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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372835 > unrolled thread

Is Einstein's Relativity Science?

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

Contents

  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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#373036

El jueves, 31 de diciembre de 2015, 15:59:14 (UTC-3), Kathleen Winder  escribió:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> >> There is nothing about electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the
> >> Moving Bodies". He must had been having another theory and misspelled
> >> the titles.
> > 
> > You OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper with that title. It is ALL
> > about electrodynamics. SR and its Lorentz transform are merely
> > techniques to understand and display the underlying symmetries of the
> > electrodynamics.
> 
> If it is, then it must be even more controversial than it was before. When 
> a car travels at close to speed of light I don't expect electricity to be 
> involved in there. The domain of *electricity* is a completely other 
> domain, I know much, much much better than Einstein and you ever did.
> 
> You are not going to compete with me in electricity, will you?

Of course that shows, first, that you have not read Einstein paper; second, that you know nothing about "electricity" and third, you are a moron beyond help and a well know nym-shifting troll.

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

#373084

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/31/15 12/31/15   10:08 AM, Kathleen Winder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But
> >> if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the
> >> coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial
> >> coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate
> >> systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that.
> >
> > That's probably why SR is deeply controversial.
> 
> Nonsense! SR is not "controversial" at all, except among idiots and fools who 
> have not bothered to actually STUDY the theory and the relevant experiments.


SR is controversial because it needed to invent the concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) to cancel out the paradoxes derived from the P2. The P2 says that the speed of light in the train is isotropic and RoS says that the closing speed of light (same as the speed of light) in the train is anisotropic. 
> 
> 
> > There is nothing about
> > electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had
> > been having another theory and misspelled the titles.
> 
> You OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper with that title. It is ALL about 
> electrodynamics. SR and its Lorentz transform are merely techniques to 
> understand and display the underlying symmetries of the electrodynamics.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

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

#373085

kenseto wrote:

>> Nonsense! SR is not "controversial" at all, except among idiots and
>> fools who have not bothered to actually STUDY the theory and the
>> relevant experiments.
>  
> SR is controversial because it needed to invent the concept of
> relativity of simultaneity (RoS) to cancel out the paradoxes derived
> from the P2. The P2 says that the speed of light in the train is
> isotropic and RoS says that the closing speed of light (same as the
> speed of light) in the train is anisotropic.

At the time it was written, Relativity had no "spacetime" nor E-Matrix. 
What they did was to use Aether.

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

#373052

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Kathleen Winder wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> > On 12/31/15 12/31/15   6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> >> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about  non-intertial  frames  of
> >> reference. They are out of its scope.
> > 
> > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But
> > if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the
> > coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial
> > coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate
> > systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that.
> 
> That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. There is nothing about 
> electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had 
> been having another theory and misspelled the titles.

On the contrary, that paper was really about electrodynamics. It is only thanks to a certain
accident of history that the TOOLS Einstein develops in this paper in order to explain
a certain conceptual anomaly of Maxwell's electrodynamics turned out MORE important,
more general, and more revolutionary than the subject they were originally designed for.

Hence the title of the paper. The second part of the paper ("the electrodynamics part")
is what Einstein is concentrating on while the first part ("the kinematical part") is "merely"
setting up certain tools for that.

Since 1905 these "tools"(#) have become so standard that nowadays hardly anyone even
BOTHERS to read the second part of Einstein's paper anymore. Certainly none of the
Einstein "critics" on this newsgroup have done so (assuming they could understand it
in the first place, which I doubt).

(#) called "special relativity" for historical reasons although the term "Einsteinian mechanics"
would be far more appropriate.

--
Jan

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

#373070

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:67e736a3-959c-4752-8ac0-4df5b222a8ae@googlegroups.com...


|On the contrary, that paper was really about electrodynamics. It is only 
thanks to a certain
|accident of history that the TOOLS Einstein develops in this paper in order 
to explain
|a certain conceptual anomaly of Maxwell's electrodynamics turned out MORE 
important,
|more general, and more revolutionary than the subject they were originally 
designed for.

Praise proper, unsynchronizing clocks invented by Great Guru!
Too bad that with all their importance, genarility and revolution
they are practically useless. As we all can see at GPS.

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

#373081

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Kathleen Winder
> wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> 
>> > On 12/31/15 12/31/15   6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> >> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about  non-intertial  frames  of
>> >> reference. They are out of its scope.
>> > 
>> > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#].
>> > But if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the
>> > coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of
>> > non-inertial coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the
>> > two coordinate systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that.
>> 
>> That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. There is nothing about
>> electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had
>> been having another theory and misspelled the titles.
> 
> (#) called "special relativity" for historical reasons although the term
> "Einsteinian mechanics"
> would be far more appropriate.

LOL, so is as I said, not about *electricity*, but rather mechanics. Now 
go around and explain it to your friends. This amigo "paparios" is the 
most impulsive of them all. Explain him that for instance, explaining 
electronics by means of *hydraulics* does not mean electronics is about 
hydraulics. There is no hydraulics in electronics, same way Relativity is 
not about electricity, but likely about Aether. 

Without Aether you'll have no Relativity today.

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

#373096

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 7:58:41 AM UTC-8, Kathleen Winder wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Kathleen Winder
> > wrote:
> >> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On 12/31/15 12/31/15   6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> >> >> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about  non-intertial  frames  of
> >> >> reference. They are out of its scope.
> >> > 
> >> > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#].
> >> > But if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the
> >> > coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of
> >> > non-inertial coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the
> >> > two coordinate systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that.
> >> 
> >> That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. There is nothing about
> >> electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had
> >> been having another theory and misspelled the titles.
> > 
> > (#) called "special relativity" for historical reasons although the term
> > "Einsteinian mechanics"
> > would be far more appropriate.
> 
> LOL, so is as I said, not about *electricity*, but rather mechanics.

Reread what I wrote.

--
Jan

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

#373144

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Kathleen Winder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/31/15 12/31/15   6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > >> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about  non-intertial  frames  of
> > >> reference. They are out of its scope.
> > >
> > > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But
> > > if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the
> > > coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial
> > > coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate
> > > systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that.
> >
> > That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. There is nothing about
> > electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had
> > been having another theory and misspelled the titles.
> 
> On the contrary, that paper was really about electrodynamics. It is only thanks to a certain
> accident of history that the TOOLS Einstein develops in this paper in order to explain
> a certain conceptual anomaly of Maxwell's electrodynamics turned out MORE important,
> more general, and more revolutionary than the subject they were originally designed for.
> 
> Hence the title of the paper. The second part of the paper ("the electrodynamics part")
> is what Einstein is concentrating on while the first part ("the kinematical part") is "merely"
> setting up certain tools for that.
> 
> Since 1905 these "tools"(#) have become so standard that nowadays hardly anyone even
> BOTHERS to read the second part of Einstein's paper anymore. Certainly none of the
> Einstein "critics" on this newsgroup have done so (assuming they could understand it
> in the first place, which I doubt).
> 
> (#) called "special relativity" for historical reasons although the term "Einsteinian mechanics"
> would be far more appropriate.
> 
> --
> Jan


Isn't about time you get pass Einstein? Let me help you...

It is beyond, electrohynamics and Einsteinian mechanics...

it is Electrogravity.

In other words, the electric field of gravity sometimes
acts like a wave, and sometimes acts like a particle.

I hope i don't have to expand on that.

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

#373149

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Kathleen Winder wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 12/31/15 12/31/15   6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > >> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about  non-intertial  frames  of
> > > >> reference. They are out of its scope.
> > > >
> > > > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But
> > > > if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the
> > > > coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial
> > > > coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate
> > > > systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that.
> > >
> > > That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. There is nothing about
> > > electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had
> > > been having another theory and misspelled the titles.
> >
> > On the contrary, that paper was really about electrodynamics. It is only thanks to a certain
> > accident of history that the TOOLS Einstein develops in this paper in order to explain
> > a certain conceptual anomaly of Maxwell's electrodynamics turned out MORE important,
> > more general, and more revolutionary than the subject they were originally designed for.
> >
> > Hence the title of the paper. The second part of the paper ("the electrodynamics part")
> > is what Einstein is concentrating on while the first part ("the kinematical part") is "merely"
> > setting up certain tools for that.
> >
> > Since 1905 these "tools"(#) have become so standard that nowadays hardly anyone even
> > BOTHERS to read the second part of Einstein's paper anymore. Certainly none of the
> > Einstein "critics" on this newsgroup have done so (assuming they could understand it
> > in the first place, which I doubt).
> >
> > (#) called "special relativity" for historical reasons although the term "Einsteinian mechanics"
> > would be far more appropriate.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Isn't about time you get pass Einstein? Let me help you...
> 
> It is beyond, electrohynamics and Einsteinian mechanics...
> 
> it is Electrogravity.
> 
> In other words, the electric field of gravity sometimes
> acts like a wave, and sometimes acts like a particle.
> 
> I hope i don't have to expand on that.



I mean really...yous people seem to be....behind the times.


Yous don't even know Whens the clock go slow.


I have to go back and try to to make it simple by going down a lower
level..

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

#373026

Tom Roberts to Anton Shepelev:

> > [SR] said nothing whatsoever about non-intertial
> > frames of reference.  They are out of its scope.
>
> This is  not  true.  SR  can  handle  non-inertial
> "frames"  just  fine [#].  But if one wants to re-
> late a set of non-inertial coordinates to the  co-
> ordinates  of  an inertial frame, or to some other
> set of non-inertial coordinates, one  must  use  a
> transform  specific  to  the  two  coordinate sys-
> tems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that.

SR's postulates do not mention  either  acceleration
or  non-inertial frames of reference.  I thought the
latter were handled only  via  momentarily  comoving
inertial frames, the validity of which did not stri-
clty follow from SR's basis but was based on experi-
mental evidence.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

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

#373043

On 12/31/15 12/31/15   11:06 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Tom Roberts to Anton Shepelev:
>> SR  can  handle  non-inertial
>> "frames"  just  fine [#]. [...]
>
> SR's postulates do not mention  either  acceleration
> or  non-inertial frames of reference.

Sure they do! Just not in those (modern) words.

In 1905 there was no accepted notation for "inertial frame", so Einstein had to 
invent one: "a system of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian 
mechanics hold good".


> I thought the
> latter were handled only  via  momentarily  comoving
> inertial frames, the validity of which did not stri-
> clty follow from SR's basis but was based on experi-
> mental evidence.

It is possible to consider non-inertial coordinates via a series of 
instantaneously co-moving inertial frames. That is fraught with difficulties and 
is quite error prone. MUCH better is to consider the transform from some 
inertial frame to the non-inertial coordinates of interest. Then one can apply 
the knowledge one has about physics in the inertial frame to what is seen 
relative to the non-inertial coordinates.


Tom Roberts

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

#373049

Tom Roberts to Anton Shepelev:

> > SR's  postulates do not mention either accelera-
> > tion or non-inertial frames of reference.
>
> Sure they do!  Just not in those (modern) words.
>
> In 1905 there was no accepted notation for  "iner-
> tial  frame",  so  Einstein  had to invent one: "a
> system of coordinates in which  the  equations  of
> Newtonian mechanics hold good".

Yes,  inertial,  while I was talking about non-iner-
tial ones.  I was also talking not about  the  whole
1905 paper but only about the two postulates of spe-
cial relativity concerned with inertial frames only.

> It is possible to  consider  non-inertial  coordi-
> nates  via  a  series of instantaneously co-moving
> inertial frames.  That is fraught  with  difficul-
> ties  and is quite error prone.  MUCH better is to
> consider the transform from some inertial frame to
> the  non-inertial  coordinates  of interest.  Then
> one can apply the knowledge one has about  physics
> in  the inertial frame to what is seen relative to
> the non-inertial coordinates.

Can you rigidly show the validity of this latter ap-
proach from just the two initial postulates?

P.S.: A jolly new year to you, and to everybody.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

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

#373027

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:ybidnfO71LUr2hjLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com...

On 12/31/15 12/31/15   6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about  non-intertial  frames  of  reference.
> They are out of its scope.

|This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#].
|[#] I put "frame" in quotes, because in normal usage a
|coordinate frame consists of a rectangular array of rulers and
|mutually-synchronized clocks. It is not possible to construct
|such a frame unless it is moving inertially.

What a fine handling! Just stating they're impossible to
construct.
Surely, The Shit can handle anything. 

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

#373064

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:29:10 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:ybidnfO71LUr2hjLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> On 12/31/15 12/31/15   6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > [SR] said nothing whatsoever about  non-intertial  frames  of  reference.
> > They are out of its scope.
> 
> |This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#].
> |[#] I put "frame" in quotes, because in normal usage a
> |coordinate frame consists of a rectangular array of rulers and
> |mutually-synchronized clocks. It is not possible to construct
> |such a frame unless it is moving inertially.
> 
> What a fine handling! Just stating they're impossible to
> construct.

Neither are Newton's point masses.

> Surely, The Shit can handle anything.

Yet I never hear you rant and scream about Newton's mechanics.

--
Jan

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

#373067

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 7:35:41 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:29:10 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:

> > > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine.
>
> > What a fine handling! Just stating they're impossible to
> > construct.
>
> Neither are Newton's point masses.

Newton’s point mass is a mathematical equivalent model.  Jan the relativistic moron is really ignorant.  Study Newtonian first before throwing shit around in the name of SR and GR.  <shrug>

> [rest of ignorant shit snipped]

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

#373062

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 7:20:25 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/31/15, 6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> > [SR] said nothing whatsoever about  non-intertial  frames  of  reference.
> > They are out of its scope.
> 
> This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#].

That is correct.  The following form of the Lorentz transform fully covers all frames of reference including non-inertial ones.  <shrug>

**  c dt' = (c dt - v dx / c) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
**  dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
**  dy' = dy
**  dz' = dz

Let Tom claim the above is not the Lorentz transform if Tom dares to go there.  <shrug>

> [rest of Tom's gross myths snipped]

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

#373061

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:15:59 AM UTC-8, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Koobee Wublee has introduced two frames of  refer-
> > ence   regardless  if  inertial  or  non-inertial.
> > <shrug>
> 
> But I do not see how  the  traveller's  acceleration
> affects the outcome in your calculations.

The speeds, B and B', are time variant.  So, just use your integrals.  How difficult can that be now?  <shrug>

> [rest of irrational mumbling snipped]

Koobee Wublee is not interested in personal attacks.  <shrug>

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

#372849

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 7:35:12 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einstein's original absurdity:
> 
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ 
>  ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905:
> ....
> Clearly there is a contradiction

Clearly, Puerile Pentcho understands neither logic nor reality.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
- Albert Einstein

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman

> which means that the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-
> of-light postulate, is false. 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Nope.  What this means is that Puerile Pentcho is an ignoramus.  Besides,
Einstein's 2nd postulate has been confirmed and not refuted by all valid
experiments:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B

Plus many, many experiments which confirm the predictions of SR, which could
not be so if light behaved according to ballistic theory.  In fact, a
prediction from Maxwell's theory that E = p*c refutes BT.  The evidence from
different approaches leads to the conclusion that the 2nd postulate is
correct, but all Prevaricating Pentcho has is "absurd" assertions.

Gary

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

#372851

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> (A) for an observer in the moving clock's system, the stationary clock
> at B lags behind the moving clock; 
> (B) for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind the
> stationary clock at B.
> Clearly there is a contradiction which means that the underlying
> premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

No, it depends on which of the one performs motion along a longer path 
through the space(time). As you can see, in this configuration this 
spacetime is considered petrified like an Aether. At that time (SR) the 
Aether was a substitute for Spacetime (which properly came later, in GR). 
Excellent post, we need more of the alike.

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

#372854

Pentcho Valev schreef op 28/12/2015 om 15:35:
> Einstein's original absurdity:
(...)
> Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be
distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone.
The postulates entail that:
>
> (A) for an observer in the moving clock's system,
the stationary clock at B lags behind the moving clock;
>
> (B) for a stationary observer, the moving clock lags behind
the stationary clock at B.
>
> Clearly there is a contradiction which means that the underlying premise,
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Two observers carrying a meter standard watch the other one's at an 
angle of 45°.
(A) For observer 1, observer 2's meter appears shorter than his own;
(B) For observer 2, observer 1's meter appears shorter than his own.
Clearly there is a contradiction which means that the underlying 
premise, the constancy of meters, is false.

-- 
guido 'wugi'

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

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web