenly reverses the direction of their relative > velocity; increasing still further reverses direction > again; and again and again ad infinitum. That doesn't sound like a static 4D space! What is velocity if there is no time? I take it this weirdness happens at its "c"? What is its metric, if applicable? Excuse the silly questions, this type of theory is just an interest for me, I know I have the language wrong. Off to Google now I have a name for the group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 09:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <95088ae8-ed40-48f9-8d7e-75ea8780f265n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602874 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 9:27:13 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote: > On 3/3/2023 3:49 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: > >> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of > >> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be > >> mathematically consistent. > > > > This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not > > general spacetimes. > Yes I did mean to state that. > > > >> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third > >> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and > >> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the > >> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of > >> this third one? > > > > Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, so it > > is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations. > > > > The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are: > > A. The Galilei group > > B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) > > C. The Euclid group (in 4D). > I was thinking it would be a 4 dimensional space, 4 space dimensions and > no time. Static and boring if so. I was also guessing perhaps it had an > imaginary speed of light, i*c but that seemed to make time into a space > dimension. > > > > (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic > > observations about the world refute (C): > > 1. space and time are handled identically, contrary > > to everyday experience. > 4D space as I guessed? > > 2. increasing relative velocity between two inertial frames > > suddenly reverses the direction of their relative > > velocity; increasing still further reverses direction > > again; and again and again ad infinitum. > That doesn't sound like a static 4D space! What is velocity if there is > no time? I take it this weirdness happens at its "c"? What is its > metric, if applicable? Excuse the silly questions, this type of theory > is just an interest for me, I know I have the language wrong. Off to > Google now I have a name for the group. How does a photon create weight we can measure? No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 09:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <2141c876-429e-4391-9a95-c91d5129c318n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602874 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:27:13 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > On 3/3/2023 3:49 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: > >> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of > >> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be > >> mathematically consistent. > > > > This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not > > general spacetimes. > Yes I did mean to state that. > > > >> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third > >> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and > >> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the > >> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of > >> this third one? > > > > Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, so it > > is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations. > > > > The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are: > > A. The Galilei group > > B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) > > C. The Euclid group (in 4D). > I was thinking it would be a 4 dimensional space, 4 space dimensions and > no time. Static and boring if so. I was also guessing perhaps it had an > imaginary speed of light, i*c but that seemed to make time into a space > dimension. > > > > (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic > > observations about the world refute (C): > > 1. space and time are handled identically, contrary > > to everyday experience. > 4D space as I guessed? > > 2. increasing relative velocity between two inertial frames > > suddenly reverses the direction of their relative > > velocity; increasing still further reverses direction > > again; and again and again ad infinitum. > That doesn't sound like a static 4D space! What is velocity if there is > no time? I take it this weirdness happens at its "c"? What is its > metric, if applicable? Excuse the silly questions, this type of theory > is just an interest for me, I know I have the language wrong. Off to > Google now I have a name for the group. It's disgusting, repulsive to read how you and Dono suck Roberts dick. I'm warning you for a long time about your increasingly open gayness, but you don't pay attention. Soon, you'll start posting as Volneya.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-05 01:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <tu1cfg$17u6m$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602878 |
On 3/4/2023 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:27:13 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >> On 3/3/2023 3:49 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: >>>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of >>>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be >>>> mathematically consistent. >>> >>> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not >>> general spacetimes. >> Yes I did mean to state that. >>> >>>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third >>>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and >>>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the >>>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of >>>> this third one? >>> >>> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, so it >>> is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations. >>> >>> The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are: >>> A. The Galilei group >>> B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) >>> C. The Euclid group (in 4D). >> I was thinking it would be a 4 dimensional space, 4 space dimensions and >> no time. Static and boring if so. I was also guessing perhaps it had an >> imaginary speed of light, i*c but that seemed to make time into a space >> dimension. >>> >>> (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic >>> observations about the world refute (C): >>> 1. space and time are handled identically, contrary >>> to everyday experience. >> 4D space as I guessed? >>> 2. increasing relative velocity between two inertial frames >>> suddenly reverses the direction of their relative >>> velocity; increasing still further reverses direction >>> again; and again and again ad infinitum. >> That doesn't sound like a static 4D space! What is velocity if there is >> no time? I take it this weirdness happens at its "c"? What is its >> metric, if applicable? Excuse the silly questions, this type of theory >> is just an interest for me, I know I have the language wrong. Off to >> Google now I have a name for the group. > > It's disgusting, repulsive to read how you and Dono suck Roberts dick. Quit projecting your own gayness on us. > I'm warning you for a long time about your increasingly open gayness, but you don't pay attention. I "don't pay attention" to you because I don't swing that way, and no, quit hoping for a date. Females only for me. > > Soon, you'll start posting as Volneya. > You are looking for a drag queen? Again, sorry, I'm straight. Now fuck off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-04 22:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <03c53287-7ee6-4d7f-b7a5-4ae3982791d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602957 |
On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 07:22:43 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 3/4/2023 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:27:13 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > >> On 3/3/2023 3:49 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> On 3/2/23 2:15 PM, Volney wrote: > >>>> Tom, you previously mentioned that there were only 3 sets of > >>>> transformations which could represent spacetime and still be > >>>> mathematically consistent. > >>> > >>> This must be qualified as applying to inertial frames/coordinates, not > >>> general spacetimes. > >> Yes I did mean to state that. > >>> > >>>> The Galilean transformation, the Lorentz transformation and a third > >>>> one. You mentioned how the Galilean transformation was ruled out and > >>>> the third one obviously does not describe our universe leaving the > >>>> Lorentz transformation as the only possibility. What is the name of > >>>> this third one? > >>> > >>> Note that transformations among inertial frames must form a group, so it > >>> is best to discuss the groups, not the transformations. > >>> > >>> The three groups consistent with transformations among inertial frames are: > >>> A. The Galilei group > >>> B. The Poincare' group (aka the inhomogeneous Lorentz group) > >>> C. The Euclid group (in 4D). > >> I was thinking it would be a 4 dimensional space, 4 space dimensions and > >> no time. Static and boring if so. I was also guessing perhaps it had an > >> imaginary speed of light, i*c but that seemed to make time into a space > >> dimension. > >>> > >>> (A) is refuted experimentally, as is (C) -- indeed very basic > >>> observations about the world refute (C): > >>> 1. space and time are handled identically, contrary > >>> to everyday experience. > >> 4D space as I guessed? > >>> 2. increasing relative velocity between two inertial frames > >>> suddenly reverses the direction of their relative > >>> velocity; increasing still further reverses direction > >>> again; and again and again ad infinitum. > >> That doesn't sound like a static 4D space! What is velocity if there is > >> no time? I take it this weirdness happens at its "c"? What is its > >> metric, if applicable? Excuse the silly questions, this type of theory > >> is just an interest for me, I know I have the language wrong. Off to > >> Google now I have a name for the group. > > > > It's disgusting, repulsive to read how you and Dono suck Roberts dick. > Quit projecting your own gayness on us. > > I'm warning you for a long time about your increasingly open gayness, but you don't pay attention. > I "don't pay attention" to you because I don't swing that way, and no, And do you still believe that adjujsting clocks to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-03 13:49 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" |
| Message-ID | <LiudnavQ9rOu0p_5nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #602700 |
On 3/2/23 1:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > Relativity (SR) is a perceptual pseudo-science, based on what you MATHEMATICALLY think that's happening > in the reference with relative motion wrt to YOUR SENSES: Gross error in what SR is. So I stopped reading. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-01 22:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b02f48e-e49c-461e-94a7-aeec7049b888n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602660 |
On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 05:54:45 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. > Then why has nobody been able to do so? > > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, Even having inconsistent math underlying your Shit remains obviously inconsistent; and speaking of EG it's always good to remind that your idiot guru has announced it false as well, in his next step.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-01 22:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0997664-6835-4325-8f66-60f037cc5db1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602660 |
On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 05:54:45 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. > Then why has nobody been able to do so? > > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real Even having consistent math underlying your Shit remains obviously inconsistent; and speaking of EG it's always good to remind that your idiot guru has announced it false as well, in his next step.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-02 10:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1q6yn4f.cpalbw1sr9iklN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #602660 |
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. > > Then why has nobody been able to do so? > > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real > analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect > of General Relativity. > > The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has > done so. Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment. The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one. Experiments will follow. And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise? Experimenters cannot really measure anything until told what it is that they should be measuring. Conversely, if they just happen to measure something somehow no one will understand what it means, until told. In other words, just follow the example set in 1915 by Einstein, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web