Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423045 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-19 14:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-23 11:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 92 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 14:30 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 14:48 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:45 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-20 09:49 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 21:10 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 02:40 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 04:42 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 04:48 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 13:51 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 04:30 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 04:44 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-27 12:22 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-27 22:44 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-28 07:40 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 00:26 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 04:01 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 04:14 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 08:30 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 06:54 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 14:41 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 08:37 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 16:16 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 14:29 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 16:45 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 15:00 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 08:11 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 17:19 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 15:34 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 08:39 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 15:29 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-01 12:29 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-07-02 12:35 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 08:18 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-07-03 09:45 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 05:24 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-03 17:52 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 05:45 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 15:03 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 13:56 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 23:55 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-08 00:15 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 08:43 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-08 10:44 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 08:38 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-04 12:56 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 13:20 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-08 00:06 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 08:26 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-11 10:56 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-12 10:13 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 10:07 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 20:04 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 13:49 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-15 14:26 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 20:20 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 07:25 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-05 07:50 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-03 18:26 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 07:05 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-29 09:31 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 05:01 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-28 07:52 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 03:47 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-29 10:19 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 08:09 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lord Kronos Prime <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-30 08:39 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 08:33 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-30 11:30 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 08:11 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 23:58 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 03:18 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:47 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 11:18 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-21 09:21 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 19:33 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 07:32 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 23:16 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:33 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-22 08:14 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 18:13 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:35 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 11:15 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 15:38 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-23 03:22 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:38 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 08:32 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 03:37 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox bigal95210@gmail.com - 2017-06-21 16:48 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 19:00 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:43 +0000
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01a41f9e-b0b2-430f-bccb-94528d7a934f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423207 |
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 19:33:42 UTC+2 schrieb Poutnik: > > Einstein wrote in his second postulate "any ray of light moving wrt the co-ordinate 'system at rest' ". Let me continue: " ... with a particular velocity V [=c] which doesn't depend on whether this ray of light is emitted from a body at rest or from a moving body." > > To me the confusion begins ...... I continued: " ... when Einstein at the beginning of his §1 introduced the system at rest. He wrote "Es liege ein Koordinatensystem vor ... We are calling it the system at rest". > The confusion begins here. > > The original 2nd postulate applies to vacuum speed of light > wrt any inertial coordinate system. No. E. didn't write that. He wrote "bewegt sich "im 'ruhenden' Koordinatensystem [moves wrt it]. > Therefore wrt the one that is by the choice considered at rest, Yes, this did he write. > and wrt all others, that are moving wrt the "rest" one. No, he didn't write this, and it would be impossible. > That is what the term "invariant vacuum speed of light" means. Maybe, a modern version of SR claims this in contrast to any reasonable understanding of c. Einstein tried to incorporate the already known constancy of c by postulating what he called his second principle as a definition. We should not ignore that critics of Einstein like e.g. akademik Shtyrkov criticized the expression "constant wrt the observer" which I consider nonsensical because "c", according to my one-way definition, doesn't at all refer to the emitter or any observer. > > The 2nd postulate was later omitted in reformulated SR > as the consequence of the 1st postulate. > The SR as the space geometry theory > completely detached from electromagnetism. > The theory dealing with light properties > is currently SR aware Quantum electrodynamics. > > -- > 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]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 18:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oigq56$b2g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #423262 |
Dne 22.6.2017 v 17:14 Eckard B napsal(a): > >> Therefore wrt the one that is by the choice considered at rest, > > Yes, this did he write. > >> and wrt all others, that are moving wrt the "rest" one. > > No, he didn't write this, and it would be impossible. Yes, he did. Nature likes impossible things. >> That is what the term "invariant vacuum speed of light" means. > > Maybe, a modern version of SR claims this in contrast to any reasonable understanding of c. No, experimental evidence claims that in contrast to common sense. It is just one of many case nature laughs at common sense of humans. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 11:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiiue1$hnu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423268 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >> No, he didn't write this, and it would be impossible. > > Yes, he did. Nature likes impossible things. Seek a doctor, mister. Better not to. Use natural herbs instead of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <594D5AB8.1B34@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #423311 |
Lipek Mniak wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Poutnik > napisał: > > >> No, he didn't write this, and it would be impossible. > > > > Yes, he did. Nature likes impossible things. > > Seek a doctor, mister. Better not to. Use natural herbs instead of. why are there so many witch doctors on the internet filling out prescriptions??? where are the medical marijuanna doctors?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3vudnfT_UK9Dt9HEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423262 |
On 6/22/17 6/22/17 10:14 AM, Eckard B wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 19:33:42 UTC+2 schrieb Poutnik: >> The original 2nd postulate applies to vacuum speed of light wrt any >> inertial coordinate system. > No. E. didn't write that. He wrote "bewegt sich "im 'ruhenden' > Koordinatensystem [moves wrt it]. >> Therefore wrt the one that is by the choice considered at rest, > Yes, this did he write. And note he also said that "stationary" is a LABEL used only in the discussion; his choice of words implies that the system to which the label is applied is ARBITRARY. >> and wrt all others, that are moving wrt the "rest" one. > > No, he didn't write this, and it would be impossible. You clearly MISSED what is arguably the most important point of this paper: light CAN move with speed c relative to both the "stationary" system and relative to the "moving" system, both of which are COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. So in applying the theory, the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to ANY inertial frame. This of course has extremely strong experimental support, and no refutation. >> That is what the term "invariant vacuum speed of light" means. > > Maybe, a modern version of SR claims this in contrast to any reasonable > understanding of c. Huh???? Your "reasonable understanding of c" seems to directly contradict his paper, and be related to your incorrect claim of "impossible" above. Because in his paper, light moves with speed c relative to both the "stationary" system and relative to the "moving" system, both of which are COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. > Einstein tried to incorporate the already known constancy of c by postulating > what he called his second principle as a definition. > > We should not ignore that critics of Einstein like e.g. akademik Shtyrkov > criticized the expression "constant wrt the observer" which I consider > nonsensical because "c", according to my one-way definition, doesn't at all > refer to the emitter or any observer. But your "definition" is NOT what anybody else means by "speed". You cannot unilaterally and retroactively impose YOUR PERSONAL MEANINGS OF WORDS onto others. Moreover, your attempt to define "speed" without reference to coordinates (or equivalent) is useless. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 03:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6bdb651-113b-497e-ac0b-d6e190b1c476@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423278 |
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juni 2017 22:39:01 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137: > On 6/22/17 6/22/17 10:14 AM, Eckard B wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 19:33:42 UTC+2 schrieb Poutnik: > >> The original 2nd postulate applies to vacuum speed of light wrt any > >> inertial coordinate system. > > No. E. didn't write that. He wrote "bewegt sich "im 'ruhenden' > > Koordinatensystem [moves wrt it]. > >> Therefore wrt the one that is by the choice considered at rest, > > Yes, this did he write. > > And note he also said that "stationary" is a LABEL used only in the discussion; Although I didn't find the word LABEL in I. §1, I guess you refer to I. §1 where he mentioned die "sprachliche Unterscheidung von später einzuführenden Koordinatensystemen", and "stationary" is certainly the translation of "ruhend". > his choice of words implies that the system to which the label is applied is > ARBITRARY. Of course, when he defined his co-ordinate system at rest, he defined a point x=0 to refer to. Whether a body is at rest or moving to it doesn't matter. > >> and wrt all others, that are moving wrt the "rest" one. > > > > No, he didn't write this, and it would be impossible. > > You clearly MISSED what is arguably the most important point of this paper: > light CAN move with speed c relative to both the "stationary" system and > relative to the "moving" system, both of which are COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. No. I maintain that the expression "light wrt a body" is not at all justified as to quantify the speed of a wave. Light doesn't relate to the velocity of its emitter (and also the receiver) wrt the chosen co-ordinate system, the so called system at rest. In agreement with Einstein, I reject the emission theory. > So in applying the theory, the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to ANY > inertial frame. Relative to any did mean relative to nothing. To my humble knowledge, not even Einstein wrote his second principle in this nonsensical manner. By the way, what means "in applying" of the theory"? The question of reference x=0 should be understood as basic to relativity. > >> That is what the term "invariant vacuum speed of light" means. > > > > Maybe, a modern version of SR claims this in contrast to any reasonable > > understanding of c. > > Your "reasonable understanding of c" seems to directly contradict his > paper, and be related to your claim of "impossible" above. Yes. > Because in his paper, light moves with speed c relative to both the > "stationary" system and relative to the "moving" system, both of which are > COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. x=0 contradicts to x=|=0. > > > Einstein tried to incorporate the already known constancy of c by > > postulating what he called his second principle as a definition. > > > > We should not ignore that critics of Einstein like e.g. akademik Shtyrkov > > criticized the expression "constant wrt the observer" which I consider > > nonsensical because "c", according to my one-way definition, doesn't at all > > refer to the emitter or any observer. > > But your "definition" is NOT what anybody else means by "speed". It corresponds to how the speed of sound is defined. Massless photons behave as do waves. Eckard B
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 11:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiiuiv$hnu$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423303 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Eckard B napisał: > Of course, when he defined his co-ordinate system at rest, he defined a > point x=0 to refer to. Whether a body is at rest or moving to it doesn't > matter. What you just did is called "an elementary error".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-28 08:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oivia3$q04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #423303 |
Dne 23/06/2017 v 12:22 Eckard B napsal(a): > > >> Because in his paper, light moves with speed c relative to both the >> "stationary" system and relative to the "moving" system, both of which are >> COMPLETELY ARBITRARY. > > x=0 contradicts to x=|=0. For position evaluated in a single coordinate system, not in 2 ones. > >> >>> Einstein tried to incorporate the already known constancy of c by >>> postulating what he called his second principle as a definition. >>> >>> We should not ignore that critics of Einstein like e.g. akademik Shtyrkov >>> criticized the expression "constant wrt the observer" which I consider >>> nonsensical because "c", according to my one-way definition, doesn't at all >>> refer to the emitter or any observer. >> >> But your "definition" is NOT what anybody else means by "speed". > > It corresponds to how the speed of sound is defined. Massless photons behave as do waves. Both "speed of sound(1)" and "speed of sound(2)" are defined wrt a coordinate system, as any speed, including speed of light. Speed of sound(1) is defined wrt any coordinate system. It can be even zero, if medium speed equals to Speed of sound(2) Speed of sound(2) as the medium material constant is defined wrt coordinate system where medium is in rest, for given external conditions like temperature and pressure. For solids, the vibration mode also matters. For anisotropic solid, also direction matters. Furthermore, the average speed measured along the distance is not the same quantity as speed, even if they have equal values for a constant velocity. Equal values and equal units do not make 2 physical quantities identical. BTW, massless photons behave like waves as much and as little as massive particles. -- 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]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 03:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba7bb6a6-cda0-4222-af68-c662a6605c66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423278 |
W dniu czwartek, 22 czerwca 2017 22:39:01 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > So in applying the theory, the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to ANY > inertial frame. > > This of course has extremely strong experimental support, and > no refutation. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Experiments (GPS) shows that time (as defined by your idiot guru himself) is galilean with the precision of an acceprable error. Your constant speed of light idiocy can't survive that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bigal95210@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dccfee8-5047-4eb6-a372-66da961907c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423045 |
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:30:04 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote: > Calculations done by Einsteinians always show that the moving clock is slow while the stationary one is fast. Why? Because Einsteinians use a biased scenario. (cut)... Einstein didn't make up his theory out of whole cloth. He had different observational experiments to rely on and explain. 1. Michaelson and Morely measured a constant speed of light even 6 months apart, when the earth is on the opposite side of the sun and travelling in the opposite direction. YOUR theory has to account for the constant speed of light measured on earth. 2. There are plenty of stars close enough to us that we can make out numerous multiple star systems. In many of those systems, the plane of the orbit of those double star systems is close to our line of site. That means that in half of their orbits, the stars are travelling away from us, and later they're travelling towards us. If velocity of light is added to the star's own velocity, we could see multiple images of each star, when the earlier light is leaving first more slowly, while the star is travelling away, and the later light travelling faster. Those two images could catch up and pass each other , leading to confusing multiple images of the same double star pair. Instead, we only see one image of each star, implying speed of light is constant. 3. If earth carried its own ether frame, like a car travelling at 60 miles per hour with the windows rolled up carries its onn air in a comoving system, we wouldn't have the problem of aberration. Looking due north, a telescope centers Polaris in a telescope. Six months later, the telescope has to be adjusted by a factor of 60/300,000 which is the ratio of twice the speed of the earth to the speed of light, to get Polaris centered in the telescope. If earth carried a comoving ether system, we wouldn't have an aberration problem. Your theory has to explain a Why did the Michaelson Morely experiment not detect sny motion of the earth? b. Why don't we get confusing, multiple images of stars in binary systems? c. Why do telescopes have to be adjusted for aberration? Einstein's theory does that. Your theory may be logically self consistent, but explains NONE of those observations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c8f1baa-1b55-417a-ba84-a8db30022553@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423223 |
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 6:49:01 PM UTC-5, bigal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:30:04 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote: > > Calculations done by Einsteinians always show that the moving clock is slow while the stationary one is fast. Why? Because Einsteinians use a biased scenario. (cut)... > > Einstein didn't make up his theory out of whole cloth. He had different observational experiments to rely on and explain. > > 1. Michaelson and Morely measured a constant speed of light even 6 months apart, when the earth is on the opposite side of the sun and travelling in the > opposite direction. YOUR theory has to account for the constant speed of light measured on earth. > > 2. There are plenty of stars close enough to us that we can make out numerous multiple star systems. In many of those systems, the plane of the orbit of those double star systems is close to our line of site. That means that in half of their orbits, the stars are travelling away from us, and later they're travelling towards us. If velocity of light is added to > the star's own velocity, we could see multiple images of each star, when the > earlier light is leaving first more slowly, while the star is travelling away, and the later light travelling faster. Those two images could catch up and pass each other , leading to confusing multiple images of the same double star pair. Instead, we only see one image of each star, implying speed of light is constant. > > 3. If earth carried its own ether frame, like a car travelling at 60 miles per hour with the windows rolled up carries its onn air in a comoving system, we wouldn't have the problem of aberration. Looking due north, a telescope centers Polaris in a telescope. Six months later, the telescope has to be adjusted by a factor of 60/300,000 which is the ratio of twice the speed of the earth to the speed of light, to get Polaris centered in the telescope. If earth carried a comoving ether system, we wouldn't have an aberration problem. > > Your theory has to explain > a Why did the Michaelson Morely experiment not detect sny motion of the earth? > b. Why don't we get confusing, multiple images of stars in binary systems? > c. Why do telescopes have to be adjusted for aberration? > > Einstein's theory does that. Your theory may be logically self consistent, but explains NONE of those observations. Thanks for the post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 11:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiiutj$hnu$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423045 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC-6 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał: > Clearly, the twin paradox is actually an absurdity, which means that the > underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is > false. Pentcho Valev Extremely excellent paragraph, as a *postulate* may very well be false. That's the idea, in having a postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web