Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615775

Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?
Date	2023-07-20 14:12 -0500
Message-ID	<khtf8rFevmaU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <5a7a24ec-52a1-4c5f-bc02-79d2df98ab80n@googlegroups.com> <u99h58$2a80c$1@dont-email.me> <0e3e41a4-0aa9-469e-a387-edadb31fd44en@googlegroups.com> <u9bhtn$2odtu$2@dont-email.me> <41a7a83f-4004-4ce6-bc5d-e9434fd50449n@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/20/2023 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>>>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them.
>>
>>>> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that
>>>> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of
>>>> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants
>>>> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of
>>>> light at the observer would imply there were different values of
>>>> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre
>>>> notion)
>>
>>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the
>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>
>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.

> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ. 

> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is 
> literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement. A good 
> place to start is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary 
> Edition 4th Edition" by Thomas S. Kuhn.  Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting 
> to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion. 

> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has 
> been frequently. There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. 

> You can use that to directly detect one way speed of starlight from the frequency 
> differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed 
? is not independent of the source or observer. For example, the light 
from Sirius
> approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec. Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please 

?, see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.

Don't tell me, show me. That's the problem here,
you have not demonstrated your contention.

Where's the beef. You should be able to take existing
data and make a new demonstration of your point from
it. If you cannot then self-correcting science has spoken.

Thread

csiph-web