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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430648 > unrolled thread

Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth)

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

Contents

  Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 03:25 -0700
    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-09-01 13:23 +0200
    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-01 14:15 +0200
      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 06:09 -0700
    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 06:20 -0700
      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 07:05 -0700
      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time  dilation for the Earth) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-01 12:40 -0700
        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time   dilation for the Earth) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-02 12:19 -0700
    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 03:26 +0200
      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 22:34 -0700
        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 22:48 -0700
        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 10:18 +0200
          Energy (was: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth)) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 15:52 +0200
            Re: Energy (was: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth)) Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-03 13:56 +0000
              The problem of crackpots (was: Energy) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 17:32 +0200
      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 18:43 -0700
        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 18:55 -0700
          Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 19:03 -0700
            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 08:22 +0200
              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 23:32 -0700
              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 04:11 -0700
                Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-05 05:06 -0700
                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 05:17 -0700
                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-05 05:26 -0700
                      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Istrátora Metiku <untw@nwpovu.un> - 2017-09-06 12:42 +0000
                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:11 -0700
                Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 14:33 +0200
                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 00:33 +0200
                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:48 -0700
                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Istrátora Metiku <untw@nwpovu.un> - 2017-09-06 13:03 +0000
                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:46 -0700
                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 13:04 +0200
                      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 05:05 -0700
                        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 05:25 -0700
                        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 02:10 +0200
                          Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 20:40 -0700
                            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 13:15 +0200
                              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-07 05:42 -0700
                              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 21:56 -0700
                              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 21:58 -0700
          Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 07:57 +0200
            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 23:19 -0700
              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 03:38 -0700
                Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 04:52 -0700
                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:08 -0700
            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 03:58 -0700
              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 14:22 +0200
            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 14:03 +0200
          Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 08:26 +0200
            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 04:12 -0700
        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 06:42 +0200
          Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 05:35 -0700
            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 21:49 +0200
              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 19:35 -0700
                Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 07:41 +0200
                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 03:53 -0700
                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 14:15 +0200
                      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:17 -0700
                        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 12:44 +0200
                          Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 05:19 -0700
                            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 15:34 +0200
                              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 08:53 -0700
                                Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 18:02 +0200
                                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 21:02 -0700
                                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 11:31 +0200
                                      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> - 2017-09-07 15:46 +0000
                                      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 21:44 -0700
                            Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 16:01 +0200
                              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 07:11 -0700
                              Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 08:57 -0700
                                Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 09:01 -0700
                                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 02:25 +0200
                                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 20:49 -0700
                                      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 11:42 +0200
                                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-07 01:23 -0700
                                      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 02:01 -0700
                                Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 12:56 -0500
                                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 12:44 -0700
                                  Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 20:36 -0700
                                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 12:04 +0200
                                    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 12:14 +0000
                                Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 20:12 +0200
    Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) bigal95210@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 15:48 -0700
      Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:49 -0700
        Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-07 07:32 -0700

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#431549

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:45:55 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> While the good guys are 
> traveling home at a relative speed slower than the speed of light, the bad 
> guys start building a FTL starship.  When completed some years later, the 
> good guys still being underway, the bad guys launch their starship, overtake 
> the good guys and attack.  The Lorentz transformations then show that it 
> appears to the good guys as if the bad guys have attacked before their FTL 
> starship was built, and that they are coming from the future.
> 

Does such a scenario mean that the statement 'nothing can travel faster than light' is no longer true?

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

#431130

gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:

> A journey to a distant star 50 light years away will take at least 100
> light years round trip. This is of course in Earth years since we all
> start out on Earth.
> 
> So I would think that a better description of the twin paradox would be to
> say that the time taken for an interstellar journey and return will take
> the number of years us earth bound people will calculate it will take, and
> due to certain unexplained effects, the persons or robots on board will
> appear to be younger than the persons on Earth.

The effects *are* explained: For the persons or robots on board, while time 
passes normally, the distance to the star is *less* than 50 light-years 
(length contraction).  So, at the *same* relative speed, the journey takes 
them (or from their perspective, the star) *less* than 50 years one way.  
Simple arithmetic.

> I believe that relativity only affects the translation of quantities and
> measures between a moving frame and the home frame, and not reality.

That belief was/is falsified by experimental results (already), starting 
with the Hafele–Keating experiment, and continuing with GNSSs such as the 
GPS.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#431132

W dniu wtorek, 5 września 2017 07:57:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> The effects *are* explained: For the persons or robots on board, while time 
> passes normally, the distance to the star is *less* than 50 light-years 
> (length contraction). 

And for the persons or robots on a street trees and buildings
are running around. A relativistic moron said! It has to be true.

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

#431143

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:49:24 AM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 5 września 2017 07:57:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> 
> > The effects *are* explained: For the persons or robots on board, while time 
> > passes normally, the distance to the star is *less* than 50 light-years 
> > (length contraction). 
> 
> And for the persons or robots on a street trees and buildings
> are running around. A relativistic moron said! It has to be true.

There may be something to what you say: a person standing still at the equator is actually moving at least at 1000 km/r in a circular path. Factor in the Earths orbit and the Sun's orbits and you have something different. At the North pole, there is no such effect due to the Earth's rotation, neglecting other effects, a person would be standing still, but maybe shivering.

Somewhere between the equator and the north pole, a person running through the streets in East to West direction would actually be stationary, and trees and buildings moving past him.

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

#431152

W dniu wtorek, 5 września 2017 12:38:12 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:49:24 AM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 5 września 2017 07:57:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > 
> > > The effects *are* explained: For the persons or robots on board, while time 
> > > passes normally, the distance to the star is *less* than 50 light-years 
> > > (length contraction). 
> > 
> > And for the persons or robots on a street trees and buildings
> > are running around. A relativistic moron said! It has to be true.
> 
> There may be something to what you say: a person standing still at the equator is actually moving at least at 1000 km/r in a circular path.

:)
Oh, really? Do you believe some absolute motion? Well, yes, you
do. 
So, this person is moving and nobody should doubt it, including 
itself. And how about these gadenken twins? 

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

#431287

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:22:51 PM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 5 września 2017 12:38:12 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał:
> > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:49:24 AM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu wtorek, 5 września 2017 07:57:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > > 
> > > > The effects *are* explained: For the persons or robots on board, while time 
> > > > passes normally, the distance to the star is *less* than 50 light-years 
> > > > (length contraction). 
> > > 
> > > And for the persons or robots on a street trees and buildings
> > > are running around. A relativistic moron said! It has to be true.
> > 
> > There may be something to what you say: a person standing still at the equator is actually moving at least at 1000 km/r in a circular path.
> 
> :)
> Oh, really? Do you believe some absolute motion? Well, yes, you
> do. 
> So, this person is moving and nobody should doubt it, including 
> itself. And how about these gadenken twins?

I would think that centrifugal forces would indicate motion, but I could be wrong.

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

#431145

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:27:24 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 
> That belief was/is falsified by experimental results (already), starting 
> with the Hafele–Keating experiment, and continuing with GNSSs such as the 
> GPS.
> 
> -- 

I have some serious concerns about Hafle-Keating, in brief, how does one keep track of the altitude of the airplanes to the accuracy required by the atomic clocks which show a variation in clock rate with the altitude difference as little as 30 cm? The cockpit of a 747 moves up and down by about 5 ft in flight, not sure of the rest of the plane, during turbulence, and also during autopilot operation, I am not sure that the airliner maintains altitude to such an exact degree. Factor in the time spend at each altitude, and you can see that the errors can add up?

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

#431160

gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> That belief was/is falsified by experimental results (already), starting
>> with the Hafele–Keating experiment, and continuing with GNSSs such as the
>> GPS.
> 
> I have some serious concerns about Hafle-Keating, in brief, how does one
> keep track of the altitude of the airplanes

(_Hafele_)

Airplanes have an altimeter and autopilot.

> to the accuracy required by the atomic clocks which show a variation in
> clock rate with the altitude difference as little as 30 cm?

How did you get that idea?

> The cockpit of a 747 moves up and down by about 5 ft in flight,

Cite evidence.

> not sure of the rest of the plane, during turbulence, and also during
> autopilot operation, I am not sure that the airliner maintains altitude
> to such an exact degree.

Flight computer?

> Factor in the time spend at each altitude, and you can see that the errors
> can add up?

No.  First of all, you can start the measurement after you reach the highest 
altitude and stop before you leave it.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#431154

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
>> A journey to a distant star 50 light years away will take at least 100
>> light years round trip. This is of course in Earth years since we all
>> start out on Earth.
>> 
>> So I would think that a better description of the twin paradox would be
>> to say that the time taken for an interstellar journey and return will
>> take the number of years us earth bound people will calculate it will
>> take, and due to certain unexplained effects, the persons or robots on
>> board will appear to be younger than the persons on Earth.
> 
> The effects *are* explained: For the persons or robots on board, while
> time passes normally, the distance to the star is *less* than 50
> light-years (length contraction).  So, at the *same* relative speed, the 
> journey takes them (or from their perspective, the star) *less* than 50
> years one way.

I should say that this only holds if they travel faster than approximately

        D∕γ(v)∕v ≤ T'
            D∕T' ≤ γ(v)∕v  
            D∕T' ≤ 1∕√(1 − v²)∕v
            T'∕D ≤ √(1 − v²)∕v
          T'²∕D² ≤ (1 − v²)∕v²
          T'²∕D² ≤ 1∕v² − 1
      T'²∕D² + 1 ≤ 1∕v²
  1∕(T'²∕D² + 1) ≤ v²
               v ≥ 1∕√(T'²∕D² + 1)
               v ≥ 1∕√(50²∕50² + 1)
               v ≥ 1∕√2
               v ≥ 0.7071 c

because they cannot travel at the speed of light c in the first place, and 
so it would usually take them *more* than 50 years one way, of course.

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50%2F(1%E2%88%95%E2%88%9A(1-+v%5E2))%2Fv+for+v%3D0+to+1&dataset=>

> Simple arithmetic.

Well, maybe not that simple ;-)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#431134

gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:

> A journey to a distant star 50 light years away will take at least 100
> light years round trip. This is of course in Earth years since we all
> start out on Earth.

I think you mean “at least 100 _years_”, since light-years is a unit of 
*distance*, _not_ time.

It will actually take *more* than 100 years *in Earth time*, because only 
light (in general, objects with zero mass) can travel at the speed of light.
(See recent discussions.)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#431147

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:56:55 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > A journey to a distant star 50 light years away will take at least 100
> > light years round trip. This is of course in Earth years since we all
> > start out on Earth.
> 
> I think you mean “at least 100 _years_”, since light-years is a unit of 
> *distance*, _not_ time.
> 
Right

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

#430998

gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is considered polite to post here using one’s real name.  Continued 
failure to comply with that request may cause you to be ignored.  You have 
been warned.

> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:57:00 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

> [100+ lines of full quote without comment]

This is unacceptable.  <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

> [irrelevant statement about planets]

[Fixed quotation; *learn* *to* *quote*]
> > And the (former) traveler has to conclude that they have also traveled
> > into the future (although without an earthbound clock/calendar/etc. to
> > look at, they might not realize that immediately¹).
> 
> This is the part I do not fully understand. As someone said, you always
> travel into the future when you go on a trip and return from that trip.

That is *precisely* what *I* said.

> For the earth person or instruments or whatever there is no confusion. For
> the traveller, and the traveller could be a robot, what does it matter?
> For a machine it makes no difference at all how many years have passed on
> Earth. For a person, they know that it will be X amount of years before he
> can return to Earth.  If the traveller is an engineer they may not even
> think relativity is true.

If the robot would have be powered by a battery, that would last longer if 
the robot moved away using another device (and would not power that device) 
and returned, than if it had not moved at all.  The traveling engineer would 
still be younger than if they had not traveled at all.  As always, nature 
could not care less who or what is traveling and what they believe.
To paraphrase Lawrence Krauss: The universe is as it is, whether you like it 
or not.

You are missing the point.  This is about *the nature of space and time*, 
_not_ about aging or individual beliefs.  Clocks are just instruments to 
measure time precisely.  In the description and the explanations of the twin 
paradox (and anything else about relativity), you can substitute “clock” 
with “anything that indicates the passage of time precisely enough”, and the 
statements still hold.  (Experimentally confirmed innumerable times.  
Confirmed as I am writing this; confirmed as you are reading this.)

When the traveler returns to any (working) clock that they did not take with 
them, any such clock would show a later time than any (working) clock that 
the traveler took with them because *more (proper) time* has passed in the 
former’s frame of reference.  So the traveler has effectively also traveled 
into the future (of that frame; actually, they have just traveled *farther* 
into the future [of that frame] than if they had not left it in the first 
place; even at relative rest, all of us are traveling into the future all 
the time, but at a normal rate).

Eventually, you will have to learn and do the science, you will have to draw 
the Minkowski spacetime diagrams, and learn and perform the Lorentz 
transformation, to fully understand and appreciate this (both are not hard 
to do; the calculations are simple arithmetic).

Have you searched the Web for “"twin paradox"” yet, as I recommended to you 
earlier?  If not, why not?

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#431023

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 10:13:00 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It is considered polite to post here using one’s real name.  Continued 
> failure to comply with that request may cause you to be ignored.  You have 
> been warned.

?


> 
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 6:57:00 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas
> > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
> 
> > [100+ lines of full quote without comment]

Mistake. I did not intend to quote without comment.

> 
> This is unacceptable.  <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
> 
> > [irrelevant statement about planets]
> 
> [Fixed quotation; *learn* *to* *quote*]
> > > And the (former) traveler has to conclude that they have also traveled
> > > into the future (although without an earthbound clock/calendar/etc. to
> > > look at, they might not realize that immediately¹).
> > 
> > This is the part I do not fully understand. As someone said, you always
> > travel into the future when you go on a trip and return from that trip.
> 
> That is *precisely* what *I* said.

Acknowledged.

> 
> > For the earth person or instruments or whatever there is no confusion. For
> > the traveller, and the traveller could be a robot, what does it matter?
> > For a machine it makes no difference at all how many years have passed on
> > Earth. For a person, they know that it will be X amount of years before he
> > can return to Earth.  If the traveller is an engineer they may not even
> > think relativity is true.
> 
> If the robot would have be powered by a battery, that would last longer if 
> the robot moved away using another device (and would not power that device) 
> and returned, than if it had not moved at all.  The traveling engineer would 
> still be younger than if they had not traveled at all.  As always, nature 
> could not care less who or what is traveling and what they believe.
> To paraphrase Lawrence Krauss: The universe is as it is, whether you like it 
> or not.
> 
> You are missing the point.  This is about *the nature of space and time*, 
> _not_ about aging or individual beliefs.  Clocks are just instruments to 
> measure time precisely.  In the description and the explanations of the twin 
> paradox (and anything else about relativity), you can substitute “clock” 
> with “anything that indicates the passage of time precisely enough”, and the 
> statements still hold.  (Experimentally confirmed innumerable times.  
> Confirmed as I am writing this; confirmed as you are reading this.)
> 
> When the traveler returns to any (working) clock that they did not take with 
> them, any such clock would show a later time than any (working) clock that 
> the traveler took with them because *more (proper) time* has passed in the 
> former’s frame of reference.  So the traveler has effectively also traveled 
> into the future (of that frame; actually, they have just traveled *farther* 
> into the future [of that frame] than if they had not left it in the first 
> place; even at relative rest, all of us are traveling into the future all 
> the time, but at a normal rate).
> 
> Eventually, you will have to learn and do the science, you will have to draw 
> the Minkowski spacetime diagrams, and learn and perform the Lorentz 
> transformation, to fully understand and appreciate this (both are not hard 
> to do; the calculations are simple arithmetic).
> 
> Have you searched the Web for “"twin paradox"” yet, as I recommended to you 
> earlier?  If not, why not?

I have searched the web for the twin paradox, and have read through many of them. I have not performed the calculations. 

If you consider the standard x y z 3 space, and replace the y axis with the time coordinate, perhaps then you could illustrate different paths through space time (neglecting one space dimension for clarity) and illustrate time dilations. Maybe one of those nice videos on the Minkowski diagram will help. Come to think of it, a video on the Twin Paradox may help as well. 

I did not mean to offend in what is a friendly discussion, despite some carelessness on my part.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#431081

gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 10:13:00 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> It is considered polite to post here using one’s real name.  Continued
>> failure to comply with that request may cause you to be ignored.  You
>> have been warned.
> 
> ?

You have posted using only your e-mail address, but “Usenet is the thing 
with people”.  You ought to post using also your real name.  I have already 
told you how you can do that.

>> Eventually, you will have to learn and do the science, you will have to
>> draw the Minkowski spacetime diagrams, and learn and perform the Lorentz
>> transformation, to fully understand and appreciate this (both are not
>> hard to do; the calculations are simple arithmetic).
>> 
>> Have you searched the Web for “"twin paradox"” yet, as I recommended to
>> you earlier?  If not, why not?
> 
> I have searched the web for the twin paradox, and have read through many
> of them. I have not performed the calculations.

OK, then do that first.  You do not have to start with the Lorentz 
transformation: Just consider how much time passes for you while you travel 
a certain distance at a certain (relative) speed, and how much time passes 
for someone observing you doing that.

For easy calculation (and drawing), I recommend you consider a star or 
planet 3 light-years *proper* distance away from Terra (keep length 
contraction in mind) to which you travel at 0.6 c from Terra to that object 
and return to Terra at the same relative speed.

If you are stuck, you can post your calculations here and ask about them.

> If you consider the standard x y z 3 space, and replace the y axis with
> the time coordinate, perhaps then you could illustrate different paths
> through space time (neglecting one space dimension for clarity) 

No, this is not how it works.  In a Minkowski spacetime diagram we ususally 
consider only one spatial dimension (usually called “x”) and one temporal 
dimension (usually called “t”):

                            t ^
                              :
                              :
                              :
                              :
                  ------------+----------->
                              :           x
                              :
                              :
                              :
                              :

Motion then is usually only motion parallel to the x-axis.  (Keep in mind 
that *time passes* while something is moving.)

Using projection, you can also draw the y-axis so that it looks 
perpendicular to the x-axis and the t-axis, as it should be:

                            t ^
                              :
                              :
                              :
                              :/
                  ------------+----------->
                             /:           x
                            / :
                           /  :
                          /   :
                       y v    :

Now good luck drawing the z-axis so that it looks perpendicular to the x-
axis, the y-axis, *and* the t-axis ;-)

> and illustrate time dilations.

Not only that.  Keep in mind that time dilation is only one of three 
special-relativistic effects.

> Maybe one of those nice videos on the Minkowski diagram will help. Come to
> think of it, a video on the Twin Paradox may help as well.

Certainly.  You may want to start with Einstein Online and Khan Academy.  I 
can highly recommend Larry Lagerstrom’s 3-month online course on the basics 
of special relativity (by Stanford University, at Coursera; for free unless 
you want a certificate).  If you want to know even more (without enrolling 
at a university), I can recommend Leonard Susskind’s lectures at Stanford 
University, available for free on YouTube.  
 
> I did not mean to offend in what is a friendly discussion, despite some
> carelessness on my part.

ACK.

Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum from now on.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#431123

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:19:18 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 10:13:00 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> It is considered polite to post here using one’s real name.  Continued
> >> failure to comply with that request may cause you to be ignored.  You
> >> have been warned.
> > 
> > ?
> 
> You have posted using only your e-mail address, but “Usenet is the thing 
> with people”.  You ought to post using also your real name.  I have already 
> told you how you can do that.

My email address is my real name in full. Hence the confusion.

> 
> >> Eventually, you will have to learn and do the science, you will have to
> >> draw the Minkowski spacetime diagrams, and learn and perform the Lorentz
> >> transformation, to fully understand and appreciate this (both are not
> >> hard to do; the calculations are simple arithmetic).
> >> 
> >> Have you searched the Web for “"twin paradox"” yet, as I recommended to
> >> you earlier?  If not, why not?
> > 
> > I have searched the web for the twin paradox, and have read through many
> > of them. I have not performed the calculations.
> 
> OK, then do that first.  You do not have to start with the Lorentz 
> transformation: Just consider how much time passes for you while you travel 
> a certain distance at a certain (relative) speed, and how much time passes 
> for someone observing you doing that.
> 

Looks like I will have to get down to the mathematics, as well, my discussions so far have been for the most part in non-mathematical terms since Einstein himself sought to explain relativity in non-mathematical terms or using simple algebra. For some reason this method seems clearer and more accessible.

> For easy calculation (and drawing), I recommend you consider a star or 
> planet 3 light-years *proper* distance away from Terra (keep length 
> contraction in mind) to which you travel at 0.6 c from Terra to that object 
> and return to Terra at the same relative speed.
> 
> If you are stuck, you can post your calculations here and ask about them.
> 
OK, it is not the calculations but the concepts behind such calculations that trouble me.

> > If you consider the standard x y z 3 space, and replace the y axis with
> > the time coordinate, perhaps then you could illustrate different paths
> > through space time (neglecting one space dimension for clarity) 
> 
> No, this is not how it works.  In a Minkowski spacetime diagram we ususally 
> consider only one spatial dimension (usually called “x”) and one temporal 
> dimension (usually called “t”):
> 
>                             t ^
>                               :
.... edited out
> 
> > Maybe one of those nice videos on the Minkowski diagram will help. Come to
> > think of it, a video on the Twin Paradox may help as well.
> 
> Certainly.  You may want to start with Einstein Online and Khan Academy.  I 
> can highly recommend Larry Lagerstrom’s 3-month online course on the basics 
> of special relativity (by Stanford University, at Coursera; for free unless 
> you want a certificate).  If you want to know even more (without enrolling 
> at a university), I can recommend Leonard Susskind’s lectures at Stanford 
> University, available for free on YouTube.  
>  

Thanks for the links, will view those videos.

> > I did not mean to offend in what is a friendly discussion, despite some
> > carelessness on my part.
> 
> ACK.
> 
> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum from now on.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars

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

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

#431129

gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:19:18 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

Please remove superfluous information from the attribution before you post.  
(Using a newsreader instead of Google Groups makes this easier.)

It is important for the readability of quotations that the attribution does 
not exceed one line, and a line should not be longer than 80 characters.

>> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
>> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> It is considered polite to post here using one’s real name.  Continued
>> >> failure to comply with that request may cause you to be ignored.  You
>> >> have been warned.
>> > ?
>> You have posted using only your e-mail address, but “Usenet is the thing
>> with people”.  You ought to post using also your real name.  I have
>> already told you how you can do that.
> 
> My email address is my real name in full. Hence the confusion.

OK, but you realize that an e-mail address is not a name, yes?

>> >> Have you searched the Web for “"twin paradox"” yet, as I recommended
>> >> to you earlier?  If not, why not?
>> > I have searched the web for the twin paradox, and have read through
>> > many of them. I have not performed the calculations.
>> OK, then do that first.  You do not have to start with the Lorentz
>> transformation: Just consider how much time passes for you while you
>> travel a certain distance at a certain (relative) speed, and how much
>> time passes for someone observing you doing that.
> 
> Looks like I will have to get down to the mathematics, as well,

Yes, I am certain that it will all become clear to you, then.

> my discussions so far have been for the most part in non-mathematical 
> terms since Einstein himself sought to explain relativity in non-
> mathematical terms

That is _not_ true.  It has not been true of any branch of physics since 
Newton’s «(Philosophiæ Naturalis) Principia *Mathematica*» (“The 
*Mathematical* Principles of Natural Philosophy”), in which he introduced 
mathematics (starting with geometry) as tool to describe nature, and 
invented the calculus.

You must not confuse the qualitative statements and thought experiments
that are known to the general public with the scientific theories.

> or using simple algebra.

That much is true, as you can read in his first paper on the subject [which 
only *later* came to be called “(the) special (theory of) relativity”, when 
he realized that (a) “general (theory of) relativity” was required to 
include gravity], “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905).

In the original German:
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/311>

Translation into English:
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>

More:
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/>

> For some reason this method seems clearer and more accessible.

He did have a talent for explaining complex ideas in simple ways, so that 
even people who are not scientists could understand their basics.

>> For easy calculation (and drawing), I recommend you consider a star or
>> planet 3 light-years *proper* distance away from Terra (keep length
>> contraction in mind) to which you travel at 0.6 c from Terra to that
>> object and return to Terra at the same relative speed.
>> 
>> If you are stuck, you can post your calculations here and ask about them.
> 
> OK, it is not the calculations but the concepts behind such calculations
> that trouble me.

Which concepts trouble you?
 
>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum from now on.
>> 
>> --
>> PointedEars
> 
> Done.

Partially.  You still quoted my signature :)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#431144

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:11:44 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:19:18 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> 
> Please remove superfluous information from the attribution before you post.  
> (Using a newsreader instead of Google Groups makes this easier.)
> 
> It is important for the readability of quotations that the attribution does 
> not exceed one line, and a line should not be longer than 80 characters.

OK
> 
> >> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> > 
> > My email address is my real name in full. Hence the confusion.
> 
> OK, but you realize that an e-mail address is not a name, yes?

Ok my name is Gehan, Shuba knows that.

> 
> You must not confuse the qualitative statements and thought experiments
> that are known to the general public with the scientific theories.
> 

Yes, but are the thought experiments misleading then? They seem to be.

> 
> 

> > OK, it is not the calculations but the concepts behind such calculations
> > that trouble me.
> 
> Which concepts trouble you?
>  

I have tried to explain my concerns regarding thought experiments, the train and lightning strikes experiment, and especially the light clock which I will cover in a separate post.

I was taught SRT in Astronomy 101 many years ago, and later picked up a book entitled "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" which has been the source of much of my information. 

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194

Once I complete my course on SRT I think it best that I put my concerns in a book and leave it there.

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

#431156

gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:11:44 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:19:18 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas
>> > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 
>> Please remove superfluous information from the attribution before you
>> post. (Using a newsreader instead of Google Groups makes this easier.)
>> 
>> It is important for the readability of quotations that the attribution
>> does not exceed one line, and a line should not be longer than 80
>> characters.
> 
> OK

It is still two lines…

>> > My email address is my real name in full. Hence the confusion.
>> 
>> OK, but you realize that an e-mail address is not a name, yes?
> 
> Ok my name is Gehan, Shuba knows that.

Who is “Shuba” and why should I care what they know?  Put your name where it 
belongs.

>> You must not confuse the qualitative statements and thought experiments
>> that are known to the general public with the scientific theories.
> 
> Yes, but are the thought experiments misleading then? They seem to be.

They are not misleading, but they are not sufficient to fully understand the 
subject.  Eventually the thought experiments *are* transformed into 
mathematics in Einstein’s papers, and must be by us who want to understand 
the theories posited by him.
 
> I was taught SRT in Astronomy 101 many years ago,

That’s great :)

> and later picked up a book entitled "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" which
> has been the source of much of my information.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194

I did not know that book, but the reviews and the preview content look 
promising.  Thanks.

> Once I complete my course on SRT

Good luck.

> I think it best that I put my concerns in a book and leave it there.

Please don’t.  Or at least please don’t publish it.  It would only be more 
fodder for relativity deniers and other crackpots.  The record shows.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#431289

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:45:09 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 
> They are not misleading, but they are not sufficient to fully understand the 
> subject.  Eventually the thought experiments *are* transformed into 
> mathematics in Einstein’s papers, and must be by us who want to understand 
> the theories posited by him.
>  
This is an interesting line of thought to explore further. What exactly in the thought experiments is incomplete? As a friend of mine once said ' you can describe it in words but you can't do anything more than that' when comparing qualitative descriptions vs mathematical ones.

 
> > I think it best that I put my concerns in a book and leave it there.
> 
> Please don’t.  Or at least please don’t publish it.  It would only be more 
> fodder for relativity deniers and other crackpots.  The record shows.

I intend to have it peer- reviewed by a mainstream scientist first.

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

#431305

gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:45:09 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> They are not misleading, but they are not sufficient to fully understand
>> the subject.  Eventually the thought experiments *are* transformed into
>> mathematics in Einstein’s papers, and must be by us who want to
>> understand the theories posited by him.
> 
> This is an interesting line of thought to explore further. What exactly in
> the thought experiments is incomplete? As a friend of mine once said ' you
> can describe it in words but you can't do anything more than that' when
> comparing qualitative descriptions vs mathematical ones.

For example, take the relativity of simultaneity as a good starting point.  
There is the thought experiment in which two lightnings strike at the same 
time at equal distances from an observer considered at rest, and an observer 
in the middle of a train that is moving relative to the first observer.

Now, you still *can* understand intuitively and qualitatively that if the 
speed of light is finite and the same for all observers, the flashes are 
simultaneous for the observer at rest, but not simultaneous for the moving 
observer: Because the moving observer is moving towards one flash and away 
from the other; he catches up earlier with the light of the flash that he is 
moving towards than the light of the flash that he is moving away from can 
catch up with him.

But, IMHO, in order to fully understand that this also means in general that 
time is not absolute – that more time must pass for the observer at rest 
than for the moving observer (which explains the twin paradox from the 
perspective of the earthbound observer); and that this also means that space 
is not absolute – that distances at rest are greater for the observer at 
rest than for the moving observer (which explains the twin paradox from the 
perspective of the traveler) – you have to do the calculation.

For example, from my experience, you have to consider the light clock and 
calculate the Lorentz factor once.  And in order to find that invariance in 
nature – that all observers agree on the spacetime interval between two 
events, and that therefore space and time are interconnected as 
*spacetime* – you have to calculate that quantity for at least two observers 
(most easily done based on light clocks) to see that it is the same for both 
of them.  In my experience, you cannot understand that without understanding 
mathematics and the logical arguments that mathematics is based on [here:
from the Pythagorean theorem follows a quantity 4h², and (a = 4h²) ∧
(b = 4h²) → (a = b), where h is the distance between the mirrors of 
identical light clocks, and a and b are, it turns out, expressions for 
calculating the spacetime interval].  This invariance then can help with 
deriving the Lorentz transformation *by calculation*, which when used *in 
calculating* the velocity reveals the actual, relativistic composition of 
velocities.  And so on.

>> > I think it best that I put my concerns in a book and leave it there.
>> Please don’t.  Or at least please don’t publish it.  It would only be
>> more fodder for relativity deniers and other crackpots.  The record 
>> shows.
> 
> I intend to have it peer- reviewed by a mainstream scientist first.

I wager that, if you find that poor guy, it will never be published then 
because after their review the points of the book, your concerns, will all 
have disappeared in a puff of logic.  You have to realize that those 
concerns have been discussed *by ("mainstream") scientists* numerous times 
before, including books.

And the peer review and the "blessing" by a "mainstream" scientist would not 
necessarily mean that your book is flawless.  For example, I have learned of 
a book by a certified crackpot (based on what they posted) on this 
crackpot’s "theory" whose preface was purportedly written by a "mainstream" 
scientist.  They might have even peer-reviewed that book.  I do not know if 
either is true – I am reminded now that I intended to find out by writing to 
that scientist −, but if it is true, it would prove my point.

HTH

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web