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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400343 > unrolled thread

Re: The Fatal Achilles Heel of Einstein's Relativity

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.

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#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] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web