Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372835 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-28 02:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 113 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 02:08 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 05:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-29 15:45 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 07:43 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 06:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-28 18:13 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 15:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-29 18:50 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:06 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-12-30 11:06 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-12-31 10:02 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:18 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-02 14:25 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 21:39 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-03 15:22 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 09:27 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-04 20:43 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:50 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-05 20:47 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-05 19:31 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 20:01 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-05 20:28 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-09 11:44 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 22:18 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:41 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 23:10 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 16:45 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-30 13:48 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 07:17 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-12-30 18:02 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 11:22 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 11:48 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 22:40 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 01:21 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-31 14:34 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:47 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 00:03 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 21:15 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:40 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 13:14 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 14:32 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:32 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:23 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 19:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 23:20 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 23:24 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 05:49 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 16:59 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 08:02 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-04 08:45 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-03 23:14 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:36 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:30 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 00:35 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 22:05 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 19:11 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:16 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 14:03 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 13:07 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 09:20 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2015-12-31 16:08 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 08:41 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 10:57 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 19:33 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:50 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 11:08 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:14 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 15:30 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:56 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 16:30 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 07:54 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:24 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-02 10:46 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2015-12-31 18:59 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 12:08 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-01 08:34 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:42 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 11:07 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 15:58 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 14:10 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:11 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 20:06 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 15:22 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 02:34 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 19:28 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 22:22 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:23 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:21 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 07:15 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-28 16:07 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-28 21:43 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 11:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 21:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 22:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:38 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:31 -0800
Re: Is Pentcho's Brain Sane? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 05:07 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 15:00 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-30 09:06 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 11:02 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 19:44 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-30 13:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 22:12 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 11:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5682E153.EBC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #372847 |
if you call philosophy a science, then it is. “When you sit with a pretty girl for two hours you think it’s only a minute. But when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. That’s relativity.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 21:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ea842ad-6e24-4aa8-b59e-3594b7fbc8c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372835 |
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 2:08:02 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote: > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/ > Is String Theory Science? - Scientific American > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/ > Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory - Forbes > > Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no: > > http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf > Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..." > > The above multiple absurdity cannot be produced by a SCIENTIFIC theory. > > Pentcho Valev Instead of grasping at straws you ought to read a good examination of the question, like Buchdahl's: http://www.amazon.com/Seventeen-Simple-Lectures-General-Relativity/dp/0471096849 BTW, any reason your subject line is not in all caps? A New Year's resolution undergoing testing? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 22:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <53b919d0-d730-4b8c-9513-7b316095505d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372873 |
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:09:06 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > Instead of grasping at straws you ought to read a good examination of > the question, like Buchdahl's: > > http://www.amazon.com/Seventeen-Simple-Lectures-General-Relativity/dp/0471096849 That is $70 for something that is potentially giving out more bullshit while Einstein dingleberries have provided abundant supply of. Is there any reason while Jan is playing the silly game of wasting money? <shrug> > BTW, any reason your subject line is not in all caps? A New Year's > resolution undergoing testing? More nuts from Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6de5b972-341c-4bfd-93ee-70e1e5423f1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372875 |
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 10:36:02 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:09:06 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote: > > > Instead of grasping at straws you ought to read a good examination of > > the question, like Buchdahl's: > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Seventeen-Simple-Lectures-General-Relativity/dp/0471096849 > > That is $70 for something that is potentially giving out more bullshit while Einstein dingleberries have provided abundant supply of. Is there any reason while Jan is playing the silly game of wasting money? <shrug> I use libraries. I didn't like the book too much BTW but it is non-cranky (unlike Pentcho's post), an honest examination some the conlusions of which I disagree with but Pentcho may like them. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 02:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <931809e3-a74c-4440-8065-039ab95f4ce5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372835 |
Einstein's original crime: www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." Einstein knew the constancy of the speed of light was nonsense but in the end introduced it in order to disfigure space and time and become famous. If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. The only reasonable explanation is this: The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver) http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ." Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 05:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Is Pentcho's Brain Sane? |
| Message-ID | <2140e2bb-90a6-416c-af9f-3bf79cac6a71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372920 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 3:31:59 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote: > > [Pentcho's] original crime: > > www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm > > Einstein knew the constancy of the speed of light was nonsense Pentcho the "historian" knows what people think :-)) > but in the end introduced it in order to disfigure space and time and > become famous. SR (and Einstein) was pretty much ignored until Eddington's eclipse measurements 14 years later agreed with the prediction of GR. This, of course, was not a measurement of the speed of light, so Pentcho the "Historian" is doing what he does best: "God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He created historians." -- Anonymous IOW, Pentcho is a liar. > If the speed of light were independent of the motion of the observer, > then there would be no reasonable explanation for the fact that the > frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ > when the observer starts moving with speed v towards the light source. Pentcho the Perennial Prevaricator promote perfidious poppycock. Of COURSE there is another explanation (the RIGHT one), one which Preposterous Pentcho, in his dishonesty, refuses to consider: the WAVELENGTH changes, not the speed of light: f' = c/λ'. > The only reasonable explanation is this: Hahahahaha! Pentcho is not a reasoning being. > The frequency measured by the observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ > because the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to > c'=c+v, in violation of MEASURED data. > http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler > Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such > as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the > receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation > of the receiver moving towards the source: > > http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver) > > http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver) > > By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, > once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the > receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses > are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not > affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves > towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. > In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the > source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are > received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." If one will pay the slightest attention to the animation, one will observe that the source is STATIONARY. So OF COURSE the wavelength doesn't change. This is NOT what the observer sees because it is NOT in his frame of reference. No one believes Prevaricating Puerile Pentcho's baloney. He is a bad historian. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin “I’m allergic to stupidity. I break out in sarcasm.” – Rebels Market "Life's tough..... It's even tougher if you're stupid." -- John Wayne Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 15:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa7a34f1-68a1-44a5-a6fb-df8907ba83e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372920 |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/data-vs-theory-the-mathem_b_8886292.html "In short, we concur with Ellis and Silk that the only way to keep these and numerous other pseudosciences at bay is to hold fast to the high ground of empirical testing. Along this line, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the eminence of some of the proponents has given super-string theory a 'free-pass.' This does not mean that all research in string theory and the multiverse must stop. But the practitioners of these fields should recognize that the chips are down: they cannot exist much longer as science if they cannot at least establish some crisp, testable connections with the real world of scientific data and analysis. They should not be given a free pass for all time." George Ellis is a dangerous person, isn't he, Einsteinians? https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – A, then B, then C – someone moving at a different velocity could have seen it a different way – C, then B, then A. In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 09:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0eab7488-95c4-47a7-b218-c80647543793@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372835 |
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote: > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/ > Is String Theory Science? - Scientific American > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/ > Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory - Forbes > Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no: I agree.... SR is just another name for LET. No new science there. > > http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf > Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..." > > The above multiple absurdity cannot be produced by a SCIENTIFIC theory. > > Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 11:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <618acb71-c38f-4ccf-ab3f-9b945743eed7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372936 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-5, Pentcho Valev wrote: > > > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/ > > Is String Theory Science? - Scientific American > > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/ > > Why String Theory Is Not A Scientific Theory - Forbes > > > Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no: > > I agree.... Then you are an idiot, too. > SR is just another name for LET. No new science there. Hahahahahaha!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n61c63$c2t$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372939 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> > Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no: >> >> I agree.... > > Then you are an idiot, too. > >> SR is just another name for LET. No new science there. > > Hahahahahaha!!! Then IRT is another for SR, whereas SR and GR are just subset in IRT and the E-Matrix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 13:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1903f500-6df2-4ac9-950e-15265832dcc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372941 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 2:44:10 PM UTC-5, Waye Kitchens wrote: > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > >> > Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no: > >> > >> I agree.... > > > > Then you are an idiot, too. > > > >> SR is just another name for LET. No new science there. > > > > Hahahahahaha!!! > > Then IRT is another for SR, whereas SR and GR are just subset in IRT and > the E-Matrix. IRT is more than another name for SR and LET. It includes SR and GR as subsets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n61krm$u9g$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372950 |
kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 2:44:10 PM UTC-5, Waye Kitchens wrote: >> Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> >> > Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no: >> >> >> >> I agree.... >> > >> > Then you are an idiot, too. >> > >> >> SR is just another name for LET. No new science there. >> > >> > Hahahahahaha!!! >> >> Then IRT is another for SR, whereas SR and GR are just subset in IRT >> and the E-Matrix. > > IRT is more than another name for SR and LET. It includes SR and GR as > subsets. Certainly. However I read that the Divergent Matter includes IRT and E- Matrix in a way nobody anticipated before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87d9e1d4-e3d4-4c46-9228-f63bc3b6c009@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372952 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 5:12:13 PM UTC-5, Waye Kitchens wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 2:44:10 PM UTC-5, Waye Kitchens wrote: > >> Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> > >> >> > Is Einstein's relativity science? The answer is no: > >> >> > >> >> I agree.... > >> > > >> > Then you are an idiot, too. > >> > > >> >> SR is just another name for LET. No new science there. > >> > > >> > Hahahahahaha!!! > >> > >> Then IRT is another for SR, whereas SR and GR are just subset in IRT > >> and the E-Matrix. > > > > IRT is more than another name for SR and LET. It includes SR and GR as > > subsets. > > Certainly. However I read that the Divergent Matter includes IRT and E- > Matrix in a way nobody anticipated before. No way.....DM is not a theory. It doesn't have any math. Model Mechanics is the final theory of the universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web