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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394930 > unrolled thread

Pencho Valev evaluation.

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

Contents

  Pencho Valev evaluation. donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 2016-10-05 10:23 -0700
    Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-12 04:31 +0200
      Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-11 19:46 -0700
        Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-12 09:42 +0200
          Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 06:54 -0700
            Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-13 04:07 +0200
              Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 23:33 -0700
        Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Mikko <mikko.levanto@outlook.com> - 2016-10-13 16:05 +0300
          Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-13 07:21 -0700
      Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-12 06:32 -0700
      Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-13 10:01 -0700
    Pencho Valev evaluation. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:43 -0700
      Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 18:44 -0700
    Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:42 -0700

#394930 — Pencho Valev evaluation.

There is a guy, Pencho Valev, who for at least 10 years now has posted on the Relativity forums that special relativity is false.  Ie, that the velocity of light will not be measured to be the same regardless of the relative velocity of source and observer. He must have wasted thousands of hours on this.  Had he gone around picking up trash he would've at least done some good.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#395439

Am 05.10.2016 19:23, schrieb donstockbauer@hotmail.com:
> There is a guy, Pencho Valev, who for at least 10 years now has posted on the Relativity forums that special relativity is false.  Ie, that the velocity of light will not be measured to be the same regardless of the relative velocity of source and observer. He must have wasted thousands of hours on this.  Had he gone around picking up trash he would've at least done some good.

I think, that SRT is wrong, because SRT uses a Newtonian space as 
foundation.

The time of SRT is kind of similar to that of Newton, too, and utilises 
a constant universal flow of time.

This contradicts the very idea of SRT, after which time and space are 
'relative'.

To make at least a few useful statement, SRT introduces 'length 
contraction' and 'time dilation'.

Since the term 'space' is meant as absolute (in a Newtonian fashion) the 
objects had to shrink.

To make matters worse, SRT allows 'paradoxes', which in other 
circumstances are hints, that some conclusions are wrong.

There is also the formula E=m*c², which somehow belongs to SRT.

But I would say, that if you want to describe radioactive decay, you 
would ascribe the term 'E' to the emitted ray and the term 'm' to the 
emitting sample.

So a formula of this kind would be correct:

E = - delta(m) * c²

To assume, that the speed of light in vacuum is variable, that would not 
make sense, because you cannot measure  the speed of light in vacuum, 
without referring to the speed of light in vacuum, since the definition 
of the meter is based on the speed of light in vacuum.


TH

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

#395440

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:32:01 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.10.2016 19:23, schrieb donstockbauer@hotmail.com:
> > There is a guy, Pencho Valev, who for at least 10 years now has posted on the Relativity forums that special relativity is false.  Ie, that the velocity of light will not be measured to be the same regardless of the relative velocity of source and observer. He must have wasted thousands of hours on this.  Had he gone around picking up trash he would've at least done some good.
> 
> I think, that SRT is wrong, because SRT uses a Newtonian space as 
> foundation.
> 
> The time of SRT is kind of similar to that of Newton, too, and utilises 
> a constant universal flow of time.
> 
> This contradicts the very idea of SRT, after which time and space are 
> 'relative'.
> 
> To make at least a few useful statement, SRT introduces 'length 
> contraction' and 'time dilation'.
> 
> Since the term 'space' is meant as absolute (in a Newtonian fashion) the 
> objects had to shrink.
> 
> To make matters worse, SRT allows 'paradoxes', which in other 
> circumstances are hints, that some conclusions are wrong.
> 
> There is also the formula E=m*c², which somehow belongs to SRT.
> 
> But I would say, that if you want to describe radioactive decay, you 
> would ascribe the term 'E' to the emitted ray and the term 'm' to the 
> emitting sample.
> 
> So a formula of this kind would be correct:
> 
> E = - delta(m) * c²
> 
> To assume, that the speed of light in vacuum is variable, that would not 
> make sense, because you cannot measure  the speed of light in vacuum, 
> without referring to the speed of light in vacuum, since the definition 
> of the meter is based on the speed of light in vacuum.
> 
> 
> TH

You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different spaces.

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

#395459

Am 12.10.2016 04:46, schrieb Dono,:

>> I think, that SRT is wrong, because SRT uses a Newtonian space as
>> foundation.
>>
>> The time of SRT is kind of similar to that of Newton, too, and utilises
>> a constant universal flow of time.
>>
>> This contradicts the very idea of SRT, after which time and space are
>> 'relative'.
>>
>> To make at least a few useful statement, SRT introduces 'length
>> contraction' and 'time dilation'.
>>
>> Since the term 'space' is meant as absolute (in a Newtonian fashion) the
>> objects had to shrink.
>>
>> To make matters worse, SRT allows 'paradoxes', which in other
>> circumstances are hints, that some conclusions are wrong.
>>
>> There is also the formula E=m*c², which somehow belongs to SRT.
>>
>> But I would say, that if you want to describe radioactive decay, you
>> would ascribe the term 'E' to the emitted ray and the term 'm' to the
>> emitting sample.
>>
>> So a formula of this kind would be correct:
>>
>> E = - delta(m) * c²
>>
>> To assume, that the speed of light in vacuum is variable, that would not
>> make sense, because you cannot measure  the speed of light in vacuum,
>> without referring to the speed of light in vacuum, since the definition
>> of the meter is based on the speed of light in vacuum.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different spaces.


I would agree to Herman Minkowski's interpretation of relativity, but 
not agree to the one of Einstein.

Einstein's interpretation is called 'SRT' (which I think is wrong).

Unfortunately Minkowski died young and unexpected in 1909. So we will 
not know for certain, what he had in mind.

The difference is, that Minkowski assumed a four-dimensional world 
(space-time), while SRT assumes a three-dimensional space plus one 
dimension of time.

Now I compared complex four-vectors with the ideas of Minkowski and 
found, this kind of numbers would fit. The connection of such numbers is 
of the type called 'Pauli algebra'.

This is the assumed mechanism, how space-time behaves, if seen as a 
physical entity.

SRT covers a certain case, were objects are accelerated within the realm 
of visibility of a certain, arbitrary observer.

Matter is interpreted as 'structures' of/in spacetime.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

To make this possible I want space-time as more fundamental than matter, 
space and time. And this would be in conflict with SRT.

TH

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

#395482

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 12:42:30 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.10.2016 04:46, schrieb Dono,:

> > You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different spaces.
> 
> 
> I would agree to Herman Minkowski's interpretation of relativity, but 
> not agree to the one of Einstein.
> 
No one cares about the opinions of a crank. 

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

#395534

Am 12.10.2016 15:54, schrieb Dono,:

>>> You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different spaces.
>>
>>
>> I would agree to Herman Minkowski's interpretation of relativity, but
>> not agree to the one of Einstein.
>>
> No one cares about the opinions of a crank.
>


This is actually true.

Only: it is not a relevant question, who would agree about a scientific 
statement.

In physics, as science about nature, we have nature itself, who dictates 
the appropriate description.

So there is no requirement for agreement or consensus, since a 
description about a natural phenomenon is either correct or not.

Whether or not scientists /people/ public opinion agree with a certain 
statement is not relevant for the validity of this statement, since the 
agreement with the natural phenomenon is, what makes such a statement 
valid.

TH

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

#395543

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 7:08:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.10.2016 15:54, schrieb Dono,:
> 
> >>> You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different spaces.
> >>
> >>
> >> I would agree to Herman Minkowski's interpretation of relativity, but
> >> not agree to the one of Einstein.
> >>
> > No one cares about the opinions of a crank.
> >
> 
> 
> This is actually true.
> 
> Only: it is not a relevant question, who would agree about a scientific 
> statement.
> 
> In physics, as science about nature, we have nature itself, who dictates 
> the appropriate description.
> 
> So there is no requirement for agreement or consensus, since a 
> description about a natural phenomenon is either correct or not.
> 
> Whether or not scientists /people/ public opinion agree with a certain 
> statement is not relevant for the validity of this statement, since the 
> agreement with the natural phenomenon is, what makes such a statement 
> valid.
> 
> TH

But you see, there is agreement between nature and Einstein's theories. 
There is no agreement between your "theory" and nature. Live with it. 

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

#395568

In article <1c2782b5-4afa-4464-97b6-d9db0a201264@googlegroups.com>,
 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> wrote:
> You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the 
> geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different 
> spaces.

In both theories the spatial geometry is Euclidean but the spacetime geometry
is not (althogh similar enough that it can be called pseudo-Euclidean).

Mikko

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

#395569

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 6:05:47 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
> In article <1c2782b5-4afa-4464-97b6-d9db0a201264@googlegroups.com>,
>  "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> wrote:
> > You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the 
> > geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different 
> > spaces.
> 
> In both theories the spatial geometry is Euclidean but the spacetime geometry
> is not (althogh similar enough that it can be called pseudo-Euclidean).
> 
> Mikko

Yes, same as I told him. 

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

#395478

Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 05.10.2016 19:23, schrieb donsto...@hotmail.com: 
> There is a guy, Pencho Valev, who for at least 10 years now has posted on the Relativity forums that special relativity is false.  Ie, that the velocity of light will not be measured to be the same regardless of the relative velocity of source and observer. He must have wasted thousands of hours on this.  Had he gone around picking up trash he would've at least done some good. 

I think, that SRT is wrong, because SRT uses a Newtonian space as 
foundation. 

The time of SRT is kind of similar to that of Newton, too, and utilises 
a constant universal flow of time. 

This contradicts the very idea of SRT, after which time and space are 
'relative'. 

To make at least a few useful statement, SRT introduces 'length 
contraction' and 'time dilation'. 

Since the term 'space' is meant as absolute (in a Newtonian fashion) the 
objects had to shrink. 

To make matters worse, SRT allows 'paradoxes', which in other 
circumstances are hints, that some conclusions are wrong. 

There is also the formula E=m*c², which somehow belongs to SRT. 

But I would say, that if you want to describe radioactive decay, you 
would ascribe the term 'E' to the emitted ray and the term 'm' to the 
emitting sample. 

So a formula of this kind would be correct: 

E = - delta(m) * c² 

To assume, that the speed of light in vacuum is variable, that would not 
make sense, because you cannot measure  the speed of light in vacuum, 
without referring to the speed of light in vacuum, since the definition 
of the meter is based on the speed of light in vacuum. 


TH 

Yes I agree, space time should be considered a "real thing". A direct Derivative of mass. 
(Space time) m^3 = x * joules 

Gravity is burning spacetime as Fuel to push entropy higher and the Arrow of time forward.

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

#395576

W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 04:32:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 05.10.2016 19:23, schrieb donstockbauer@hotmail.com:
> > There is a guy, Pencho Valev, who for at least 10 years now has posted on the Relativity forums that special relativity is false.  Ie, that the velocity of light will not be measured to be the same regardless of the relative velocity of source and observer. He must have wasted thousands of hours on this.  Had he gone around picking up trash he would've at least done some good.
> 
> I think, that SRT is wrong, because SRT uses a Newtonian space as 
> foundation.
> 
> The time of SRT is kind of similar to that of Newton, too, and utilises 
> a constant universal flow of time.
> 
> This contradicts the very idea of SRT, after which time and space are 
> 'relative'.
> 
> To make at least a few useful statement, SRT introduces 'length 
> contraction' and 'time dilation'.
> 
> Since the term 'space' is meant as absolute (in a Newtonian fashion) the 
> objects had to shrink.
> 
> To make matters worse, SRT allows 'paradoxes', which in other 
> circumstances are hints, that some conclusions are wrong.
> 
> There is also the formula E=m*c², which somehow belongs to SRT.
> 
> But I would say, that if you want to describe radioactive decay, you 
> would ascribe the term 'E' to the emitted ray and the term 'm' to the 
> emitting sample.
> 
> So a formula of this kind would be correct:
> 
> E = - delta(m) * c²
> 
> To assume, that the speed of light in vacuum is variable, that would not 
> make sense, because you cannot measure  the speed of light in vacuum, 
> without referring to the speed of light in vacuum, since the definition 
> of the meter is based on the speed of light in vacuum.
> 
> 
> TH

haha!

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

#395486

Pentcho Valev seems a conscientious
intellectual.  He holds up Einsteniana
as a church of the ignorant follower.

Generally his arguments as they are 
re-interpret frame-dragging or Doppler 
or eventually gravity's effect on the 
massless photon.

The resolutions of these concerns are 
a carefully balanced pair of haystacks, 
for a theory to reconcile relativity, 
quantum theory, and gravity.

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

#395531

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 7:43:37 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Pentcho Valev seems a conscientious
> intellectual.  He holds up Einsteniana
> as a church of the ignorant follower.
> 
> Generally his arguments as they are 
> re-interpret frame-dragging or Doppler 
> or eventually gravity's effect on the 
> massless photon.
> 
> The resolutions of these concerns are 
> a carefully balanced pair of haystacks, 
> for a theory to reconcile relativity, 
> quantum theory, and gravity.

You were born an imbecile, your only consolation is that you''l die one.

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

#395505

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 10:23:58 AM UTC-7, donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
> There is a guy, Pencho Valev, who for at least 10 years now has posted on the Relativity forums that special relativity is false.  Ie, that the velocity of light will not be measured to be the same regardless of the relative velocity of source and observer. He must have wasted thousands of hours on this.  Had he gone around picking up trash he would've at least done some good.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm 

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web