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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #420370 > unrolled thread

How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity

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

Contents

  How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-23 07:44 -0700
    Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-23 08:18 -0700
    Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-23 08:40 -0700
      Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-23 20:23 +0000
    Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 15:59 -0700
      Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Ení Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-24 19:45 +0000
        Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-26 02:36 +0200
    Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-23 23:11 -0700
      Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-24 00:27 -0700
        Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-05-24 14:07 +0200
          Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 05:16 -0700
            Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 12:54 -0700
            Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-05-25 07:13 +0200
              Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 22:58 -0700
              Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 23:27 -0700
          Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-05-24 20:28 +0200
    Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-24 14:17 -0700
      Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 16:15 -0700
        Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 23:27 -0700
          Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 21:52 -0700
            Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 07:07 +0200
              Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 23:38 -0700
                Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-30 04:10 -0700
            Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-29 23:33 -0700
            Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Ernest Rivers <erwm@weicnne.ac> - 2017-05-30 18:52 +0000
        Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-25 06:31 +0000
        Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-27 19:27 -0700
          Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-05-27 21:07 -0700
      Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-24 23:53 -0700
        Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-25 09:20 -0500
          Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-25 15:20 +0000
            Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-05-26 08:22 +0200
              Re: How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-26 00:46 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#421012

Dne 30/05/2017 v 06:52 JanPB napsal(a):

> 
> [...] most pop-sci presentations of physics
> are rather bad, they only confuse the readers. [...]

I guess, being a good pop physics presenter
is much more difficult than being a good physicist.

Walking or a razor edge between readability and accuracy...

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#421023

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 07:07:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Dne 30/05/2017 v 06:52 JanPB napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > [...] most pop-sci presentations of physics
> > are rather bad, they only confuse the readers. [...]
> 
> I guess, being a good pop physics presenter
> is much more difficult than being a good physicist.

I guess convincing people  your moronic mumble has
some real value can't be done well, and confusing
the readers is the only way to do the task.

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

#421025

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:38:39 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl, the braying
jackass wrote:
>
> W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 07:07:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> > Dne 30/05/2017 v 06:52 JanPB napsal(a):
> > 
> > > 
> > > [...] most pop-sci presentations of physics
> > > are rather bad, they only confuse the readers. [...]
> > 
> > I guess, being a good pop physics presenter
> > is much more difficult than being a good physicist.
> 
> I guess convincing people  your moronic mumble has
> some real value can't be done well, and confusing
> the readers is the only way to do the task.

The braying jackass projects again.

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

#421022

W dniu wtorek, 30 maja 2017 06:52:32 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 11:27:09 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 25 maja 2017 01:15:54 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 2:17:20 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective."  http://www.martinezwritings.com/m/Relativity.html 
> > > 
> > > You need to learn physics first. Only then you'll be able to afford making
> > > this type of critical comment.
> > 
> > How dare you to criticize communism, fool!!!
> > Have you ever read a single book of Comerade
> > Lenin????
> 
> Problem is, this is not what Pentcho does.

No. Problem is this is what you do, poor idiott.

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

#421085

JanPB wrote:

>> How dare you to criticize communism, fool!!!
>> Have you ever read a single book of Comerade Lenin????
> 
> Problem is, this is not what Pentcho does. Using your "communist"
> analogy what Pentcho is doing is like writing critiques of communism
> based on the number of letters the word "communism" contains. Virtually
> all his posts are not even wrong in that sense. The links he quotes OTOH
> are mostly OK, not that great (most pop-sci presentations of physics are
> rather bad, they only confuse the readers). Pentcho doesn't read them
> anyway, he just grabs

Hmm, capitalism is wonderfull. My pap was poor and all that, look at me 
now, unemployed academic.

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

#420561

JanPB wrote:

> I'll refer you to the table in Panofsky & Philips summarising the
> relevant theories of light and their consequences. 
> But the root problem with you remains: you DON'T KNOW ENOUGH to
> understand why you are wrong.

Iow Dr. Pentcho is right in his critique due the presented empirical 
observations.

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

#420822

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:15:54 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 2:17:20 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective."  http://www.martinezwritings.com/m/Relativity.html 
> 
> You need to learn physics first. Only then you'll be able to afford making
> this type of critical comment. For now, it's specious. Again, I'll refer
> you to the table in Panofsky & Philips summarising the relevant theories
> of light and their consequences.
> 
> But the root problem with you remains: you DON'T KNOW ENOUGH to understand
> why you are wrong.
> 
> See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect 
> 
> --
> Jan

xxein:  "In field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Per instance, how does one ascertain whether one has low ability or whether one mistakenly assesses their cognitive ability as greater than it is?  What is the basis for such a judgement?  Is there a comparative standard?   Is it just a matter of degree rather than a 'yes or no'?  If so, are the degrees sub-categorized wrt subject matter?  Is it possible for one to determine that someone suffers this if one suffers it oneself?  Would Einstein's contemporaries think he suffered from this had they considered such an effect?  Can the mere knowledge of such an effect be detrimental to the acquisition of general knowledge itself?  Is there a clear line that distinguishes the results of the analyses of such an effect as anything more than anecdotal?  Can such an analysis be used effectively in a positive manner that would not also have a deleterious effect?  Is there any such thing as a 'valid opinion'?

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

#420823

xxein1x1@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:15:54 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 2:17:20 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet
> >
> > You need to learn physics first. Only then you'll be able to afford making
> > this type of critical comment. For now, it's specious. Again, I'll refer
> > you to the table in Panofsky & Philips summarising the relevant theories
> > of light and their consequences.
> >
> > But the root problem with you remains: you DON'T KNOW ENOUGH to understand
> > why you are wrong.
> >
> > See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> xxein:  "In field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.
> "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
> 
> 

Only one who thinks they are   xxein stein     would ask that question.  and those who think they are an xxein stein are


 DDDDEEEESSSSPICABLE!!!! 
                                        ___
                                __  _/:::>__
                               /:/_/::/ _/::>
                             _/:(/:::\_/::/
                            _):::::::::::::\
                          _/::::::::::::::::\____
                         /      \:::::::::/      \
                        |  ::/\  ::::::::  / \::   |
                        / ::/  \  ::::::  /   |:::/
                       /:::|    \::::::::/    |:::\
                      /::::|     \::::::/     |::::\
                    ,------:      \::::/      :------,
                   /   ___  \0    /    \ 0   / ___  \
                  : ,-' ) `  `---'      `---'   ( `-,  :
                  \_    \         '     `        \_  _/
                    \____\                         \/
                          \                  _______\________
                           \              ,-'                )
                            \           ,-    ,----------- _/

                             \             ,-'      \\ ) _/
                              (___________/__________\\ /
                               :;;;\___________________)
                        ______,:;;;;;;;;:______
                      ,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\_
                     /;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\_
                    /;;;;;;__;;;; ;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;\


and jewish.

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

#420562

The GPS fraud: 

One calculates the distance between the satellite and the receiver by multiplying the time by Einstein's constant speed of light, obtains a wrong value (because the speed of light is variable, not constant), "adjusts the time" in order to fix the wrongness, and finally Einsteinians inform the gullible world that Einstein's relativity (time dilation) is gloriously confirmed: 

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/st_equation_gps/ 
 "Your GPS unit registers the exact time at which it receives that information from each satellite and then calculates how long it took for the individual signals to arrive. By multiplying the elapsed time by the speed of light, it can figure out how far it is from each satellite, compare those distances, and calculate its own position. [...] According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a clock that's traveling fast will appear to run slowly from the perspective of someone standing still. Satellites move at about 9,000 mph - enough to make their onboard clocks slow down by 8 microseconds per day from the perspective of a GPS gadget and totally screw up the location data. To counter this effect, the GPS system adjusts the time it gets from the satellites by using the equation here. (Don't even get us started on the impact of general relativity.)" 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQdIjwoi-u4 
 GPS & Relativity 

Pentcho Valev

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

#420566

On 5/25/17 5/25/17   1:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The GPS fraud: [...]

As usual, this is really a VALEV FRAUD. He got it completely wrong.

Tom Roberts

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

#420574

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/25/17 5/25/17   1:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> The GPS fraud: [...]
> 
> As usual, this is really a VALEV FRAUD. He got it completely wrong. 
> Tom Roberts

This has to be your opinion, I see no counterargument ready, for us to rebut.

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

#420619

On Thu, 25 May 2017 15:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Ckeho BaÚkora
<unukn@owyqar.og> wrote:

>Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/17 5/25/17   1:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> The GPS fraud: [...]
>> 
>> As usual, this is really a VALEV FRAUD. He got it completely wrong. 
>> Tom Roberts
>
>This has to be your opinion, I see no counterargument ready, for us to rebut.


Give us the formula for the 1888 apparent electron mass increase.
Yes, it was discovered experimentally about year 1888.
Electron mass increases with velocity.
So give  your explanation.

w.

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

#420620

W dniu piątek, 26 maja 2017 08:22:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Helmut Wabnig napisał:
> On Thu, 25 May 2017 15:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Ckeho BaÚkora
> <unukn@owyqar.og> wrote:
> 
> >Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/25/17 5/25/17   1:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> The GPS fraud: [...]
> >> 
> >> As usual, this is really a VALEV FRAUD. He got it completely wrong. 
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> >This has to be your opinion, I see no counterargument ready, for us to rebut.
> 
> 
> Give us the formula for the 1888 apparent electron mass increase.
> Yes, it was discovered experimentally about year 1888.
> Electron mass increases with velocity.

Your Shit states differently, Wabby.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web