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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #399586 > unrolled thread

The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity

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

Contents

  The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 03:49 -0800
    The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 04:33 -0800
    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-24 09:46 -0600
      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Dusty Kollmann <uberdrivery@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-24 20:43 +0000
        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-25 17:46 +0100
          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-25 14:04 -0800
            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-26 00:20 +0100
              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-26 01:56 +0100
              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-25 17:18 -0800
                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-26 02:49 +0100
                  Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-26 08:46 -0800
                    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-26 19:30 +0100
                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-26 12:37 -0800
                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 13:19 +0100
                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 16:54 +0100
                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-27 12:08 -0800
                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-03 11:05 +0100
                                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-03 09:51 -0800
                                  Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-04 09:44 +0100
                                    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-04 09:07 -0800
                                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-04 09:17 -0800
                                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-04 09:48 -0800
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-04 15:39 -0800
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-05 12:31 -0800
                                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-05 13:23 -0800
                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-27 11:08 -0800
                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 21:29 +0100
                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-27 13:34 -0800
                                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 23:42 +0100
                                  Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-30 09:13 -0800
                                    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-30 19:26 +0100
                                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:51 -0600
                                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 14:35 +0100
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 14:42 +0100
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0600
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 16:40 +0100
                                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0600
                                                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 18:45 +0100
                                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 10:37 -0600
                                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-30 11:03 -0800
                                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 14:21 +0100
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 15:25 +0100
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-12-01 14:31 +0000
                                          Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-02 11:15 -0800
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-02 12:17 -0800
                                              Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-03 09:47 -0800
                                                Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-03 09:56 -0800
                                                  Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-03 10:49 -0800
                                                    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-03 10:58 -0800
                                                      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-12-03 11:31 -0800
                                            Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 22:18 +0100
                                        Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 17:30 +0000
    Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 15:51 -0800
      Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 16:15 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#400448

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> W dniu środa, 30 listopada 2016 19:26:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> > In the relativity stupid model it's impossible to distinguise what is
>> > moving...
>> 
>> You probably mean “_distinguish_”, and it is not stupid.  Whether your
>> car hits the truck, standing on the road, at e.g. 50 km∕h, or the truck
>> hits you, standing on the road, at that speed, makes the same damage to
>> personnel and material.
> 
> Not necessarily.

Yes, *necessarily*.

> Look at the case of a moving train colision with a car:
> the car is totaly destroyed, mixed, crushed and fragmented.
> 
> Next: the car moves and hits the same train, which now stays in place.
> The car simply contracts somewhat only - it not destroys, nor fragments,
> unlike in the earlier version.

Incorrect.  If the "moving" car hits the "standing" train at the same angle 
and the same speed, the same thing happens as if the "standing" car would be 
hit by a "moving" train.  Because the magnitude of the energy is the same.
Classical mechanics suffices for the calculation.

I dare you to prove me wrong by finding an *uninhabited* train and crashing 
your car into it at 100 km∕h.  If you do this, you will finally have learned 
something, and if we are very lucky, you will not be able to show your 
stupid face here again anytime soon.
  
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula>
> 
> Of course!
> That is just the relativistic speed, which is wrong in the general case,

No, it is correct in the special *and* the general case.

While your idea is *wrong* in the *general case* (arbitrary speed) to begin 
with, and only *approximately* correct in the special one (speeds much lower 
than the speed of light).

> as any approximation, simplification!

Learn to read!

The *approximation* is that *if* you add/subtract the speeds *instead of* 
*also* considering a tiny Lorentz factor at low speeds – e.g.,

  γ(v = 50 km∕h) = 1∕(1 – ((50∕3.6)²/299'792'458²) ≈ 1.00000000000000107316

–, you get a result that is not *precisely* correct, but suffices for daily 
life (it does not matter in daily life, for example, if the result is off by 
0.000001 km∕h).

But when one or both of the (collision) speeds u and v of the bodies, as 
measured in the rest frame, approach the speed of light (*then* either is 
called “relativistic speed”), simply adding (or subtracting) the speeds gets 
you an *obviously* *wrong* result.  So *wrong* *as* *you* *calculated*.

In the worst case, if u = v = c, and you simply add (according to the 
*classical*, Galilei transformation)

  s = u + v = c + c = 2 c,

the result is *wrong* *by a factor of two*, because the *correct* result is 
(according to the relativistic, _Lorentz_ transformation)

  s = (u + v)∕(1 + u v∕c²) = (c + c)∕(1 + c²∕c²) = 2 c∕2 = c,

where s is the relative speed.  This corresponds to the *experimentally* 
*confirmed* assumption that *nothing* can go faster than c, in *no* frame of 
reference (which also implies that c is the same in all inertial frames of 
reference [SR postulate #2]).
 
>> > that is just the key of the stupidity:
>> That you do not understand it does not make it stupid.
>  
> You do not understand the elementary math yet!

*Your* “elementary math” is *wrong*, refuted by experiment to begin with.

It also does not make any sense, as one can clearly see below.
 
> Simply:

*Too* simple, stupid!

> […] there is the general classical Doppler formula: D = D(r,s);
> and the second one - a relativistic: D-approx = D(v);
> 
> where: v = v/(1-rs);

What a mindbogglingly stupid nonsense.  You are attempting to calculate
the value of a quantity (v) by using the very quantity that you want to 
calculate.

Divide both sides of this equation by v, and you get (assuming v ≠ 0):

  1 = 1∕(1 - rs)

which is only true if r = s = 0, or, considering your *ambiguous*, 
*unscientific* notation, if “rs” = r_s = 0.  So much for generality.

And, of course, what you have posted so far is *neither* the classical *nor* 
the relativistic "Doppler formula".  The classical equation is

  v_{observed} = v_{source} ∕ (1 ± v_{source}∕v_{wave}).

But *it does not apply to _electromagnetic_ waves such as light*!

Go *learn* some elementary math and physics, and do not come back before!

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#400461

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The *approximation* is that *if* you add/subtract the speeds *instead of*
> *also* considering a tiny Lorentz factor at low speeds – e.g.,
> 
>   γ(v = 50 km∕h) = 1∕(1 – ((50∕3.6)²/299'792'458²) ≈

I forgot to write the square root again.  If one does –

  γ(v = 50 km∕h) = 1∕√(1 – ((50∕3.6)²/299'792'458²) ≈

– then one *does* get:

>   1.00000000000000107316

| $ echo '1/sqrt(1-(50/3.6)^2/(299792458)^2)' | bc -l
| 1.00000000000000107316

AFAIK, bc(1) is the only standard program that can calculate this precisely; 
your usual desktop calculator just gives you 1 here.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#400463

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> | $ echo '1/sqrt(1-(50/3.6)^2/(299792458)^2)' | bc -l |
> 1.00000000000000107316
> 
> AFAIK, bc(1) is the only standard program that can calculate this
> precisely; your usual desktop calculator just gives you 1 here.

You are wrong so very much.

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

#400615

W dniu czwartek, 1 grudnia 2016 14:21:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

> > Look at the case of a moving train colision with a car:
> > the car is totaly destroyed, mixed, crushed and fragmented.
> > 
> > Next: the car moves and hits the same train, which now stays in place.
> > The car simply contracts somewhat only - it not destroys, nor fragments,
> > unlike in the earlier version.
> 
> Incorrect.  If the "moving" car hits the "standing" train at the same angle 
> and the same speed, the same thing happens as if the "standing" car would be 
> hit by a "moving" train.  Because the magnitude of the energy is the same.

No, the energies of the collision are tramedously different!

1. Mv^2/2 = 100000kg v^2/2 
2. mv^2/2 = 1000 v^2/2

so, the energy of the collision is 100 times bigger in the first case,
therefore a moving train destroys completely any car.

> Classical mechanics suffices for the calculation.

You are stupid again.
Classical mechanics suffices for any calculation in the reality -
there is no anomalies in the classical science.

> I dare you to prove me wrong by finding an *uninhabited* train and crashing 
> your car into it at 100 km∕h.  If you do this, you will finally have learned 
> something, and if we are very lucky, you will not be able to show your 
> stupid face here again anytime soon.

There are milions of such proofs...
you are just a stupid student - totaly unexperienced!
   
> In the worst case, if u = v = c, and you simply add (according to the 
> *classical*, Galilei transformation)
> 
>   s = u + v = c + c = 2 c,

It's just the correct - mathematical/physical result.
You are fooled by relativity!
 
> the result is *wrong* *by a factor of two*, because the *correct* result is 
> (according to the relativistic, _Lorentz_ transformation)
> 
>   s = (u + v)∕(1 + u v∕c²) = (c + c)∕(1 + c²∕c²) = 2 c∕2 = c,

Of, course.
If you measure a speed proportionaly to the light speed (= max),
then any speed is less than 1, because 1 is just the c,
then you stupid must write unconditionaly:
c+v = c, for any v, including v = -c: c-c = c, too!

And go away idiot.

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

#400625

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 12:15:17 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 1 grudnia 2016 14:21:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> >
> > > Look at the case of a moving train colision with a car:
> > > the car is totaly destroyed, mixed, crushed and fragmented.
> > > 
> > > Next: the car moves and hits the same train, which now stays in place.
> > > The car simply contracts somewhat only - it not destroys, nor fragments,
> > > unlike in the earlier version.
> > 
> > Incorrect.  If the "moving" car hits the "standing" train at the same angle 
> > and the same speed, the same thing happens as if the "standing" car would
> be hit by a "moving" train.  Because the magnitude of the energy is the same.
> 
> No, the energies of the collision are tramedously different!
> 
> 1. Mv^2/2 = 100000kg v^2/2 
> 2. mv^2/2 = 1000 v^2/2
> 
> so, the energy of the collision is 100 times bigger in the first case,
> therefore a moving train destroys completely any car.

Silly fool!  Kinetic energy is frame dependent.  Your calculations refer to
two different frames.  Everyone knows this ... except you.

You are stupid again.

> Classical mechanics suffices for any calculation in the reality -
> there is no anomalies in the classical science.

Which has nothing whatever to do with any kind of science, except scientology.

>[Remainder of stupid blatherings deleted for mental sanity of readers]

And go away idiot.

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

#400697

W dniu piątek, 2 grudnia 2016 21:17:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel

> > so, the energy of the collision is 100 times bigger in the first case,
> > therefore a moving train destroys completely any car.
> 
> Silly fool!  Kinetic energy is frame dependent.  Your calculations refer to
> two different frames.  Everyone knows this ... except you.

The collision energy is not frame-dependent at all, unfortunately.

Simply: the collision train-car is realised in the frame of the ground,
therefore a moving train destroys easily and completely any car;
why? The train has huge energy wrt the ground, on which the car
is crushed during collision, due to the giant energy of the train.

You are talking about a collision in the free space,
so there is no ground at all, thus the dissipated energy is different.
 
> Which has nothing whatever to do with any kind of science, except scientology.

You are still too stupid to conclude anything - remember that.

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

#400699

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 10:47:16 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu piątek, 2 grudnia 2016 21:17:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> >
> > > so, the energy of the collision is 100 times bigger in the first case,
> > > therefore a moving train destroys completely any car.
> > 
> > Silly fool!  Kinetic energy is frame dependent.  Your calculations refer to
> > two different frames.  Everyone knows this ... except you.
> 
> The collision energy is not frame-dependent at all, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, you are wrong ... and stupider than rocks.

> Simply: the collision train-car is realised in the frame of the ground,
> therefore a moving train destroys easily and completely any car;
> why? The train has huge energy wrt the ground, on which the car
> is crushed during collision, due to the giant energy of the train.

The ground is irrelevant.  The observer on the train sees a much different
energy.  You admitted this yourself, but here you are blathering nonsense.

> You are talking about a collision in the free space,

Not necessarily.  All that is needed is a frame, like the frame of the train.

> so there is no ground at all, thus the dissipated energy is different.

The ground is irrelevant since the car isn't attached to it.  Put some
rocks in your head.  That will improve your intelligence.

> > Which has nothing whatever to do with any kind of science, except
> > scientology.
> 
> You are still too stupid to conclude anything - remember that.

Pot, kettle, black

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

#400705

W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 18:56:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 10:47:16 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu piątek, 2 grudnia 2016 21:17:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> > >
> > > > so, the energy of the collision is 100 times bigger in the first case,
> > > > therefore a moving train destroys completely any car.
> > > 
> > > Silly fool!  Kinetic energy is frame dependent.  Your calculations refer to
> > > two different frames.  Everyone knows this ... except you.
> > 
> > The collision energy is not frame-dependent at all, unfortunately.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are wrong ... and stupider than rocks.
> 
> > Simply: the collision train-car is realised in the frame of the ground,
> > therefore a moving train destroys easily and completely any car;
> > why? The train has huge energy wrt the ground, on which the car
> > is crushed during collision, due to the giant energy of the train.
> 
> The ground is irrelevant.  The observer on the train sees a much different
> energy.  You admitted this yourself, but here you are blathering nonsense.
> 
> > You are talking about a collision in the free space,
> 
> Not necessarily.  All that is needed is a frame, like the frame of the train.
> 
> > so there is no ground at all, thus the dissipated energy is different.
> 
> The ground is irrelevant since the car isn't attached to it.  Put some
> rocks in your head.  That will improve your intelligence.
> 
> > > Which has nothing whatever to do with any kind of science, except
> > > scientology.
> > 
> > You are still too stupid to conclude anything - remember that.
> 
> Pot, kettle, black

Oh! These stupid students again...

The car just colides mainly with the solid ground,
therefore it can be crushed even completely, due the huge energy source - of the train, which is up to 1000 times more than your naive calculations.

You sholuld try to look a litte around firstly, instead of talking
permanently the stupididity - like these relativistics PHds fantastic imbeciles.

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

#400707

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> The car just colides mainly with the solid ground,

The car isn't moving wrt the ground (before the crash.  Interaction with
the ground is a secondary effect.

> therefore it can be crushed even completely, due the huge energy source
> - of the train, which is up to 1000 times more than your naive calculations.

I didn't do any calculations, rock-brain.

> You sholuld try to look a litte around firstly, instead of talking
> permanently the stupididity - like these relativistics PHds fantastic
> imbeciles.

YOU are the only imbecile running around here, Rocky.

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

#400710

W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 19:58:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > The car just colides mainly with the solid ground,
> 
> The car isn't moving wrt the ground (before the crash.  Interaction with
> the ground is a secondary effect.
>
> > therefore it can be crushed even completely, due the huge energy source
> > - of the train, which is up to 1000 times more than your naive calculations.
> 
> I didn't do any calculations, rock-brain.

You only still prove me, and for all others, you are an ignorant in the rational science.

Let try to reconsider the simple facts:
where is the place of the relativity theory in the real problems area,
like the mass collisions, the radar - Doppler measurements,
GPS, real clocks, the energy sources, etc? 

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

#400630

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> > Look at the case of a moving train colision with a car:
>> > the car is totaly destroyed, mixed, crushed and fragmented.
>> > 
>> > Next: the car moves and hits the same train, which now stays in place.
>> > The car simply contracts somewhat only - it not destroys, nor
>> > fragments, unlike in the earlier version.
>> Incorrect.  If the "moving" car hits the "standing" train at the same
>> angle and the same speed, the same thing happens as if the "standing" car
>> would be hit by a "moving" train.  Because the magnitude of the energy is
>> the same.
> 
> No, the energies of the collision are tramedously different!
> 
> 1. Mv^2/2 = 100000kg v^2/2
> 2. mv^2/2 = 1000 v^2/2

Well, yes; bad example.  I admit that I fell for your trap of 
oversimplification this time.

Because it is the *mass* that makes all the difference.  *Not*, *contrary to 
your previous claims*, which one of the two bodies is considered to be in 
motion.
 
>> Classical mechanics suffices for the calculation.
> 
> You are stupid again.

No, *I* know what I am talking about:

> Classical mechanics suffices for any calculation in the reality -

Once again you have no shadow of a trace of a clue what you are talking 
about.

For example:

Classical mechanics (CM) cannot explain the photoelectric effect; quantum 
mechanics (QM) can since 1900/1905 (Planck, Einstein).

CM cannot explain the redshift or blueshift of light; special relativity 
(SR) and GR can since 1905 and 1915, respectively (Einstein et al.)

CM cannot explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury; GR can since 
1915 (Einstein).

CM cannot explain the amount of the deflection of light by the Sun and other 
massive objects; GR can since 1915/1919 (Einstein, Eddington et al.).

CM cannot explain the expansion of the universe; GR can since 1927/1929 
(Lemaître, Hubble).

CM cannot explain why some chemical elements form molecules and some do not; 
QM can since 1927/1931 (London, Heitler, Pauling).

CM cannot explain the formation and evolution of stars; GM and QM can since 
1915/1939 (Einstein et al.; Bethe, Weizsäcker).

CM cannot explain solar neutrinos; QM can since 1939/1957 (Bethe, 
Pontecorvo).

CM cannot explain the origin of mass; QM can since 1964/2012 (Brout, 
Englert; Higgs; Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble; CERN).

CM cannot explain why the atomic nucleus, although it contains particles of 
equal electric charge (protons), holds together; QM (QCD) can since 1979 
(Gross, Politzer, Wilczek).

CM cannot explain black holes and gravitational waves;
GR can since 1916/2016 (Einstein, LSC/VSC et al.)

(And so on.  This list does not claim to be exhaustive.)

> there is no anomalies in the classical science.

Straw man.  Nobody claimed there were.

>> In the worst case, if u = v = c, and you simply add (according to the
>> *classical*, Galilei transformation)
>> 
>>   s = u + v = c + c = 2 c,
> 
> It's just the correct - mathematical/physical result.
> You are fooled by relativity!

It is the correct mathematical result, but not the correct physical result.  
The results of numerous experiments, and working practical applications, 
contradict this assumption.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#400495

alsor@interia.pl writes:


>> > In the relativity stupid model it's impossible to distinguise what is
>> > moving...
>>
>> You probably mean '_distinguish_', and it is not stupid.  Whether your car
>> hits the truck, standing on the road, at e.g. 50 km/h, or the truck hits
>> you, standing on the road, at that speed, makes the same damage to personnel
>> and material.

>Not necessarily.
>Look at the case of a moving train colision with a car:
>the car is totaly destroyed, mixed, crushed and fragmented.

>Next: the car moves and hits the same train, which now stays in place.
>The car simply contracts somewhat only - it not destroys, nor fragments,
>unlike in the earlier version.

Bad example.  In a real world example of a car-train collision, a car hitting
a stationary train comes to a stop quickly.  If a moving train hits a
stationary car, just after impact the damage is going to be the same, but
THE TRAIN IS STILL MOVING.  It often pushes the wreck down the tracks,
demolishing it further as it goes.  The further energy comes from the train
moving (relative to the tracks/ground).

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

#399646

When the observer starts moving relative to the light source, the wavelength (or distance between pulses) obviously remains unchanged, and the speed of the light relative to the observer obviously changes, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE 
 "Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still." 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs 
 "Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

It takes an idiot to believe that the motion of the observer can change the wavelength:

http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique/files/p8044_37aa292833de8bd2b5c4583ffb76cf69p866_a910dac1b2c66fe5536711394c0cd778doppler_p.gif

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dopplershift.html 
 Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. (...) The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html 
 John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." 

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ 
 Tom Roberts: "Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates. Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the measuring instrument."

Pentcho Valev

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

#399648

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 4:51:16 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> When the observer starts moving relative to the light source, the
> wavelength (or distance between pulses) obviously remains unchanged

If this is obvious to someone, that person is an idiot:

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/Y7KQjUSdum0/1rvrcjF4JlMJ 
> Tom Roberts: "Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it
> cannot be discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear
> that in vacuum the light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates.
> Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a
> given light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented
> differently in spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the
> light ray onto the measuring instrument."

Tom makes sense, Preposterous Pentcho doesn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web