Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #453648 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-23 20:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-02 23:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 119 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 20:21 -0700
Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 20:36 -0700
Re:Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 07:04 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Peter Brown <pmbphy@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 02:06 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:17 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 23:50 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 07:56 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 10:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 19:52 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 12:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 23:25 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:17 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:45 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-25 13:13 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:31 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 10:31 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-25 13:08 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:12 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:45 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:33 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Peter Brown <pmbphy@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 02:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:43 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 19:01 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:35 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-24 12:37 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 23:26 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-25 12:32 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-24 19:51 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:43 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 22:25 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 00:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 15:29 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-28 00:06 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:46 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 19:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-25 21:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 00:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 05:01 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-30 22:11 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-31 13:22 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-03-31 19:40 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 12:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 13:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:20 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-01 15:12 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 22:31 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-25 23:00 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-27 11:01 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 01:10 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-27 19:30 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 01:50 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-28 11:14 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-28 00:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 19:09 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 13:50 -0500
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:13 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 12:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-29 12:59 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 13:18 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:37 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 04:22 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-07 22:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-08 05:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-09 23:32 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-10 04:38 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-08 15:03 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-05-12 10:16 +1000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-03 22:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 15:13 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-29 20:37 -0400
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-30 11:16 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-01 21:51 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:42 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:13 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:46 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-02 15:42 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:02 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 00:11 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-02 21:02 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 12:34 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-03 04:17 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 22:10 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:58 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-03 16:34 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:57 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 12:48 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-03 21:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 17:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-04 15:09 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:27 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 15:39 -0500
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:44 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:25 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-27 02:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 19:18 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-30 12:30 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-02 14:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:31 -0700
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 22:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e8ca1a5-59b5-4b74-8b25-eea7889299f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457392 |
On Thursday, 3 May 2018 04:17:29 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Drunk Polish mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > ... > > Let us imagine, imagine, imagine and imagine. > > Long live The Shit of ingenious Great Guru!!! > > Vodka DAS IST good, right? As good as your good desynchronizing clocks, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9abc3c62-346b-43c6-b125-74a0594c38fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457373 |
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 12:02:59 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 02.05.2018 02.13, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > You are mistaken of Minkowski’s work. All he did was to condense the > > Lorentz transform into the following. <shrug> > > > ** c² dt’² – dx’² – dy’² – dz’² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz² > > > The equation and thus the Lorentz transform describes how the > > geometry of spacetime at a remote location is observed by both the > > primed and the unprimed frames of reference. It becomes interesting > > when the primed frame observes itself and thus is also observed by > > the unprimed frame. In this case, the equation only simplifies into > > the following. <shrug> > > > ** c² dτ² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz² > > > Where > > > ** dτ = the local time tick rate at the observed by the unprimed > > > Both the primed and the unprimed frames are stilling aging in their > > respective local time tick rate. Nothing is aging in spacetime or > > spacetime pathlength. Thus, the concept of an aging process > > manifests in the pathlength of spacetime is so fvcking ludicrous > > where these imbeciles claiming so should be revoked of their college > > degrees. <shrug> > http://tinyurl.com/y9o86o4o > << > Let us now imagine a worldpoint P(x, y, z, t) through which > the worldline of a substantial point is passing, then > the magnitude of the timelike vector dx, dy, dz, dt along > the line will be > dτ = (1/c)√(c²dt²-dx²-dy²-dz²) > > The integral ∫dτ = τ of this magnitude, taken along > the worldline from any fixed starting point P₀ to > the variable end point P , we call the proper time > of the substantial point at P. > >> That was Damour’s biography on Minkowski’s work. In another words, it was Damour’s interpretation to Minkowski’s work. With that said, what Minkowski thought is not important. What matters is how the equation is derived and what constraints are imposed on this same equation. <shrug> > That is, according to Minkowski the proper time τ is a measure of the > 'length' of the worldline from P₀ to P. The wordline is the path > trough spacetime. This does not mean the existence of the mythical proper time. What τ represents is the local time of the event being observed using the coordinate system (t,x,y,z) by the unprimed observer. Does Paul not understand how the following equation is derived? <shrug> ** c² dt’² – dx’² – dy’² – dz’² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz² Where ** Both the primed and the unprimed frames are observing a remote event. ** (t,x,y,z) = coordinate system used by the unprimed ** (t’,x’,y’,z’) = coordinate system used by the primed Consequently, does Paul not understand how the following followed-up equation is derived? <shrug> ** c² dτ² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz² > This approach was adopted by Einstein, and is now a central part of > SR. So, your claim is wrong. There is still no evidence of this proper time nonsense. Again, the equation describes how the local tick rate of time is observed by or mapped into the observation by the unprimed frame using coordinate system (t,x,y,z). Demystification should have started decades ago. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 16:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6FGC.84771$MD7.50707@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #457378 |
Den 02.05.2018 21.58, skrev Koobee Wublee:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 12:02:59 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.05.2018 02.13, skrev Koobee Wublee:
>>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:42:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>>>> >>>> The aging process IS in FACT modelled in relativity by the path
length.
>>>> This model has been introduced in 1908 by Minkowski.
>>>
>>> You are mistaken of Minkowski’s work. All he did was to condense the Lorentz transform into the following. <shrug>
>>>
>>> ** c² dt’² – dx’² – dy’² – dz’² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz²
>>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/y9o86o4o
>> The 1908 paper "Space and Time" starts on
>> page 39 of this document.
>>
>> I quote from page 47 of the paper:
>> <<
>> Let us now imagine a worldpoint P(x, y, z, t) through which
>> the worldline of a substantial point is passing, then
>> the magnitude of the timelike vector dx, dy, dz, dt along
>> the line will be
>> dτ = (1/c)√(c²dt²-dx²-dy²-dz²)
>>
>> The integral ∫dτ = τ of this magnitude, taken along
>> the worldline from any fixed starting point P₀ to
>> the variable end point P , we call the proper time
>> of the substantial point at P.
>> >>
>
> That was Damour’s biography on Minkowski’s work. In another words, it was Damour’s interpretation to Minkowski’s work.
No, that is Minkowski's own words in his 1908 paper "Space and Time".
The Dover translation is slightly different:
<<
If we imagine at a world-point P(x, y, z, t) the world-line
of a substantial point running through that point, the
magnitude corresponding to the time-like vector dx, dy, dz, dt
laid off along the line is therefore
dτ = (1/c)√(c²dt²-dx²-dy²-dz²)
The integral ∫dτ = τ of this amount, taken along
the world-line from any fixed starting-point P₀ to
the variable end-point P , we call the proper time
of the substantial point at P.
>>
> With that said, what Minkowski thought is not important. What matters is how the equation is derived and what constraints are imposed on this same equation. <shrug>
Come again?
You claim that Minkowski didn't introduce
the proper time as a measure of the length
of a word-line (path in space-time), and when
demonstrated that he did just that, Minkowski's
thought isn't important? :-D
>>
>> That is, according to Minkowski the proper time τ is
>> a measure of the 'length' of the worldline from P₀ to P.
>> The wordline is the path trough spacetime.
>>
>> This approach was adopted by Einstein, and is now
>> a central part of SR.
>>
>
> This does not mean the existence of the mythical proper time.
But it does mean that you were wrong about what Minkowski wrote.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f303ca40-9f11-4b08-9c58-8e6ad693f26d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457422 |
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:53 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 02.05.2018 21.58, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > All [Minkowski] did was to condense the Lorentz transform into the > > following. <shrug> > > > ** c² dt’² – dx’² – dy’² – dz’² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz² > > > The equation and thus the Lorentz transform describes how the > > geometry of spacetime at a remote location is observed by both the > > primed and the unprimed frames of reference. It becomes interesting > > when the primed frame observes itself and thus is also observed by > > the unprimed frame. In this case, the equation only simplifies into > > the following. <shrug> > > > ** c² dτ² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz² > > > Where > > > ** dτ = the local time tick rate at the observed by the unprimed > > > Both the primed and the unprimed frames are still aging in their > > respective local time tick rate. Nothing is aging in spacetime or > > spacetime pathlength. Thus, the concept of an aging process > > manifests in the pathlength of spacetime is so fvcking ludicrous > Come again? > You claim that Minkowski didn't introduce > the proper time as a measure of the length > of a word-line (path in space-time), and when > demonstrated that he did just that, Minkowski's > thought isn't important? :-D That is right. What Minkowski said is not important. What is important is what the mathematics means. With that said, again for the n’th time, according to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, τ is the local time at the event being observed with its time tick rate of dτ, and dt is time tick rate at where the observer is located using the Cartesian coordinate system (x,y,z). In another words, the local geometry of time tick rate at a remote location is mapping into an observer’s observation using (t,x,y,z). There is no proper time. <shrug> > But it does mean that you were wrong about what Minkowski wrote. Who cares? If Minkowski was that delusional shaman with pull out of proper time from his ass, so what? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9fbec5fe-438a-4765-88b0-0c340c959abd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457430 |
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 10:57:09 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:53 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 02.05.2018 21.58, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > > > All [Minkowski] did was to condense the Lorentz transform into the > > > following. <shrug> > > > > > ** c² dt’² – dx’² – dy’² – dz’² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz² > > > > > The equation and thus the Lorentz transform describes how the > > > geometry of spacetime at a remote location is observed by both the > > > primed and the unprimed frames of reference. It becomes interesting > > > when the primed frame observes itself and thus is also observed by > > > the unprimed frame. In this case, the equation only simplifies into > > > the following. <shrug> > > > > > ** c² dτ² = c² dt² – dx² – dy² - dz² > > > > > Where > > > > > ** dτ = the local time tick rate at the observed by the unprimed > > > > > Both the primed and the unprimed frames are still aging in their > > > respective local time tick rate. Nothing is aging in spacetime or > > > spacetime pathlength. Thus, the concept of an aging process > > > manifests in the pathlength of spacetime is so fvcking ludicrous > > > Come again? > > You claim that Minkowski didn't introduce > > the proper time as a measure of the length > > of a word-line (path in space-time), and when > > demonstrated that he did just that, Minkowski's > > thought isn't important? :-D > > That is right. What Minkowski said is not important. What is important is what the mathematics means. With that said, again for the n’th time, according to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, τ is the local time at the event being observed with its time tick rate of dτ, and dt is time tick rate at where the observer is located using the Cartesian coordinate system (x,y,z). In another words, the local geometry of time tick rate at a remote location is mapping into an observer’s observation using (t,x,y,z). There is no proper time. <shrug> Utter rubbish. Gobbledygook. You are an incompetent ignoramus feigning knowledge you do not have. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 22:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <F5KGC.177120$yN1.13061@fx28.am4> |
| In reply to | #457430 |
Den 03.05.2018 19.57, skrev Koobee Wublee: > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:53 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 02.05.2018 21.58, skrev Koobee Wublee: >>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 12:02:59 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/y9o86o4o >>>> The 1908 paper "Space and Time" starts on >>>> page 39 of this document. >>>> >>>> I quote from page 47 of the paper: >>>> << >>>> Let us now imagine a worldpoint P(x, y, z, t) through which >>>> the worldline of a substantial point is passing, then >>>> the magnitude of the timelike vector dx, dy, dz, dt along >>>> the line will be >>>> dτ = (1/c)√(c²dt²-dx²-dy²-dz²) >>>> >>>> The integral ∫dτ = τ of this magnitude, taken along >>>> the worldline from any fixed starting point P₀ to >>>> the variable end point P , we call the proper time >>>> of the substantial point at P. >>>> >> >>> >>> That was Damour’s biography on Minkowski’s work. In another words, it was Damour’s interpretation to Minkowski’s work. >> >> No, that is Minkowski's own words in his 1908 paper "Space and Time". >> >>> With that said, what Minkowski thought is not important. What matters is how the equation is derived and what constraints are imposed on this same equation. <shrug> >>> >> Come again? >> You claim that Minkowski didn't introduce >> the proper time as a measure of the length >> of a word-line (path in space-time), and when >> demonstrated that he did just that, Minkowski's >> thought isn't important? :-D > > That is right. What Minkowski said is not important. > >>>> >>>> That is, according to Minkowski the proper time τ is >>>> a measure of the 'length' of the worldline from P₀ to P. >>>> The wordline is the path trough spacetime. >>>> >>>> This approach was adopted by Einstein, and is now >>>> a central part of SR. >>> >>> This does not mean the existence of the mythical proper time. >> >> But it does mean that you were wrong about what Minkowski wrote. > > Who cares? If Minkowski was that delusional shaman with pull out of proper time from his ass, so what? <shrug> > Quite. Not even Koobee Wublee cares about that Koobee Wublee is wrong about what Minkowski wrote. Koobee, proper time is simply what a clock shows. Your wrist watch shows your proper time. How can you claim that it doesn't exist? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5d778eb-9160-441d-8575-a55ffb20c3af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457439 |
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:15:36 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 03.05.2018 19.57, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:53 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 02.05.2018 21.58, skrev Koobee Wublee: > >>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 12:02:59 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/y9o86o4o > >>>> The 1908 paper "Space and Time" starts on > >>>> page 39 of this document. > >>>> > >>>> I quote from page 47 of the paper: > >>>> << > >>>> Let us now imagine a worldpoint P(x, y, z, t) through which > >>>> the worldline of a substantial point is passing, then > >>>> the magnitude of the timelike vector dx, dy, dz, dt along > >>>> the line will be > >>>> dτ = (1/c)√(c²dt²-dx²-dy²-dz²) > >>>> > >>>> The integral ∫dτ = τ of this magnitude, taken along > >>>> the worldline from any fixed starting point P₀ to > >>>> the variable end point P , we call the proper time > >>>> of the substantial point at P. > >>>> >> > >>> > >>> That was Damour’s biography on Minkowski’s work. In another words, it was Damour’s interpretation to Minkowski’s work. > >> > >> No, that is Minkowski's own words in his 1908 paper "Space and Time". > >> > >>> With that said, what Minkowski thought is not important. What matters is how the equation is derived and what constraints are imposed on this same equation. <shrug> > >>> > >> Come again? > >> You claim that Minkowski didn't introduce > >> the proper time as a measure of the length > >> of a word-line (path in space-time), and when > >> demonstrated that he did just that, Minkowski's > >> thought isn't important? :-D > > > > That is right. What Minkowski said is not important. > > >>>> > >>>> That is, according to Minkowski the proper time τ is > >>>> a measure of the 'length' of the worldline from P₀ to P. > >>>> The wordline is the path trough spacetime. > >>>> > >>>> This approach was adopted by Einstein, and is now > >>>> a central part of SR. > >>> > >>> This does not mean the existence of the mythical proper time. > >> > >> But it does mean that you were wrong about what Minkowski wrote. > > > Who cares? If Minkowski was that delusional shaman with pull out of > proper time from his ass, so what? <shrug> > > > > Quite. > Not even Koobee Wublee cares about that Koobee Wublee > is wrong about what Minkowski wrote. > > Koobee, proper time is simply what a clock shows. > Your wrist watch shows your proper time. > How can you claim that it doesn't exist? > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ It's a standard strategy of a frustrated ignoramus: simply declare things barring his way as invalid. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <844a8a27-081a-4d9a-b61b-e57fd441b37b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457440 |
On Thursday, 3 May 2018 22:41:01 UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:15:36 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 03.05.2018 19.57, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:34:53 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> Den 02.05.2018 21.58, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > >>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 12:02:59 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/y9o86o4o > > >>>> The 1908 paper "Space and Time" starts on > > >>>> page 39 of this document. > > >>>> > > >>>> I quote from page 47 of the paper: > > >>>> << > > >>>> Let us now imagine a worldpoint P(x, y, z, t) through which > > >>>> the worldline of a substantial point is passing, then > > >>>> the magnitude of the timelike vector dx, dy, dz, dt along > > >>>> the line will be > > >>>> dτ = (1/c)√(c²dt²-dx²-dy²-dz²) > > >>>> > > >>>> The integral ∫dτ = τ of this magnitude, taken along > > >>>> the worldline from any fixed starting point P₀ to > > >>>> the variable end point P , we call the proper time > > >>>> of the substantial point at P. > > >>>> >> > > >>> > > >>> That was Damour’s biography on Minkowski’s work. In another words, it was Damour’s interpretation to Minkowski’s work. > > >> > > >> No, that is Minkowski's own words in his 1908 paper "Space and Time". > > >> > > >>> With that said, what Minkowski thought is not important. What matters is how the equation is derived and what constraints are imposed on this same equation. <shrug> > > >>> > > >> Come again? > > >> You claim that Minkowski didn't introduce > > >> the proper time as a measure of the length > > >> of a word-line (path in space-time), and when > > >> demonstrated that he did just that, Minkowski's > > >> thought isn't important? :-D > > > > > > That is right. What Minkowski said is not important. > > > >>>> > > >>>> That is, according to Minkowski the proper time τ is > > >>>> a measure of the 'length' of the worldline from P₀ to P. > > >>>> The wordline is the path trough spacetime. > > >>>> > > >>>> This approach was adopted by Einstein, and is now > > >>>> a central part of SR. > > >>> > > >>> This does not mean the existence of the mythical proper time. > > >> > > >> But it does mean that you were wrong about what Minkowski wrote. > > > > Who cares? If Minkowski was that delusional shaman with pull out of > > proper time from his ass, so what? <shrug> > > > > > > > Quite. > > Not even Koobee Wublee cares about that Koobee Wublee > > is wrong about what Minkowski wrote. > > > > Koobee, proper time is simply what a clock shows. > > Your wrist watch shows your proper time. > > How can you claim that it doesn't exist? > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > https://paulba.no/ > > It's a standard strategy of a frustrated ignoramus: simply declare things > barring his way as invalid. It's a standard strategy of a frustrated ignoramus: simply declare things barring his way as invalid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-03 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbaf701d-e54c-4fe5-980f-18c1c137af83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457439 |
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 03.05.2018 19.44, skrev Koobee Wublee: > > It is time to compare what SR based on the Lorentz transform and > > what LET based on Larmor’s transform predict on this issue. > > <shrug> > > It should be blatantly obvious why there is a blunder to compare > what SR and LET predicts _on this issue_ which is about clocks in > the gravitational field of the Earth. It should be blatantly obvious that there is an SR component to the time anomaly. According to SR, it is purely due to the relative speed between the satellites and the earth ground. Yet, all mathematical derivations regarding this matter has not used SR but hijacked LET’s idea that there is an absolute frame of reference. In this case, it is the center of the earth which Tom proudly calls it the earth inertial coordinate system. <shrug> With that said, the gravitational contribution is trivial where any of the Aether based theories also predict the same thing. <shrug> > > LET says the local time tick rate depends on how fast that time > > keeping element is moving relative to the absolute frame of > > reference. SR dictates that the local time tick rate is observed > > to slow down according to the relative speed of this clock as > > observed. <shrug> > > > Although LET also manifests the fatal flaw of the Twin paradox, SR > > dictates the invariant geometry (local time tick rate) can be > > observed to vary according to its relative speed. SR is absurdity > > beyond any scholarly debates, but the self-styled physicists manage > > to conjure up shitloads of mysticism to cover up the fatal flaws. > > <shrug> > > The following statement demonstrates that Koobee Wublee > completely missed the point of Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog's post. > > > Thus, if indeed shown this 1/4 second mismatch, only LET can > > possibly be valid as a model to describe this time mismatch not SR. > > <shrug> Yes, the mathematical derivation does place the absolute frame of reference at the center of the earth. It is LET that derives the speed component affecting the time anomaly. <shrug> > The point is that there is no 1/4 second mismatch > between GPS clocks on the ground and GPS clocks in > orbit, they are in sync because the orbiting clocks are > running slower than SI-clocks by the factor 4.4647E-10. > (The 'second' of an orbiting clock is (1+4.4647E-10)SI-second) First of all, slowing down the clock tick rate before launch of the satellites is useless. Ask your buddy the Austrian Hitlerjunge which agrees with Koobee Wublee. With that said, if the clock tick rates are the same, GR does predict a time anomaly center at the gravitational time dilation part around an incoherent band due to speed of SR. <shrug> By the way, GR built around LET shares the same math with GR built around SR, but the mathematics of SR and LET are completely different. Go ahead and make Koobee Wublee’s day by uttering an objection, and watch Koobee Wublee destroys the Einstein dingleberries for the n’th time. <shrug> > I see you realized your blunder. That's why you snipped what you > were responding to. Right? Koobee Wublee still sees no blunder, and Koobee Wublee only snips toxic garbage that does not warrant any energy to explain how toxically stupid the nonsense is. <shrug> > Or am I overestimating you again? :-D The only thing Paul is overestimating is its own (lack of) intelligence. <shrug> > > Koobee Wublee is not intrigued and urges others not hold their > > breaths to find out. <shrug> > > Your blunder was glaring, so others have found out without > holding their breaths. The lesson is that not to hold your breath trying to identify Koobee Wublee’s blunder. <shrug> > > Not according to SR. <shrug> > > Exactly. Which was the obvious point you missed. You missed the point that it is LET that derives the time anomaly. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-04 15:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <eYYGC.84656$7B3.67414@fx13.am4> |
| In reply to | #457446 |
Den 04.05.2018 02.44, skrev Koobee Wublee: > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 03.05.2018 19.44, skrev Koobee Wublee: > >>> It is time to compare what SR based on the Lorentz transform and >>> what LET based on Larmor’s transform predict on this issue. >>> <shrug> >> >> It should be blatantly obvious why there is a blunder to compare >> what SR and LET predicts _on this issue_ which is about clocks in >> the gravitational field of the Earth. > > It should be blatantly obvious that there is an SR component to the time anomaly. SR is applicable only in flat space-time. SR doesn't apply in Earth's gravitational field. You have to use GR, and the simplest way is to use the Schwarzschild metric, see: https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf It is true that an approximated solution (a very good approximation, but still an approximation) can be expressed with a gravitational term and a kinematic term. The latter is sometimes called the "SR-term", but that is a misnomer. Both terms are part of the GR solution. > According to SR, it is purely due to the relative speed between the satellites and the earth ground. Yet, all mathematical derivations regarding this matter has not used SR but hijacked LET’s idea that there is an absolute frame of reference. In this case, it is the center of the earth which Tom proudly calls it the earth inertial coordinate system. <shrug> It is rather stupid to think that to express the metric in an Earth Centred (NOT inertial) frame means that this frame is "an absolute frame of reference". Any frame whatsoever can be used in GR. But when the purpose is to find the apparent rate of clocks orbiting the Earth (ignoring all masses in the universe but the Earth) it would be pretty stupid to transform the Schwarzschild metric to a frame which is not Earth Centred. You have to be pretty daft not to understand that. > With that said, the gravitational contribution is trivial where any of the Aether based theories also predict the same thing. <shrug> The apparent relative rate difference of a clock in GPS orbit as observed from the ground is 4.4647E-10 (38.46 µs per sidereal day) the gravitational term is 5.2867E-10 (45.55 µs per sidereal day) the kinematic term is −8.2271E-11 (−7.09 µs per sidereal day) I challenge you to use "an ether based theory" to predict the same thing. >> >> The following statement demonstrates that Koobee Wublee >> completely missed the point of Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog's post. >> >>> Thus, if indeed shown this 1/4 second mismatch, only LET can >>> possibly be valid as a model to describe this time mismatch not SR. >>> <shrug> >> The point is that there is no 1/4 second mismatch >> between GPS clocks on the ground and GPS clocks in >> orbit, they are in sync because the orbiting clocks are >> running slower than SI-clocks by the factor 4.4647E-10. >> (The 'second' of an orbiting clock is (1+4.4647E-10)SI-second) > > First of all, slowing down the clock tick rate before launch of the satellites is useless. Ask your buddy the Austrian Hitlerjunge which agrees with Koobee Wublee. With that said, if the clock tick rates are the same, GR does predict a time anomaly center at the gravitational time dilation part around an incoherent band due to speed of SR. <shrug> > > By the way, GR built around LET shares the same math with GR built around SR, but the mathematics of SR and LET are completely different. Go ahead and make Koobee Wublee’s day by uttering an objection, and watch Koobee Wublee destroys the Einstein dingleberries for the n’th time. <shrug> I will say this for you, Koobee: You are a great comedian! Thanks for the entertainment! :-D > >> I see you realized your blunder. That's why you snipped what you >> were responding to. Right? > > Koobee Wublee still sees no blunder, and Koobee Wublee only snips toxic garbage that does not warrant any energy to explain how toxically stupid the nonsense is. <shrug> > >> Or am I overestimating you again? :-D > > The only thing Paul is overestimating is its own (lack of) intelligence. <shrug> Quite. I am not really overestimating you. I know that you don't recognise a blunder even if you have your face shoved into it. >>> Koobee Wublee is not intrigued and urges others not hold their >>> breaths to find out. <shrug> >> >> Your blunder was glaring, so others have found out without >> holding their breaths. > > The lesson is that not to hold your breath trying to identify Koobee Wublee’s blunder. <shrug> > >>> Not according to SR. <shrug> >> >> Exactly. Which was the obvious point you missed. > > You missed the point that it is LET that derives the time anomaly. <shrug> Quite. You don't make much sense, but you ARE funny. :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 21:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59c7cbef-ea62-4ac8-8347-cfd628e3461e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457181 |
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 21:59:03 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 29 de abril de 2018, 16:13:22 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > > On 29/04/2018 19:50, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > On 4/29/18 1:09 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > >> I agree that "things do not shrink", but does your "etc" imply that > > >> clocks don't really run slow, 'cos i would agree with that too, but > > >> that is certainly NOT what Einstein's SR theory claims eh! > > > > > > You REALLY need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_. Your GUESSES are > > > wrong, and just confuse you. > > > > > > SR predicts that clocks NEVER "run slow" [#]. SR also predicts that when > > > an inertial frame measures a moving clock it is OBSERVED to run slow > > > (compared to the clocks of the inertial frame). > > > > > > As I keep saying, this OBSERVATION is due to the > > > GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION inherent in such a measurement, > > > and no clocks are affected. > > > > > Right! And no twin is affected either.! > > > > > > > [#] The wording of this statement implies that ONLY THE > > > CLOCK is involved -- it is a statement about the clock's > > > INTRINSIC tick rate. This is a direct consequence of > > > Einstein's first postulate: the laws of physics that > > > govern the clock's ticking are the same in any inertial > > > frame, so no matter which frame the clock is at rest in > > > it ticks at its usual rate (as determined by those > > > INVARIANT laws). > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Which is why you can't make twins age at different rates, as i keep > > saying eh! > > As Tom and others have told you, the age of a person is not a clock rate. > > A person age is related to the path that person follows through spacetime, > that is, the age is related to the accumulated lapse time of the person clock. In the imagination of a fanatic brainwashed idiot, only. > > This is similar to having two identical cars, with identical odometers, making > the trip from Chicago to New York, but using different highways. An idiot said it's similiar! Listen to the idiot! The idiot knows!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 15:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <z8qdnZEN3LQNsHvHnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #457179 |
On 4/29/18 2:13 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 29/04/2018 19:50, Tom Roberts wrote: >> [...] > > Which is why you can't make twins age at different rates, as i keep saying eh! OK. But still, actual experiments show that when they rejoin they have different ages. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 06:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <43yFC.131276$Xa4.76878@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #457183 |
On 29/04/2018 21:39, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 4/29/18 2:13 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 29/04/2018 19:50, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> [...] >> >> Which is why you can't make twins age at different rates, as i keep >> saying eh! > > OK. But still, actual experiments show that when they rejoin they have > different ages. > > Tom Roberts > There are several experiments that reproduce the conditions of the twin paradox. The best is probably Bailey et al: > > Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979). > > They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest: Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al., JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al., Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). You are making my point Mr.Roberts. The best you can offer is experiments with sub atomic particles. Show the twin effect with real macroscopic clocks (i'm not asking for real twins eh!), then i will believe it really would happen with real twins. Right now i'm convinced it's bull shit eh! >> and if they do age at different rates then the effect would be very easily demonstrated on the ISS eh! > > Your focus on a single experiment is completely unwarranted. It would not be "very easy", and would cost tens of millions of dollars to demonstrate what has already been adequately demonstrated -- there are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm the predictions of SR, and NONE within its domain that refute it. > How much does the oscillator in a computer cost? Put a couple of them in a small box holding temperature and pressure constant, and they should certainly demonstrate the claimed 24.6 us/day, if it exists eh! keith stein > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 21:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39f93efb-25f0-4f33-a949-1940d81dd122@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457178 |
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 20:50:54 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/29/18 1:09 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > I agree that "things do not shrink", but does your "etc" imply that > > clocks don't really run slow, 'cos i would agree with that too, but > > that is certainly NOT what Einstein's SR theory claims eh! > > You REALLY need to learn what SR _ACTUALLY_SAYS_. Your GUESSES are > wrong, and just confuse you. You can only learn what Great Guru said listening to Tom Roberts! Can't you understand it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 02:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72a2e366-afd2-45c5-8e31-b04303187bb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453955 |
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:31:02 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 27/03/2018 7:10 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > >>> > >>> Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > >>> trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > >>> > >>> AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > >>> If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > >> > >> Why would you think that light would return to its original path? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I was once one of the great brainwashed, who took for granted that AE was a genius, responsible for the bomb etc > > An article in Time Magazine, March 29 1999 by James Gleick , presumably an authority on AE theory, on closer examination did not pass the 'pub test'! > > His diagrams clearly show that light passing a mass would return to its' original path under AE, and it follows that lensing could not occur.(but we know that it does) > > > > Also when considering relativity and length contraction, his 'outside' observer has ignored the fact that the front of a moving object does not stop while an internal flash goes front to back. An outside observer therefore would NOT see 'shortening. > > > > Gleick is a science historian, and there's no reason to presume him to > be an authority on general relativity. There doesn't appear to be an > article by him in the issue you cited. Surely, only those who follow Your precious relativity count. > As for you your second comment, the observer has not ignored anything. > The math is quite straight forward, but you need to look at it if you > expect to be able to comment on it. Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that You had to reject its oldest, very important piece because it refused to coopperate with The Holiest Postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 19:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79096ffc-df65-47d0-a48d-a76d854647a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453955 |
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:31:02 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 27/03/2018 7:10 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:57 AM UTC+10:30, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > >>> > >>> Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > >>> trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > >>> > >>> AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > >>> If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > >> > >> Why would you think that light would return to its original path? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I was once one of the great brainwashed, who took for granted that AE was a genius, responsible for the bomb etc > > An article in Time Magazine, March 29 1999 by James Gleick , presumably an authority on AE theory, on closer examination did not pass the 'pub test'! > > His diagrams clearly show that light passing a mass would return to its' original path under AE, and it follows that lensing could not occur.(but we know that it does) > > > > Also when considering relativity and length contraction, his 'outside' observer has ignored the fact that the front of a moving object does not stop while an internal flash goes front to back. An outside observer therefore would NOT see 'shortening. > > > > Gleick is a science historian, and there's no reason to presume him to > be an authority on general relativity. There doesn't appear to be an > article by him in the issue you cited. > > As for you your second comment, the observer has not ignored anything. > The math is quite straight forward, but you need to look at it if you > expect to be able to comment on it. > > Sylvia. We need more science historians like Philipp Frank!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-30 12:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <fi5i9fF364iU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453648 |
On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > As this (lensing) is routinely seen, RIP AE theory > > Jim G > So, just another drive-by troll. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de466b0b-4c4d-4b13-afa1-07f48728e6ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453648 |
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 11:21:42 PM UTC-4, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > As this (lensing) is routinely seen, RIP AE theory > > Jim G The observed gravity lensing is due to that light is being transmitted by a continuous aether called the E Matrix. Around a massive object the E-Matrix is curved and the wave packets of light are being carried by the curved E-Matrix and this gives rise to the observed lensing effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 23:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e81e210d-01e8-402a-8c6b-0ac16451a654@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454548 |
On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 6:38:06 AM UTC+9:30, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 11:21:42 PM UTC-4, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > > As this (lensing) is routinely seen, RIP AE theory > > > > Jim G > > The observed gravity lensing is due to that light is being transmitted by a continuous aether called the E Matrix. Around a massive object the E-Matrix is curved and the wave packets of light are being carried by the curved E-Matrix and this gives rise to the observed lensing effect. Pure Newton. Light travelling straight towards me passes a heavy object, and it's direction is altered IN THAT VICINITY. It then (free of further forces on it) continues in a straight line to my eye. A ray passing on the other side of the heavy body is similarly, and OPPOSITELY, altered in direction. THIS causes the lensing which we observe of the distant object.(pre-deviation)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web