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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#400758

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:07:15 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 09:44:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał:
> >
> > If you can't even do this, I hope you don't wonder why
> > nobody ever takes you seriously :-|
> > 
> > Dirk Vdm
> 
> I'm the only one serious expert in this circus
> called as relativistic phys/math.

Surely you're joking, Mr. Alsor :-))

> Another example - about the Lorentz transform:
> 
> x' = k(x-vt);
> 
> therefore:
> c'(f) = dx'/dt = k(c-vcosf);

Ah, so you STILL bumble that fable.  dx'/dt' means something.  dx'/dt
means you're spewing bullshit.

> [Remainder of lunacy deleted to preserve some sense of sanity.

"He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others."
 -- Samuel Johnson

“Even duct tape can’t fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.”
-- Summer Kerr

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

#400759

W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 18:17:16 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:07:15 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 09:44:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał:
> > >
> > > If you can't even do this, I hope you don't wonder why
> > > nobody ever takes you seriously :-|
> > > 
> > > Dirk Vdm
> > 
> > I'm the only one serious expert in this circus
> > called as relativistic phys/math.
> 
> Surely you're joking, Mr. Alsor :-))
> 
> > Another example - about the Lorentz transform:
> > 
> > x' = k(x-vt);
> > 
> > therefore:
> > c'(f) = dx'/dt = k(c-vcosf);
> 

The correct result is just:

<c'> = 1/k = c*sqrt(1-v^2); for units c = 1, of course.

and because of the simple fact a clock - any process!,
must slow down k times.

So, the stupid relativity is fully explainable in the simplest algebra already!

A fantastic time transform?

No problem:
if some idiot assumes c = inv, then he assumes in fact this:

ct' = c't => t' = c'/c t

and this is the so-called relativistic time (artifical number which preserves the c = inv)

> Ah, so you STILL bumble that fable.  dx'/dt' means something.  dx'/dt
> means you're spewing bullshit.

Indeed.

if you use the local time, then you just get:
c'(f') = c/(1+v/c cosf')
 
because the local clock slows down k-times.

so, you can even use: t' = t/k,
which is a direct consequence of the: <c'> = 1/k:
if an average/effective light speed changes
then any real process-speed must change accordingly.

> > [Remainder of lunacy deleted to preserve some sense of sanity.
> 
> "He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others."
>  -- Samuel Johnson

Indeed.
The extremely naive relativity pseudoscience caused the global dullness in the mainstream, similarly like the geocentric ideas in the middle ages done.

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

#400797

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:48:03 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 18:17:16 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:07:15 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 09:44:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Dirk Van de moortel napisał:
> > > >
> > > > If you can't even do this, I hope you don't wonder why
> > > > nobody ever takes you seriously :-|
> > > > 
> > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > 
> > > I'm the only one serious expert in this circus
> > > called as relativistic phys/math.
> > 
> > Surely you're joking, Mr. Alsor :-))
> > 
> > > Another example - about the Lorentz transform:
> > > 
> > > x' = k(x-vt);
> > > 
> > > therefore:
> > > c'(f) = dx'/dt = k(c-vcosf);

Wow! Now you're doubling down on your stupidity.  Can't you understand
clear logic?  dx'/dt means nothing at all.  Only morons think otherwise.

> The correct result is just:
> 
> <c'> = 1/k = c*sqrt(1-v^2); for units c = 1, of course.
> 
> and because of the simple fact a clock - any process!,
> must slow down k times.

No, it must not slow down at all.

> So, the stupid relativity is fully explainable in the simplest algebra
> already!

Unfortunately, people like you can't even do algebra correctly.

> [More stupidity deleted]

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

#400896

W dniu poniedziałek, 5 grudnia 2016 00:39:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel 

> Wow! Now you're doubling down on your stupidity.  Can't you understand
> clear logic?  dx'/dt means nothing at all.  Only morons think otherwise.

You are more stupid than my cat.

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

#400901

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:31:40 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu poniedziałek, 5 grudnia 2016 00:39:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel 
> >
> > Wow! Now you're doubling down on your stupidity.  Can't you understand
> > clear logic?  dx'/dt means nothing at all.  Only morons think otherwise.
> 
> You are more stupid than my cat.

You must have a VERY smart cat :-)

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

#399931

W dniu niedziela, 27 listopada 2016 13:19:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 

> It is _not_ the astronomical reality.  There are several definitions of 
> “day” in that regard: the *solar day* (the time it takes for Sol [the Sun] 
> to return to its highest point in the Terran sky: only *on average* 86'400 
> seconds), and the *sidereal day* (from Latin «sidus» “star”; the time it 
> takes a location on the surface of Terra to have the same stars in the 
> zenith again, or IOW to complete one full rotation): (currently) 23 hours, 
> 56 minutes, and 4.1 seconds.

You stupid extraordinarly.

The Earth rotation's period is less about 4 minutes than the solar day = the observed cycle of the sun =
the actual, because pure natural, cycle on the Earth, for any life, temperature, light, energy ...).

The sidereal cycle 23h 56m is practicaly absent - unobservable, thus inrrelevant for any on the Earth cycle.

> Obviously, in considering Terra’s *rotation*, one must refer to the 
> *sidereal* day, which I *explicitly* did (you just did not pay attention).
>    
> >> > f'/f = 1 - vr / 1 - vs
> >> > 
> >> > [ex falso quodlibet]
> >> 
> >> This nonsense is your invention; it is certainly not corroborated by the
> >> Wikipedia article that you are citing.
> > 
> > It's perfectly correct:
> 
> No, it is not.  Learn to read.
>  
> >> Besides, you forgot to apply the Lorentz transform to the *actual*
> >> equation.
> > 
> > I use the correct - exact solution,
> 
> No, you do not.
> 
> > not the SR approximation.
> > 
> > The correct formula for the Doppler shift is:
> > 
> > sqrt[(1-vr)/(1-vs) x (1+vs)/(1+vr)]
> 
> That is not even an equation, and it certainly is not "the correct formula".
>  
> > and the relativistic is just that:
> > sqrt[(1 - v)/(1 + v)];
> 
> That is not an equation either.  You *really* need to *learn* what you are 
> talking about.
>  
> > where v is a relativistic speed (a fictitious number):
> > v = vs-vr / 1-ve*vs; (c=1)
> 
> Wrong.  As you could also have read in what I referred you to, the correct 
> equation for the relativistic Doppler effect is
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 − (v∕c)²)∕√(1 − v∕c)                       (1)
> 
> or
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 + v∕c)∕(1 − v∕c))
> 
> where v is the *relative speed* of source and observer (positive if the 
> source is approaching the observer).
> 
> (Notice those *square roots*?  They are *missing* from *all* your 
> "formulas", from which one can see *at a glance* that you have _not_ applied 
> the Lorentz transform *correctly*.)
> 
> And if you prefer to use natural units (c := 1) – although you are clearly 
> not understanding them –, then it becomes
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 − v²)∕√(1 − v)
> 
> or
> 
>   v_observed = v_source √(1 + v)∕(1 − v))
> 
> (and the square roots *are still there*).
> 
> Even if, just for fun, we solve equation 1 for v, we get
> 
>   v = c
> 
> and
> 
>   v = c v_observed²∕v_source² − c
> 
> so for c := 1:
> 
>   v = 1
> 
> and
> 
>   v = v_observed²∕v_source² − 1,
> (Not *remotely* what you have.)
> So much for “elementary arithmetics”.

Use the standard: tex, latex, or something other... instead of these stupid pseudographics.

Pseudophysics + pseudoscience = pseudographs,  haha!

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

#399940

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> W dniu niedziela, 27 listopada 2016 13:19:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
>> It is _not_ the astronomical reality.  There are several definitions of
>> “day” in that regard: the *solar day* (the time it takes for Sol [the
>> Sun] to return to its highest point in the Terran sky: only *on average*
>> 86'400 seconds), and the *sidereal day* (from Latin «sidus» “star”; the
>> time it takes a location on the surface of Terra to have the same stars
>> in the zenith again, or IOW to complete one full rotation): (currently)
>> 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.1 seconds.
> 
> [invective]
> 
> The Earth rotation's period is less about 4 minutes than the solar day =

Yes, that is what I just said.

> […]
> The sidereal cycle 23h 56m is practicaly absent - unobservable, thus
> inrrelevant for any on the Earth cycle.

Utter nonsense.  Go outside at night, pick any star in the sky, note down 
its coordinates in the celestial grid of your least distrust, and measure 
the time it takes for that star to be seen at the same position again the 
next night (weather permitting).
 
> Use the standard: tex, latex, or something other... instead of these
> stupid pseudographics.

They are not that, but the proper Unicode characters.  Unicode is a standard 
since 1991, and a requirement to be supported by newsreaders since November 
2009 (see RFC 5536, §2.3).  Google Groups, which you are using, can display 
it (as it runs in Web browsers), current and even not so current operating 
systems, desktop environments and font faces can handle it; so I see no 
reason to use replacement syntax in order to prove you wrong.

And as a person who not only writes nonsensical formulas but also neglects 
to write indices in an unambiguous way in the process, you should be *very* 
slow to criticize the style of others’ equations.
 
You have still neither considered nor answered the simple questions about 
the relativity of motion that I posed to you.  Instead, you keep avoiding
to address all counter-arguments and evidence that refute what you have 
said, by attempting to create distraction with sideshows: first the solar 
cycle, then your wrong idea of “relativistic speed”, now the format of the 
equations; insults in-between.  This is, of course, typical crackpot 
tactics, and, having been around here for quite a while, I am not going to 
fall for it.  So you can skip that just as well.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#399943

W dniu niedziela, 27 listopada 2016 21:29:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> > The sidereal cycle 23h 56m is practicaly absent - unobservable, thus
> > inrrelevant for any on the Earth cycle.
> 
> Utter nonsense.  Go outside at night, pick any star in the sky, note down 
> its coordinates in the celestial grid of your least distrust, and measure 
> the time it takes for that star to be seen at the same position again the 
> next night (weather permitting).

The rotation period of the stars is irrelevant for any process on the Earth!

Even the lunar day/cycle: ~25h, has thousands times more impact,
but still tiny with comparison to the Sun cycle: 24h exactly!
 
> > Use the standard: tex, latex, or something other... instead of these
> > stupid pseudographics.
> 
> They are not that, but the proper Unicode characters.  Unicode is a standard 
> since 1991, and a requirement to be supported by newsreaders since November 
> 2009 (see RFC 5536, §2.3).  Google Groups, which you are using, can display 
> it (as it runs in Web browsers), current and even not so current operating 
> systems, desktop environments and font faces can handle it; so I see no 
> reason to use replacement syntax in order to prove you wrong.
> 
> And as a person who not only writes nonsensical formulas but also neglects 
> to write indices in an unambiguous way in the process, you should be *very* 
> slow to criticize the style of others’ equations.
>  
> You have still neither considered nor answered the simple questions about 
> the relativity of motion that I posed to you.  Instead, you keep avoiding
> to address all counter-arguments and evidence that refute what you have 
> said, by attempting to create distraction with sideshows: first the solar 
> cycle, then your wrong idea of “relativistic speed”, now the format of the 
> equations; insults in-between.  This is, of course, typical crackpot 
> tactics, and, having been around here for quite a while, I am not going to 
> fall for it.  So you can skip that just as well.


simply solve the equation:
 
relativistic Doppler = standard/mathematical,
because the observed shift is only one - both are the same.

Thus:

sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] = sqrt[(1-vr)/(1-vs) * (1+vs)/(1+vr)] 

then: v = (r-s)/(1-s*r);

so, the relativistic formula gives wrong speed,
because it's not the relative speed source to the observer: v = r-s,
but only a fictitious, unrealistic quantity:
v-relativisic = v / (1-r*s);
because the desired relative speed is v=r-s simply!


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1-v)%2F(1%2Bv)%3D(1-r)%2F(1-s)*(1%2Bs)%2F(1%2Br),+solve+v

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

#399953

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> W dniu niedziela, 27 listopada 2016 21:29:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>> > The sidereal cycle 23h 56m is practicaly absent - unobservable, thus
>> > inrrelevant for any on the Earth cycle.
>> Utter nonsense.  Go outside at night, pick any star in the sky, note down
>> its coordinates in the celestial grid of your least distrust, and measure
>> the time it takes for that star to be seen at the same position again the
>> next night (weather permitting).
> 
> The rotation period of the stars is irrelevant for any process on the
> Earth!

It is not the rotation period of the stars (either you have no idea what 
“rotation period” means or your understanding of English is utterly 
insufficient or defective).  It is the rotation period of _Earth_ (as you 
have said yourself), and it is relevant in the sideshow that *you* started 
(where you hilariously attempted to calculate the orbital speed of a body
by dividing the orbit’s *radius* by the rotation period of the central 
body).
 
>> You have still neither considered nor answered the simple questions about
>> the relativity of motion that I posed to you.  Instead, you keep avoiding
>> to address all counter-arguments and evidence that refute what you have
>> said, by attempting to create distraction with sideshows: first the solar
>> cycle, then your wrong idea of “relativistic speed”, now the format of
>> the equations; insults in-between.  This is, of course, typical crackpot
>> tactics, and, having been around here for quite a while, I am not going
>> to fall for it.  So you can skip that just as well.
> 
> simply solve the equation:

I am not jumping through your hoops.

You have still not considered or answered the questions posed to you.
  
> relativistic Doppler = standard/mathematical,
> because the observed shift is only one - both are the same.

Nonsense.  Follow the reference that I have given you, and *read* what is 
said there.
 
> Thus:
> […]
> sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] = sqrt[(1-vr)/(1-vs) * (1+vs)/(1+vr)]
> 
> then: v = (r-s)/(1-s*r);
> 
> so, the relativistic formula gives wrong speed, […]

Ex falso quodlibet.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400343

W dniu niedziela, 27 listopada 2016 23:42:55 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

> It is not the rotation period of the stars (either you have no idea what 
> “rotation period” means or your understanding of English is utterly 
> insufficient or defective).  It is the rotation period of _Earth_ (as you 
> have said yourself), and it is relevant in the sideshow that *you* started 
> (where you hilariously attempted to calculate the orbital speed of a body
> by dividing the orbit’s *radius* by the rotation period of the central 
> body).

In the relativity stupid model it's impossible to distinguise what is moving...
that is just the key of the stupidity: the so-called relativity principle,
and/or constancy of the lightspeed.

In the reality the motion of the sun is just an observed fact.
The case of the motion is quite irrelevant,
esspecialy in the relativity - a caseless model!

Only in the classical science the case is obvious,
and discovered long time ago by Copernicus, Newton and many others.

> > Thus:
> > […]
> > sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] = sqrt[(1-vr)/(1-vs) * (1+vs)/(1+vr)]
> > 
> > then: v = (r-s)/(1-s*r);
> > 
> > so, the relativistic formula gives wrong speed, […]

Of course.
The relativity provides a speed: (s-r) / (1-r*s),
thus wrong, because the relative speed is: v = s-r simply.

Relativist introduces an error: r*s/c^2,
so, for small relative speed: r ~= s, what means: v << r;
the error is about: r^2/c^2;

for example:
r = 300 km/s and s = 310 km/s =>
then the relative speed is:
v = 10km/s of course;

but the relativity provides:
v' = v / 1 - rs =~ v (1 + r^2) = v(1 + 1e-6) = 10 km/s + 10mm/s.

so, the error of the relativistic approximation is evident:
dv = 10mm/s; or dv/v = 1e-6;

which is perfectly consistent with the flyby anomalies,
any many other anomalies.

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

#400357

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> It is not the rotation period of the stars (either you have no idea what
>> “rotation period” means or your understanding of English is utterly
>> insufficient or defective).  It is the rotation period of _Earth_ (as you
>> have said yourself), and it is relevant in the sideshow that *you*
>> started (where you hilariously attempted to calculate the orbital speed
>> of a body by dividing the orbit’s *radius* by the rotation period of the
>> central body).

Your quotation has nothing to do with your reply.  Learn to quote.
 
> 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.

And when both of you are moving towards each other, your relative speed is 
higher, and the damage from the collision will be even greater.  Your speeds 
will approximately add, but only *approximately* because your speeds are so 
low compared to the speed of light.  When one or both of you on a collision 
course would travel close to or at the speed of light, your speeds would 
_not_ simply add up, and you could visibly see each other blueshifted 
instead (among other relativistic effects).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula>

> that is just the key of the stupidity:

That you do not understand it does not make it stupid.

> [misconceptions]

>> > Thus:
>> > […]
>> > sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] = sqrt[(1-vr)/(1-vs) * (1+vs)/(1+vr)]
>> > 
>> > then: v = (r-s)/(1-s*r);
>> > 
>> > so, the relativistic formula gives wrong speed, […]
> 
> Of course.
> The relativity provides a speed: (s-r) / (1-r*s),

Repeating nonsense (and babble it to yourself) does not make it true.

> thus wrong, […]

Ex falso quodlibet.

And you have still not considered or answered the very simple questions 
posed to you.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400361

On 11/30/2016 12:26 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>
>> In the relativity stupid model it's impossible to distinguise what is
>> moving...
>
>> that is just the key of the stupidity:
>
> That you do not understand it does not make it stupid.
>

I think it's worth asking our Polish friend about taking a flight due 
west out of Oslo, Norway, with the ground speed of the plane being 550 
mph. Is it the plane or the ground that is moving? Certainly the plane 
is moving with respect to the ground, but is it the plane or the ground 
moving that is responsible for that relative motion. If it is the plane 
that's moving, then why when the pilot looks up in the sky, the sun (and 
the other stars) are not progressing across the sky?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400450

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> I think it's worth asking our Polish friend about taking a flight due
> west out of Oslo, Norway, with the ground speed of the plane being 550
> mph. Is it the plane or the ground that is moving? Certainly the plane
> is moving with respect to the ground, but is it the plane or the ground
> moving that is responsible for that relative motion. If it is the plane
> that's moving, then why when the pilot looks up in the sky, the sun (and
> the other stars) are not progressing across the sky?

Why 550 mph?
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400451

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> I think it's worth asking our Polish friend about taking a flight due
>> west out of Oslo, Norway, with the ground speed of the plane being 550
>> mph. Is it the plane or the ground that is moving? Certainly the plane
>> is moving with respect to the ground, but is it the plane or the ground
>> moving that is responsible for that relative motion. If it is the plane
>> that's moving, then why when the pilot looks up in the sky, the sun (and
>> the other stars) are not progressing across the sky?
> 
> Why 550 mph?

Ah, Oslo :)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400479

On 12/1/2016 7:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> I think it's worth asking our Polish friend about taking a flight due
>> west out of Oslo, Norway, with the ground speed of the plane being 550
>> mph. Is it the plane or the ground that is moving? Certainly the plane
>> is moving with respect to the ground, but is it the plane or the ground
>> moving that is responsible for that relative motion. If it is the plane
>> that's moving, then why when the pilot looks up in the sky, the sun (and
>> the other stars) are not progressing across the sky?
>
> Why 550 mph?
>
>

1. It's a realistic airline travel speed.
2. At the latitude of Oslo, it matches the surface rotational speed of 
the Earth.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400583

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 12/1/2016 7:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> I think it's worth asking our Polish friend about taking a flight due
>>> west out of Oslo, Norway, with the ground speed of the plane being 550
>>> mph. Is it the plane or the ground that is moving? Certainly the plane
>>> is moving with respect to the ground, but is it the plane or the ground
>>> moving that is responsible for that relative motion. If it is the plane
>>> that's moving, then why when the pilot looks up in the sky, the sun (and
>>> the other stars) are not progressing across the sky?
>> Why 550 mph?
> 
> 1. It's a realistic airline travel speed.
> 2. At the latitude of Oslo, it matches the surface rotational speed of
> the Earth.

(See my follow-up several hours before yours.)

However, according to my calculations, it exceeds the latter.

The equatorial rotational speed of Terra is ca. v_eq = 1040.3955 mph 
(Cox, 2000).  The latitude L of Oslo, Norway, is ca. 59.95° N (GeoHack).

The rotational speed v_lat of Terra at latitude L is approximately

  v_lat = cos(L) × v_eq

        = cos(59.95°) × 1040.3955 mph

        ≈ 520.98 mph.

So your airplane travels 29.02 mph faster than the Earth rotates at that 
latitude.
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400584

On 12/2/2016 9:40 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2016 7:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> I think it's worth asking our Polish friend about taking a flight due
>>>> west out of Oslo, Norway, with the ground speed of the plane being 550
>>>> mph. Is it the plane or the ground that is moving? Certainly the plane
>>>> is moving with respect to the ground, but is it the plane or the ground
>>>> moving that is responsible for that relative motion. If it is the plane
>>>> that's moving, then why when the pilot looks up in the sky, the sun (and
>>>> the other stars) are not progressing across the sky?
>>> Why 550 mph?
>>
>> 1. It's a realistic airline travel speed.
>> 2. At the latitude of Oslo, it matches the surface rotational speed of
>> the Earth.
>
> (See my follow-up several hours before yours.)
>
> However, according to my calculations, it exceeds the latter.
>
> The equatorial rotational speed of Terra is ca. v_eq = 1040.3955 mph
> (Cox, 2000).  The latitude L of Oslo, Norway, is ca. 59.95° N (GeoHack).
>
> The rotational speed v_lat of Terra at latitude L is approximately
>
>   v_lat = cos(L) × v_eq
>
>         = cos(59.95°) × 1040.3955 mph
>
>         ≈ 520.98 mph.
>
> So your airplane travels 29.02 mph faster than the Earth rotates at that
> latitude.
>
>

I admittedly made a number of round-offs and only looked for major 
cities in the rough vicinity. A good replacement city on the 50th 
parallel would be a nice addition.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400597

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> I admittedly made a number of round-offs and only looked for major
> cities in the rough vicinity. A good replacement city on the 50th
> parallel would be a nice addition.

Take your pick :)

Vancouver, Canada:      49.193889° N, 123.184444° W (YVR)
Calgary, Canada:        51.113889° N, 114.020278° W (YYC)
Winnipeg, Canada:       49.91°     N,  97.24°     W (YWG)
London, UK:             51.505278° N,   0.055278° E (LCY)
                        51.148056° N,   0.190278  W (LGW)
                        51.4775°   N,   0.461389  W (LHR)
Brussels, Belgium:      50.901389° N,   4.484444° E (BRU)
Cologne, Germany:       50.865833° N,   7.142778° E (CGN)
Frankfurt, Germany:     50.033333° N,   8.570556° E (FRA)
Erfurt, Germany:        50.979722° N,  10.958056° E (ERF)
Leipzig, Germany:       51.423889° N,  12.236389° E (LEJ)
Dresden, Germany:       51.134444° N,  13.768056° E (DRS)
Wrocław, Poland:        51.102683° N,  16.885836° E (WRO)
Lublin, Poland:         51.236111° N,  22.715278° E (LUZ)
Kiev, Ukraine:          50.345°    N,  30.894722° E (KPB)
Saratov, Russia:        51.565°    N,  46.046667° E (RTW)


But I think you mean the 60th parallel [cos(60°) = 0.5].
Airports there are a little harder to come by :)

Anchorage, USA:         61.174361° N, 149.996361° W (ANC)
Reykjavík, Iceland:     63.985°    N,  22.605556° E (KEF)
Stockholm, Sweden:      59.587942° N,  16.627139° E (VST)
Tallinn, Estonia:       59.413317° N,  24.832844° E (TLL)
Helsinki, Finland:      60.317222° N,  24.963333° E (HEL)
St. Petersburg, Russia: 59.800292° N,  30.262503° E (LED)
Yakutsk, Russia:        62.093333° N, 129.770556° E (YKS)

(Apparently no cities or airports at or near 50° or 60° South.)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400587

On 12/2/2016 9:40 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2016 7:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> I think it's worth asking our Polish friend about taking a flight due
>>>> west out of Oslo, Norway, with the ground speed of the plane being 550
>>>> mph. Is it the plane or the ground that is moving? Certainly the plane
>>>> is moving with respect to the ground, but is it the plane or the ground
>>>> moving that is responsible for that relative motion. If it is the plane
>>>> that's moving, then why when the pilot looks up in the sky, the sun (and
>>>> the other stars) are not progressing across the sky?
>>> Why 550 mph?
>>
>> 1. It's a realistic airline travel speed.
>> 2. At the latitude of Oslo, it matches the surface rotational speed of
>> the Earth.
>
> (See my follow-up several hours before yours.)
>
> However, according to my calculations, it exceeds the latter.
>
> The equatorial rotational speed of Terra is ca. v_eq = 1040.3955 mph
> (Cox, 2000).  The latitude L of Oslo, Norway, is ca. 59.95° N (GeoHack).
>
> The rotational speed v_lat of Terra at latitude L is approximately
>
>   v_lat = cos(L) × v_eq
>
>         = cos(59.95°) × 1040.3955 mph
>
>         ≈ 520.98 mph.
>
> So your airplane travels 29.02 mph faster than the Earth rotates at that
> latitude.
>
>

arccos(550 mph/1040 mph) = 58.1° N
Perm, Russia, or Juneau, USA, would suffice.
Both have airports.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400365

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.
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.
 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula>

Of course!
That is just the relativistic speed, which is wrong in the general case,
as any approximation, simplification!

> > 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!

Simply:
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);

The formula D(r,s) is perfect - universal, good everywere:
not only the case of the light, but in case of any other waves too,
like the sonic waves - for sonars in the water, for a sonic radar (bats), ect!


So, try to use now the relativistic radar formula for the flying bat,
and what do you get?
An error proportional to the (u/c)^2 where: u = speed of the bat, and c - speed of sonic waves in the air.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web