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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614404 > unrolled thread

If relativity was easy to understand

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

Contents

  If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:41 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 14:48 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:10 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 20:11 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:22 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:38 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 22:10 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 23:54 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 07:05 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 07:38 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-04 14:30 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Dominique Antonopoulos <oino@pueisese.uo> - 2023-07-04 15:27 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:51 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:56 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 19:41 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:53 -0400
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:57 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 16:59 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:44 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 19:59 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:06 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:03 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:07 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:58 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-04 00:42 -0400
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:08 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:09 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 09:16 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:07 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy Baldomero Pefanis <emls@rilaffne.lo> - 2023-07-03 22:39 +0000
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-07 08:05 +0200
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Bubba Konstantatos <bosb@sbbtotab.ts> - 2023-07-07 11:30 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-08 07:23 +0200
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 10:30 -0400
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:21 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Cash Adamidis <sida@sshsicih.ac> - 2023-07-08 22:52 +0000
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 17:11 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Mikell Michalaras <ella@llrilkhe.ah> - 2023-07-09 11:28 +0000
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-09 08:17 +0200
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Michael Eatros <rore@aiaeieee.lt> - 2023-07-09 11:53 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 23:42 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-04 14:26 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 09:34 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 09:56 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 13:22 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 15:04 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:13 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:46 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:53 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:57 -0500
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:04 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:11 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 21:57 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:12 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 21:06 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 18:15 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy Johnthan Totolos <aoto@holashno.on> - 2023-07-05 17:32 +0000
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-04 20:38 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 22:31 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 22:52 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 01:25 -0700
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-05 13:27 +0000
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-05 15:49 +0200
                      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:14 -0700
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-05 09:33 -0400
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 17:35 +0200
                      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:34 -0700
                        Re: If relativity was easy Stefhen Antonopoulos <slsn@spoolneo.eu> - 2023-07-05 17:46 +0000
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:16 -0700
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 09:26 -0700
                    Re: If relativity was easy Delma Haritopoulos <popp@ralroomo.lo> - 2023-07-05 17:14 +0000
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 17:41 +0200
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-05 14:21 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 21:55 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:36 +0200
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 00:58 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:12 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:41 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 16:13 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 16:36 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:38 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-11 18:44 -0500
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-11 22:35 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 22:19 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:35 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-13 13:46 -0500
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-13 13:12 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 23:49 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:41 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:52 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 10:47 +0200
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 01:57 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 03:27 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:44 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-06 10:29 +0200
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-07 10:47 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 22:12 +0200
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-05 15:49 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 15:59 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 20:03 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 00:56 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 22:58 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 23:39 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 22:04 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 16:51 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 19:38 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:40 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-14 07:19 +0200
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-14 11:27 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:33 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 12:49 -0500

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

#614488

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 8:38:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > 
> > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. 
> > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. 
> > 
> > But they have not, so they have not.

> No one wins prizes or acclaim by destroying a theory. They get it by proposing a new theory. All theories rust away under the influence of time like anything else on earth. 
> 
> It is the new, the novel, the shiny and bright which draws the next crop of fools. Producers and actors get awards. Never movie critics. You are an old fool now, Mutton Chops No More. You have lived long enough to see the death of the one you dedicated your life to. Soon there will be a new one to take its place. You will fight it, of course. I haven't decided if I will fight it. I may embrace it. Or, like Nietzsche once proclaimed of God, I may decide to proclaim that now it is Science that is dead.

You, too, remain clueless, Dolan. You have no idea how science works... and yes, anyone who can prove that relativity is wrong would almost certainly earn themselves a Nobel... but it is far more likely that relativity will be modified as time goes by, becoming even more accurate in the process.

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

#614489

On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 07:31:16 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 8:38:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. 
> > > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. 
> > > 
> > > But they have not, so they have not. 
> 
> > No one wins prizes or acclaim by destroying a theory. They get it by proposing a new theory. All theories rust away under the influence of time like anything else on earth. 
> > 
> > It is the new, the novel, the shiny and bright which draws the next crop of fools. Producers and actors get awards. Never movie critics. You are an old fool now, Mutton Chops No More. You have lived long enough to see the death of the one you dedicated your life to. Soon there will be a new one to take its place. You will fight it, of course. I haven't decided if I will fight it. I may embrace it. Or, like Nietzsche once proclaimed of God, I may decide to proclaim that now it is Science that is dead.
> You, too, remain clueless, Dolan. You have no idea how science works... 

Sorry, Al, poor halfbrain, science is not a physical 
object. Your precious physics has no competency 
to speak about it.

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

#614494

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:31:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 8:38:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope. 
> > > I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. 
> > > 
> > > But they have not, so they have not. 
> 
> > No one wins prizes or acclaim by destroying a theory. They get it by proposing a new theory. All theories rust away under the influence of time like anything else on earth. 
> > 
> > It is the new, the novel, the shiny and bright which draws the next crop of fools. Producers and actors get awards. Never movie critics. You are an old fool now, Mutton Chops No More. You have lived long enough to see the death of the one you dedicated your life to. Soon there will be a new one to take its place. You will fight it, of course. I haven't decided if I will fight it. I may embrace it. Or, like Nietzsche once proclaimed of God, I may decide to proclaim that now it is Science that is dead.
> You, too, remain clueless, Dolan. You have no idea how science works... and yes, anyone who can prove that relativity is wrong would almost certainly earn themselves a Nobel... but it is far more likely that relativity will be modified as time goes by, becoming even more accurate in the process.
Muttons, the Big Ben Paradox has destroyed relativity, special and general.  Don't believe me?  Ask Sylvia, ask Paul B. A., ask Tom Roberts.  There is no rejoinder to it.  Over on physics.stackexchange the powers that be closed the BBP within sixty minutes of my posting it there, never to be discussed again.  Next I'm going to call out the world's greatest living physicist, Neil DeGrassie Tyson, to take on the BBP challenge.  And when he cries uncle, like all those that have come before him, do you thing they will crown me with the garlands of victory that I so richly deserve?  Au contraire, they will nail me to the cross of relativity.  I can't blame them, really.  Relativity is big business.  Trump has sworn to obliterate the Deep State.  I have sworn to obliterate relativity.  The two of us will go down in flames together.

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

#614499

Le 05/07/2023 à 10:25, patdolan a écrit :

>  Trump has sworn to obliterate the Deep State. 

 Bravo Trump!

 R.H. 

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

#614501

Le 05/07/2023 à 15:27, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 05/07/2023 à 10:25, patdolan a écrit :
> 
>>  Trump has sworn to obliterate the Deep State. 
> 
> Bravo Trump!

It not that much a surprise that crank M.D. Richard Lengrand
from Saint-Izan in France, praises a rapist, a prankster, a racist,
a liar, a fraud, a criminal and an abysmal idiot.

This is perfectly consistent.

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

#614507

On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 15:49:43 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 05/07/2023 à 15:27, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : 
> > Le 05/07/2023 à 10:25, patdolan a écrit : 
> > 
> >>  Trump has sworn to obliterate the Deep State. 
> > 
> > Bravo Trump!
> It not that much a surprise that crank M.D. Richard Lengrand 
> from Saint-Izan in France, praises a rapist, a prankster, a racist, 
> a liar, a fraud, a criminal and an abysmal idiot. 
> 
> This is perfectly consistent.

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read 
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

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

#614500

On 7/5/2023 4:25 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:31:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:

>> You, too, remain clueless, Dolan. You have no idea how science works... and yes, anyone who can prove that relativity is wrong would almost certainly earn themselves a Nobel... but it is far more likely that relativity will be modified as time goes by, becoming even more accurate in the process.
> Muttons, the Big Ben Paradox has destroyed relativity, special and general.  Don't believe me?  Ask Sylvia, ask Paul B. A., ask Tom Roberts.

And I'm sure they'll just tell you your "paradox" is a misunderstanding 
of relativity, just like you've been repeatedly told many times before. 
But your oversized ego won't allow you to accept that.

>  There is no rejoinder to it.  Over on physics.stackexchange the powers that be closed the BBP within sixty minutes of my posting it there, never to be discussed again.

Certainly because of your misunderstandings, and I'm going to guess 
you've also already posted your misunderstanding there a half dozen 
times earlier and it was closed down as a duplicate.

> Next I'm going to call out the world's greatest living physicist, Neil DeGrassie Tyson, to take on the BBP challenge.

Who'll likely react as "oh geez, yet another crank!" and ignore you.

> And when he cries uncle,

Why would he do that? BTW ignoring you isn't crying uncle.

> like all those that have come before him, do you thing they will crown me with the garlands of victory that I so richly deserve?

You richly deserve a room in the mental health ward IMO.

>  Au contraire, they will nail me to the cross of relativity.  I can't blame them, really.
Your room in a locked ward isn't any "cross of relativity".

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

#614505

On 2023-07-05 13:33:05 +0000, Volney said:

> On 7/5/2023 4:25 AM, patdolan wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:31:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
>>> You, too, remain clueless, Dolan. You have no idea how science works... 
>>> and yes, anyone who can prove that relativity is wrong would almost 
>>> certainly earn themselves a Nobel... but it is far more likely that 
>>> relativity will be modified as time goes by, becoming even more 
>>> accurate in the process.
>> Muttons, the Big Ben Paradox has destroyed relativity, special and 
>> general.  Don't believe me?  Ask Sylvia, ask Paul B. A., ask Tom 
>> Roberts.
> 
> And I'm sure they'll just tell you your "paradox" is a misunderstanding 
> of relativity, just like you've been repeatedly told many times before. 
> But your oversized ego won't allow you to accept that.

I suspect that most of them won't answer this silly challenge at all, 
having learned long ago that patdolan isn't worth bothering with.
> 
>> There is no rejoinder to it.  Over on physics.stackexchange the powers 
>> that be closed the BBP within sixty minutes of my posting it there, 
>> never to be discussed again.
> 
> Certainly because of your misunderstandings, and I'm going to guess 
> you've also already posted your misunderstanding there a half dozen 
> times earlier and it was closed down as a duplicate.
> 
>> Next I'm going to call out the world's greatest living physicist, Neil 
>> DeGrassie Tyson, to take on the BBP challenge.

"The world's greatest living physicist"! Is he forgetting patdolan, Ken 
Seto, Richard Hertz, Richard Hachel, Laurence Clark Crossen, Maciej 
Wozniak, etc.? Maybe he meant the seventh greatest living physicist.
> 
> Who'll likely react as "oh geez, yet another crank!" and ignore you.
> 
>> And when he cries uncle,
> 
> Why would he do that? BTW ignoring you isn't crying uncle.
> 
>> like all those that have come before him, do you thing they will crown 
>> me with the garlands of victory that I so richly deserve?
> 
> You richly deserve a room in the mental health ward IMO.
> 
>> Au contraire, they will nail me to the cross of relativity.  I can't 
>> blame them, really.
> Your room in a locked ward isn't any "cross of relativity".


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#614511

On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 17:35:13 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-07-05 13:33:05 +0000, Volney said: 
> 
> > On 7/5/2023 4:25 AM, patdolan wrote: 
> >> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:31:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > 
> >>> You, too, remain clueless, Dolan. You have no idea how science works... 
> >>> and yes, anyone who can prove that relativity is wrong would almost 
> >>> certainly earn themselves a Nobel... but it is far more likely that 
> >>> relativity will be modified as time goes by, becoming even more 
> >>> accurate in the process. 
> >> Muttons, the Big Ben Paradox has destroyed relativity, special and 
> >> general. Don't believe me? Ask Sylvia, ask Paul B. A., ask Tom 
> >> Roberts. 
> > 
> > And I'm sure they'll just tell you your "paradox" is a misunderstanding 
> > of relativity, just like you've been repeatedly told many times before. 
> > But your oversized ego won't allow you to accept that.
> I suspect that most of them won't answer this silly challenge at all, 
> having learned long ago that patdolan isn't worth bothering with.
> > 
> >> There is no rejoinder to it. Over on physics.stackexchange the powers 
> >> that be closed the BBP within sixty minutes of my posting it there, 
> >> never to be discussed again. 
> > 
> > Certainly because of your misunderstandings, and I'm going to guess 
> > you've also already posted your misunderstanding there a half dozen 
> > times earlier and it was closed down as a duplicate. 
> > 
> >> Next I'm going to call out the world's greatest living physicist, Neil 
> >> DeGrassie Tyson, to take on the BBP challenge.
> "The world's greatest living physicist"! Is he forgetting patdolan, Ken 
> Seto, Richard Hertz, Richard Hachel, Laurence Clark Crossen, Maciej 
> Wozniak, etc.? Maybe he meant the seventh greatest living physicist.

Don't call me a physicist, pls. I prefer
"janitor", poor halfbrain.

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

#614518 — Re: If relativity was easy

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> Seto, Richard Hertz, Richard Hachel, Laurence Clark Crossen, Maciej
>> Wozniak, etc.? Maybe he meant the seventh greatest living physicist.
> 
> Don't call me a physicist, pls. I prefer "janitor", poor halfbrain.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 17:35:13 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> Seto, Richard Hertz, Richard Hachel, Laurence Clark Crossen, Maciej
>> Wozniak, etc.? Maybe he meant the seventh greatest living physicist.
> 
> Don't call me a physicist, pls. I prefer "janitor", poor halfbrain.

yet another _gypsy_goy_ working for the _khazar_gypsy_beggar_goy_ zelenske.

*_Kiev's_Counteroffensive_Not_Going_As_'Hoped'_* - Romania's Prime
Minister
https://s%70%75%74%6e%69%6bglobe.com/20230705/kievs-counteroffensive-not-going-as-hoped---romanias-prime-minister-1111667524.html

BERLIN (Sputnik) - Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu said Tuesday
that Europe knows it is impossible to end the Ukraine conflict with the
counteroffensive, as has been illustrated by the events.

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

#614508

On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 15:33:09 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/5/2023 4:25 AM, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:31:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> 
> >> You, too, remain clueless, Dolan. You have no idea how science works... and yes, anyone who can prove that relativity is wrong would almost certainly earn themselves a Nobel... but it is far more likely that relativity will be modified as time goes by, becoming even more accurate in the process. 
> > Muttons, the Big Ben Paradox has destroyed relativity, special and general. Don't believe me? Ask Sylvia, ask Paul B. A., ask Tom Roberts.
> And I'm sure they'll just tell you your "paradox" is a misunderstanding 

But do you still believe that adjusting
clocks to your 9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an 
amazing idiot,  stupid Mike, even considering 
the standards of your moronic religion.

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

#614510

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 6:33:09 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/5/2023 4:25 AM, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:31:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> 
> >> You, too, remain clueless, Dolan. You have no idea how science works... and yes, anyone who can prove that relativity is wrong would almost certainly earn themselves a Nobel... but it is far more likely that relativity will be modified as time goes by, becoming even more accurate in the process. 
> > Muttons, the Big Ben Paradox has destroyed relativity, special and general. Don't believe me? Ask Sylvia, ask Paul B. A., ask Tom Roberts.
> And I'm sure they'll just tell you your "paradox" is a misunderstanding 
> of relativity, just like you've been repeatedly told many times before. 
> But your oversized ego won't allow you to accept that.
> > There is no rejoinder to it. Over on physics.stackexchange the powers that be closed the BBP within sixty minutes of my posting it there, never to be discussed again.
> Certainly because of your misunderstandings, and I'm going to guess 

Nope.  The stack exchangers notice of closure accuses me of posting a "homework problem" which is not allowed on that platform.  I argued for my rights to be heard in the comments section, which you can read for yourself.  They held another secret conclave and voted down my appeal.  So the Big Ben Paradox remains closed, with a -9 score, as silent testimony to its existential threat to relativity.  The answer that won most votes claimed I hadn't proved that the earth's orbital velocity actually slows down in synchronicity with Big Ben.  This is the greatest indicator of its devastating power.  I can't believe that one of Relativity's initial critics didn't come up with argument by 1906.  Maybe it was cancelled back then, just like it is being cancelled now. 

> you've also already posted your misunderstanding there a half dozen 
> times earlier and it was closed down as a duplicate.
> > Next I'm going to call out the world's greatest living physicist, Neil DeGrassie Tyson, to take on the BBP challenge.
> Who'll likely react as "oh geez, yet another crank!" and ignore you.
> > And when he cries uncle,
> Why would he do that? BTW ignoring you isn't crying uncle.
> > like all those that have come before him, do you thing they will crown me with the garlands of victory that I so richly deserve?
> You richly deserve a room in the mental health ward IMO.
> > Au contraire, they will nail me to the cross of relativity. I can't blame them, really.
> Your room in a locked ward isn't any "cross of relativity".

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

#614513 — Re: If relativity was easy

Volney wrote:
> On 7/5/2023 4:25 AM, patdolan wrote:
>> Muttons, the Big Ben Paradox has destroyed relativity, special and
>> general.  Don't believe me?  Ask Sylvia, ask Paul B. A., ask Tom
>> Roberts.
> 
> And I'm sure they'll just tell you your "paradox" is a misunderstanding
> of relativity, just like you've been repeatedly told many times before.
> But your oversized ego won't allow you to accept that.

absolutely consistent. China smelled bullshit from nazified Ukraine and 
walked away.

*_China_doubted_we_shot_down_hypersonic_missiles_* – Kiev 
https://%72t.com/ru%73%73ia/579237-reznikov-kinzhal-intercept-china/

, but a visiting Chinese official didn’t believe the claim and left before 
he could be shown proof, according to Ukrainian Defense Minister Aleksey 
Reznikov.

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

#614506

On 2023-07-05 08:25:00 +0000, patdolan said:
> 
> [ … ]

> And when he cries uncle, like all those that have come before him, do 
> you thing they will crown me with the garlands of victory that I so 
> richly deserve?  Au contraire, they will nail me to the cross of 
> relativity.  I can't blame them, really.  Relativity is big business.  
> Trump has sworn to obliterate the Deep State.  I have sworn to 
> obliterate relativity.  The two of us will go down in flames together.

There is big difference. Everyone has heard of Donald Trump, though 
many of us might wish we hadn't. No one apart from a tiny number of 
people has heard of patdolan, and no one will notice if he goes down in 
flames.


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#614524

On 7/5/2023 10:41 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-07-05 08:25:00 +0000, patdolan said:
>>
>> [ … ]
> 
>> And when he cries uncle, like all those that have come before him, do 
>> you thing they will crown me with the garlands of victory that I so 
>> richly deserve?  Au contraire, they will nail me to the cross of 
>> relativity.  I can't blame them, really.  Relativity is big business. 
>> Trump has sworn to obliterate the Deep State.  I have sworn to 
>> obliterate relativity.  The two of us will go down in flames together.
> 
> There is big difference. Everyone has heard of Donald Trump, though many 
> of us might wish we hadn't. No one apart from a tiny number of people 
> has heard of patdolan, and no one will notice if he goes down in flames.

Actually they will only notice patdolan when he goes down in flames
and *while* he goes down in flames.

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

#614485

On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 02:04:29 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the telescope.
> I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been awarded a Nobel Prize. 

I can assure you that he would only be spitted and
insulted by fanatic idiots like you.

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

#614492

On 2023-07-05 04:55:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 02:04:29 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen 
>> wrote:>> > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the 
>> telescope.
>> I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing 
>> have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been 
>> awarded a Nobel Prize.
> I can assure you that he would only be spitted

(English note): I hope you meant "spat on"; "spitted" would mean put on 
a spit and roasted.


>  and
> insulted by fanatic idiots like you.


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#614493

On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 09:36:30 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-07-05 04:55:52 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: 
> 
> > On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 at 02:04:29 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> >> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 4:53:29 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen 
> >> wrote:>> > Relativity has been refuted but you won't look through the 
> >> telescope. 
> >> I can assure you that if any of the authors that you are referencing 
> >> have actually refuted relativity, they would definitely have been 
> >> awarded a Nobel Prize. 
> > I can assure you that he would only be spitted
> (English note): I hope you meant "spat on"; "spitted" would mean put on 
> a spit and roasted.

Indeed. Thanks.

> > and 
> > insulted by fanatic idiots like you.
> -- 
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#615027

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 12:47:00 AM UTC+1, whodat wrote:
...
> 
> If relativity is as full of errors and holes as you keep claiming, 
> what's the holdup? I'm tired of all bun no beef!

Einstein's general theory violates the principle of continuity, and is therefore not a valid classical model of gravity. 
I'm not even talking about the result of total gravitational collapse, here (referred to by Wheeler as the greatest catastrophe in theoretical physics of all time). No, I'm referring to the //basic architecture and definitions// of the SR-centric 1916 theory, which violates the continuum principle of classical field theory and probability theory before we even start running any calculations.

It's a little difficult to explain, but here's the logic:

1.   Take a massed particle. It has inertial mass.
2.   Apply the principle of continuity. The inertial mass gets smeared out into an inertial field.
3.   Objects immersed in the field have increased inertia. This is gravitational time dilation (Einstein, 1921).
4.   Objects travelling along an inertial straight line get deflected towards the region of greatest inertia. This is gravitational attraction.  
5.   So the inertial field is the gravitational field. The principle of continuity predicts gravity from inertia.

So far so good. Nothing particularly original. See Einstein's 1921 Princeton Lectures on the relativity of inertia.

Now here's the killer. Suppose that the inertial mass //moves//:

6.   A moving inertial mass has momentum.
7.   Apply the principle of continuity. The momentum also gets smeared out, into a //momentum field//.
8.   Objects immersed in the field get an increased momentum pointing in the direction that the parent mass "owning" the field is moving. 
9.   The momentum field allows [[momentum exchange]] (e.g. gravitational slingshot effect, frame-dragging near rotating stars).   

So moving matter drags light (and other nearby matter). We have //velocity-dependent gravitomagnetism// (v-gm).

Unfortunately, If this effect exists, it changes the form of the Doppler relationships away from those of special relativity, because SR is founded on the principle that he presence and motion of matter has zero effect on the shape of the metric.  SR's Doppler equations are tailored precisely to the geometry of flat, fixed, Minkowski spacetime. If a region's lightbeam geometry changes as a function of the relative speeds of chunks of matter hurled through it, then the geometry is no longer MInkowskian, and the Doppler relationships generated by the geometry are no longer those of "flat SR". So v-gm and SR cannot coexist. they are mutually exclusive options. If v-gm is real, then SR is wrong, and if SR is correct, then v-gm is wrong. 

Trouble is, it's //really difficult// for v-gm to be wrong:
*   If v-gm isn't real, we also can't have accelerative gravitomagnetism or rotational gravitomagnetism, because both depends on underlying v-gm effects. Without v-gm we lose gravitomagnetism altogether, and without GM, we lose the principle of relativity of acceleration and rotation, and the very //concept// of a general theory of relativity gets erased. 
*   If v-gm isn't real, we lose quantum mechanics ... because QM has a [[momentum probability field]] which is the direct counterpart of the classical momentum field.
*   If v-gm isn't real, then we lose classical field theory too ... Because we cannot have a moving mass-field without a corresponding momentum field. And the classical momentum field is the v-gm field. 

So without v-gm, we lose both classical and quantum gravity, and classical and quantum mechanics. And general relativity. And relativistic gravitation. And if we can't use either classical //or// non-classical arguments to describe physical reality, then we're kinda screwed. This was the realisation that hit John Wheeler when he tried to build a theory of geometrodynamics on top of an SR foundation, and ended up presenting the "transcendence principle" ("There is no law except that there is no law"), which can be paraphrased as "Everything is Broken, and Nothing F***ing Works" ... all the laws of physics self-destructed. All we the had left was what Wheeler referred to as "Magic".

If we want classical and statistical mechanics to work again, we NEED that momentum field. And the moment that we accept the existence of the momentum-field, special relativity is dead.

The momentum field ("GR vs QM"):
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32295.21921  

Eric Baird
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research

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

#615030

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-7, erkd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 12:47:00 AM UTC+1, whodat wrote: 
> ... 
> > 
> > If relativity is as full of errors and holes as you keep claiming, 
> > what's the holdup? I'm tired of all bun no beef! 
> 
> Einstein's general theory violates the principle of continuity, and is therefore not a valid classical model of gravity. 
> I'm not even talking about the result of total gravitational collapse, here (referred to by Wheeler as the greatest catastrophe in theoretical physics of all time). No, I'm referring to the //basic architecture and definitions// of the SR-centric 1916 theory, which violates the continuum principle of classical field theory and probability theory before we even start running any calculations. 
> 
> It's a little difficult to explain, but here's the logic: 
> 
> 1. Take a massed particle. It has inertial mass. 
> 2. Apply the principle of continuity. The inertial mass gets smeared out into an inertial field. 
> 3. Objects immersed in the field have increased inertia. This is gravitational time dilation (Einstein, 1921). 
> 4. Objects travelling along an inertial straight line get deflected towards the region of greatest inertia. This is gravitational attraction. 
> 5. So the inertial field is the gravitational field. The principle of continuity predicts gravity from inertia. 
> 
> So far so good. Nothing particularly original. See Einstein's 1921 Princeton Lectures on the relativity of inertia. 
> 
> Now here's the killer. Suppose that the inertial mass //moves//: 
> 
> 6. A moving inertial mass has momentum. 
> 7. Apply the principle of continuity. The momentum also gets smeared out, into a //momentum field//. 
> 8. Objects immersed in the field get an increased momentum pointing in the direction that the parent mass "owning" the field is moving. 
> 9. The momentum field allows [[momentum exchange]] (e.g. gravitational slingshot effect, frame-dragging near rotating stars). 
> 
> So moving matter drags light (and other nearby matter). We have //velocity-dependent gravitomagnetism// (v-gm). 
> 
> Unfortunately, If this effect exists, it changes the form of the Doppler relationships away from those of special relativity, because SR is founded on the principle that he presence and motion of matter has zero effect on the shape of the metric. SR's Doppler equations are tailored precisely to the geometry of flat, fixed, Minkowski spacetime. If a region's lightbeam geometry changes as a function of the relative speeds of chunks of matter hurled through it, then the geometry is no longer MInkowskian, and the Doppler relationships generated by the geometry are no longer those of "flat SR". So v-gm and SR cannot coexist. they are mutually exclusive options. If v-gm is real, then SR is wrong, and if SR is correct, then v-gm is wrong. 
> 
> Trouble is, it's //really difficult// for v-gm to be wrong: 
> * If v-gm isn't real, we also can't have accelerative gravitomagnetism or rotational gravitomagnetism, because both depends on underlying v-gm effects. Without v-gm we lose gravitomagnetism altogether, and without GM, we lose the principle of relativity of acceleration and rotation, and the very //concept// of a general theory of relativity gets erased. 
> * If v-gm isn't real, we lose quantum mechanics ... because QM has a [[momentum probability field]] which is the direct counterpart of the classical momentum field. 
> * If v-gm isn't real, then we lose classical field theory too ... Because we cannot have a moving mass-field without a corresponding momentum field. And the classical momentum field is the v-gm field. 
> 
> So without v-gm, we lose both classical and quantum gravity, and classical and quantum mechanics. And general relativity. And relativistic gravitation. And if we can't use either classical //or// non-classical arguments to describe physical reality, then we're kinda screwed. This was the realisation that hit John Wheeler when he tried to build a theory of geometrodynamics on top of an SR foundation, and ended up presenting the "transcendence principle" ("There is no law except that there is no law"), which can be paraphrased as "Everything is Broken, and Nothing F***ing Works" ... all the laws of physics self-destructed. All we the had left was what Wheeler referred to as "Magic". 
> 
> If we want classical and statistical mechanics to work again, we NEED that momentum field. And the moment that we accept the existence of the momentum-field, special relativity is dead. 
> 
> The momentum field ("GR vs QM"): 
> http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32295.21921 
> 
> Eric Baird 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Baird/research
Whodat's just a stick-in-the-mud type anyway. He's bothered because I insist relativity is easy to understand and refute. Elementary logic and science are enough. What is difficult is to understand nonsense as sensible. The pretense that relativity is really paradoxical because it only seems superficially to be contradictory is absurd. For example, Herbert Ives said, "The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable,'(sic) it is NOT supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary."

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

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

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

csiph-web