Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #456443 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-20 12:56 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 22:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-21 09:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 17:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-20 21:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:08 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-22 10:40 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:01 -0500
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 18:53 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:14 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 08:26 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 19:57 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-23 05:50 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-23 05:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 06:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:32 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 01:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:33 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 02:53 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:00 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 04:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 04:33 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 05:11 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:13 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:04 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 19:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:40 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 17:01 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:17 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:07 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-24 13:47 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 21:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:49 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:05 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 06:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:38 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 10:01 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 11:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-25 09:25 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-26 10:42 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:37 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:59 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-27 09:07 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 22:38 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> - 2018-04-27 20:46 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 14:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-29 14:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 22:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:41 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-30 08:51 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 10:14 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-26 21:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:19 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 20:49 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:30 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:52 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:46 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "e-ps@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:16 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200 |
| Subject | Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR |
| Message-ID | <pbb2bc$lf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed of light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the second postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the speed of light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is falsified. The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t isotropic for some very slight anisotropies (around one in 100,000), but above all for a particular anisotropy, called "dipole anisotropy", of much greater amplitude (around one in 1,000), which depends on the direction of the CMBR’s provenance and that is due to the motion of the Earth (about 370 km/s) with respect to a particular location in the space, in which this anisotropy would not be detected. Hence in that location, that can be considered an inertial frame, the CMBR’s frequency would be isotropic (without considering the aforementioned slight anisotropies) or, more precisely, would not be affected by the dipole anisotropy. But for the SR its speed would also result isotropic, since for the SR the MMX experiment proved that the speed of photons (including those of the CMBR) results isotropic in any inertial frame in which it is measured. Therefore, in this location both the speed and the frequency of the CMBR, would be isotropic, as it is reasonable that it is. Because, as I will show later (thought experiments), it is not acceptable to assume that the frequency of the CMBR isn’t isotropic, and that, at the same time, its speed is isotropic. So if on Earth, that is another inertial frame, it appears that the frequency of CMBR isn’t isotropic (also without considering the aforementioned slight anisotropies) and, on the other hand, that its speed is isotropic, one of the two measurements is not correct. The location in which both the speed and frequency of the CMBR (without considering the aforementioned slight anisotropies) would be isotropic, can be only that where the frequency is measured, i.e., that where the Earth is transiting in the moment of measurement. But if in that location the speed of the CMBR photons is isotropic, the speed of all the other photons, including light photons, must therefore be isotropic. And if the speed of the photons is isotropic with respect to the location they are traversing, it cannot be isotropic with respect to the Earth, as the Earth is in motion with respect to that location. In conclusion, if on Earth the speed of the photons appears isotropic, as in the experiment of MMX, it only means that the tools available on Earth are not able to measure it properly, and not that it really is isotropic. Thought experiments Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked on its surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR photons as a set of cars that move on its surface at the constant speed of 1 m/s. Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface of the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose that it is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be revealed that the cars approach the truck at different speeds depending on the direction, and with suitable calculations it would be possible to determine its speed with respect to the point it is traversing. For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from opposite directions was measured by the truck, and these were respectively 0.9 and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and its speed with respect to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars (which would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it does not have adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not that the cars are really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as this would be impossible. Now, let us assume that in a certain point marked on the sphere, two lines of cars are passing through coming from opposite directions and with the cars in each line spaced 0.1 metre apart. In one second an observer positioned at that point, would count 10 cars coming from one direction and 10 from the other, and would measure a speed of 1 m/s for each of them. Therefore both the frequency of the cars and their speed would be isotropic. Now, assuming that the truck always moves at a speed of 0.1 m/s in one of the two directions, in one second it would count 11 cars coming from the direction in which it is moving, and 9 cars coming from the opposite direction. So it would detect a difference of two cars between the two directions of origin (the difference represents the dipole anisotropy of CMBR). And if it accurately measured the speed of the cars with respect to itself, it would find that those coming from the forward direction would have a speed of 1.1 m/s, while those coming from behind would have a speed of 0.9 m/s. Therefore, both the frequency and the speed of the cars, would be anisotropic. But if it measured their speed isotropic (1 m/s) and their frequency anisotropic (11 and 9), it would mean that one of the two measurements was incorrect, namely that of the speed as shown in the previous experiment. Conclusion. I've shown that it isn’t acceptable to assume that the frequency of the photons of CMBR isn’t isotropic, and that, at the same time, its speed is isotropic. Therefore since on the Earth the frequency of the photons of the CMBR isn’t isotropic (also without considering the aforementioned slight anisotropies), it means that not even their speed can be isotropic and, therefore, can be c. Because it can be c, only if it is isotropic. Of course, what is true for the photons of CMBR, also applies to all other photons, including those of light. And since the Earth is an inertial frame, it means that the speed of light don’t have the same value c in all inertial frames. Therefore the second postulate of SR, which states that the speed of light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is falsified.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 12:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fjt378Fhm3hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456443 |
On 20/04/2018 7:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed of > light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the second > postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the speed of > light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is falsified. > > The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t OK, this was the first clue that this was a crank post - the use of a non-standard abbreviation without a definition. > Thought experiments > > Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked on its > surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR photons as a > set of cars that move on its surface at the constant speed of 1 m/s. > Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface of > the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose that it > is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be revealed that > the cars approach the truck at different speeds depending on the > direction, and with suitable calculations it would be possible to > determine its speed with respect to the point it is traversing. > For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from opposite > directions was measured by the truck, and these were respectively 0.9 > and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and its speed with respect > to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. > But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars (which > would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it does not have > adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not that the cars are > really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as this would be impossible. You're assuming that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of Galilean relativity. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbdj8f$1v3d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456460 |
Il 20/04/2018 04:56, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 20/04/2018 7:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed of >> light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the second >> postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the speed of >> light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is falsified. >> >> The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t > > OK, this was the first clue that this was a crank post - the use of a > non-standard abbreviation without a definition. > If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well known. Just do a search through google. >> Thought experiments >> >> Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked on >> its surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR >> photons as a set of cars that move on its surface at the constant >> speed of 1 m/s. >> Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface of >> the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose that >> it is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be revealed >> that the cars approach the truck at different speeds depending on the >> direction, and with suitable calculations it would be possible to >> determine its speed with respect to the point it is traversing. >> For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from opposite >> directions was measured by the truck, and these were respectively 0.9 >> and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and its speed with >> respect to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. >> But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars (which >> would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it does not >> have adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not that the cars >> are really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as this would be >> impossible. > > You're assuming that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of > Galilean relativity. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. > I assume that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of reality and not that of a stipulation, like special relativity. In fact, here's what Einstein wrote: The isotropy of the speed of light "is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation that I can make my own free will". A stipulation, with which Einstein established that every inertial frame is the center of the universe, with all the other inertial frames that move with respect to itself. Worse than the Ptolemaic law. Einstein defined the second principle of special relativity, as a stipulation, but his supporters defined it as a reality, even if these are phenomena that are impossible in reality. In fact special relativity would see the truck as an inertial frame and the surface of the sphere as another inertial frame, which moves under it. So it would be justified that the frequency of cars is not isotropic towards him, because if it is isotropic for the surface of the sphere, it cannot be against it. But the speed of the car is still isotropic, as would be the case if it carried out an MMX experiment, with cars instead of photons. But in reality it isn't the surface of the Earth that moves under the truck, but the truck that moves on the surface of the Earth. And the speed of cars, is isotropic towards the surface of the Earth and not towards the trucks. In conclusion, I am assuming a Copernican law and not a Ptolemaic law, because the Copernican law is more adherent to reality. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 09:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fjvbd7F2r91U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456510 |
On 21/04/2018 6:40 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 20/04/2018 04:56, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >> On 20/04/2018 7:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed of >>> light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the second >>> postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the speed of >>> light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is falsified. >>> >>> The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t >> >> OK, this was the first clue that this was a crank post - the use of a >> non-standard abbreviation without a definition. >> > > If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well known. > Just do a search through google. In due course, I'll be able to find this one. Nevertheless, my point stands. > > >>> Thought experiments >>> >>> Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked on >>> its surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR >>> photons as a set of cars that move on its surface at the constant >>> speed of 1 m/s. >>> Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface of >>> the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose that >>> it is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be >>> revealed that the cars approach the truck at different speeds >>> depending on the direction, and with suitable calculations it would >>> be possible to determine its speed with respect to the point it is >>> traversing. >>> For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from >>> opposite directions was measured by the truck, and these were >>> respectively 0.9 and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and its >>> speed with respect to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. >>> But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars >>> (which would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it >>> does not have adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not that >>> the cars are really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as this >>> would be impossible. >> >> You're assuming that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of >> Galilean relativity. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. >> > > I assume that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of reality and > not that of a stipulation, like special relativity. So you're assuming that your conception of reality matches reality itself. Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. The experimental evidence is not consistent with your version reality. It might have been, but it isn't. Your version of reality is incorrect. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 17:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c99fd628-ee23-4d3c-b460-07707de1881c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456516 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 4:28:42 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/04/2018 6:40 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well known. > > Just do a search through google. > > In due course, I'll be able to find this one. Nevertheless, my point stands. LOL. Einstein dingleberries only possess the pitiful mental capacity to discuss terminologies. Who gives a fvck? Koobee Wublee prefers to discuss heavy science. <shrug> With that said, the dipole shift in CMBR is the third instance in science to have discovered the absolute frame of reference aka the Aether with the first being the Maxwell equations and the second being the null results of the MMX. Denying the Aether is similar to Peter not to recognize the Christ three times. <shrug> Conveniently not been written down in the bibles aka the textbooks, the bull results can only be explained away with two types of hypotheses aka transformations. The Voigt, Larmor’s, and Lorentz’s infinite transforms not only dictate the Aether must exist but also the constancy in the speed of light. The other types are strictly the hypothesis of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction where (dt’ = dt) in which the speed of light also distorted is not isotropicly the same similar to the Galilean transform. <shrug> Oh, the Einstein dingleberries are clueless to the mathematical fact that the Lorentz transform can only come about from Larmor’s transform when both observers are moving in parallel to each other against the stationary background of the Aether. <shrug> This is easy stuff, and the Einstein dingleberries got to represent the most fvcking stupid dischievement of humanity. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 17:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3ec9e0d-06f4-4c10-8ab4-1960372d48e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456521 |
Koobee Wublee <shrugged> Oh, the Einstein dingleberries are clueless to the mathematical fact that the Lorentz transform can only come about from Larmor’s transform when both observers are moving in parallel to each other against the stationary background of the Aether. <shrug> This is easy stuff, and the Einstein dingleberries got to represent the most fvcking stupid dischievement of humanity. <shrug> Koobee Wublee Is my “Aether Compatriot”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 17:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <545ed024-6476-4872-baf4-8dfcf159f019@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456521 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:42:56 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 4:28:42 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 21/04/2018 6:40 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > > > If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well known. > > > Just do a search through google. > > > > In due course, I'll be able to find this one. Nevertheless, my point stands. > > LOL. Einstein dingleberries only possess the pitiful mental capacity to discuss terminologies. Who gives a fvck? Koobee Wublee prefers to discuss heavy science. <shrug> > > With that said, the dipole shift in CMBR is the third instance in science to have discovered the absolute frame of reference aka the Aether with the first being the Maxwell equations and the second being the null results of the MMX. Denying the Aether is similar to Peter not to recognize the Christ three times. <shrug> > > Conveniently not been written down in the bibles aka the textbooks, the bull results can only be explained away with two types of hypotheses aka transformations. The Voigt, Larmor’s, and Lorentz’s infinite transforms not only dictate the Aether must exist but also the constancy in the speed of light. The other types are strictly the hypothesis of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction where (dt’ = dt) in which the speed of light also distorted is not isotropicly the same similar to the Galilean transform. <shrug> > > Oh, the Einstein dingleberries are clueless to the mathematical fact that the Lorentz transform can only come about from Larmor’s transform when both observers are moving in parallel to each other against the stationary background of the Aether. <shrug> > > This is easy stuff, and the Einstein dingleberries got to represent the most fvcking stupid dischievement of humanity. <shrug> Oh look, K.W. is stoned yet again...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 16:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5bc57d81-9de3-4e69-b1d1-f3d5e7b62ce8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456523 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:42:56 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > the dipole shift in CMBR is the third instance in science to have > > discovered the absolute frame of reference aka the Aether with the > > first being the Maxwell equations and the second being the null > > results of the MMX. Denying the Aether is similar to Peter not to > > recognize the Christ three times. <shrug> > > > Conveniently not been written down in the bibles aka the textbooks, > > the bull results can only be explained away with two types of > > hypotheses aka transformations. The Voigt, Larmor’s, and Lorentz’s > > infinite transforms not only dictate the Aether must exist but also > > the constancy in the speed of light. The other types are strictly > > the hypothesis of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction where > > (dt’ = dt) in which the speed of light also distorted is not > > isotropicly the same similar to the Galilean transform. <shrug> > > > the Einstein dingleberries are clueless to the mathematical fact > > that the Lorentz transform can only come about from Larmor’s > > transform when both observers are moving in parallel to each other > > against the stationary background of the Aether. <shrug> > > Oh look, K.W. is stoned yet again... Stoned on what? What is the part of Koobee Wublee’s demystifications that Paul does not understand here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 21:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0327c7b6-161d-4ab3-ab5b-4f0f56fea592@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456516 |
On Saturday, 21 April 2018 01:28:42 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/04/2018 6:40 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > Il 20/04/2018 04:56, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > >> On 20/04/2018 7:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > >>> Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed of > >>> light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the second > >>> postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the speed of > >>> light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is falsified. > >>> > >>> The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t > >> > >> OK, this was the first clue that this was a crank post - the use of a > >> non-standard abbreviation without a definition. > >> > > > > If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well known. > > Just do a search through google. > > In due course, I'll be able to find this one. Nevertheless, my point stands. > > > > > > >>> Thought experiments > >>> > >>> Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked on > >>> its surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR > >>> photons as a set of cars that move on its surface at the constant > >>> speed of 1 m/s. > >>> Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface of > >>> the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose that > >>> it is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be > >>> revealed that the cars approach the truck at different speeds > >>> depending on the direction, and with suitable calculations it would > >>> be possible to determine its speed with respect to the point it is > >>> traversing. > >>> For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from > >>> opposite directions was measured by the truck, and these were > >>> respectively 0.9 and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and its > >>> speed with respect to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. > >>> But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars > >>> (which would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it > >>> does not have adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not that > >>> the cars are really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as this > >>> would be impossible. > >> > >> You're assuming that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of > >> Galilean relativity. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. > >> > > > > I assume that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of reality and > > not that of a stipulation, like special relativity. > > So you're assuming that your conception of reality matches reality > itself. Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. > > The experimental evidence is not consistent with your version reality. You're only assuming that, lady. You're assuming what You're trying to prove. It's the usual way of science, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbev1i$1qkq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456516 |
Il 21/04/2018 01:28, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 21/04/2018 6:40 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Il 20/04/2018 04:56, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>> On 20/04/2018 7:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed of >>>> light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the second >>>> postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the speed of >>>> light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is falsified. >>>> >>>> The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t >>> >>> OK, this was the first clue that this was a crank post - the use of a >>> non-standard abbreviation without a definition. >>> >> >> If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well >> known. >> Just do a search through google. > > In due course, I'll be able to find this one. Nevertheless, my point > stands. > CMBR = Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation I bring you what is written on wikipedia: "The discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation constitutes a major development in modern physical cosmology.". So if a person does not know what CMBR means, how can he discuss physical cosmology? However, I don't want to believe you don't know what CMBR means. >> >> >>>> Thought experiments >>>> >>>> Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked on >>>> its surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR >>>> photons as a set of cars that move on its surface at the constant >>>> speed of 1 m/s. >>>> Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface >>>> of the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose >>>> that it is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be >>>> revealed that the cars approach the truck at different speeds >>>> depending on the direction, and with suitable calculations it would >>>> be possible to determine its speed with respect to the point it is >>>> traversing. >>>> For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from >>>> opposite directions was measured by the truck, and these were >>>> respectively 0.9 and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and >>>> its speed with respect to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. >>>> But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars >>>> (which would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it >>>> does not have adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not that >>>> the cars are really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as this >>>> would be impossible. >>> >>> You're assuming that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of >>> Galilean relativity. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. >>> >> >> I assume that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of reality >> and not that of a stipulation, like special relativity. > > So you're assuming that your conception of reality matches reality > itself. Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. > > The experimental evidence is not consistent with your version reality. > It might have been, but it isn't. Your version of reality is incorrect. > I rely on the CMBR dipole anisotropy, which was measured by multiple space missions: COBE in 1989; WMAP in 2001; PLANK in 2009. It shows that the Earth is moving at a speed of about 370 km / s compared to the reference frame of the CMBR, which in practice constitutes the space (or the aether, for those who want to define it still in this way). However, I have already shown in the first part of the demonstration that the Earth is moving with respect to the CMBR reference frame and that, therefore, if the speed of the CMBR photons is isotropic towards this reference frame, it cannot really be also towards the Earth. The second part, which you have "challenged", has only served to further demonstrate that the speed of the CMBR photons cann't be isotropic on the Earth, because their frequency isn't isotropic (also without considering the aforementioned slight anisotropies) due to dipole anisotropy. So I performed the demonstration in two different ways. I don't know in what other ways the scientific community would like me to prove it. As I wrote in the previous post, I think that the only way in which the scientific community can "challenge" my demonstration is to state that the special relativity would see the truck as an inertial frame and the surface of the sphere as another inertial frame, which moves under it. Which is a Ptolemaic view of reality. And that I could "challenge" in turn, asking what the engine that drives the wheels of the truck, would do. But I already imagine what would be answered to me. However I think that only with a Ptolemaic view of reality, perhaps it would be possible to "challenge" my demonstration. But is a Ptolemaic view of reality, credible? Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 10:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fk23vhFlig7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456551 |
On 21/04/2018 7:08 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 21/04/2018 01:28, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >> On 21/04/2018 6:40 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> Il 20/04/2018 04:56, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>> On 20/04/2018 7:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>> Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed >>>>> of light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the >>>>> second postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the >>>>> speed of light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is >>>>> falsified. >>>>> >>>>> The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t >>>> >>>> OK, this was the first clue that this was a crank post - the use of >>>> a non-standard abbreviation without a definition. >>>> >>> >>> If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well >>> known. >>> Just do a search through google. >> >> In due course, I'll be able to find this one. Nevertheless, my point >> stands. >> > > CMBR = Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation > > I bring you what is written on wikipedia: > "The discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation constitutes a > major development in modern physical cosmology.". > > So if a person does not know what CMBR means, how can he discuss > physical cosmology? > However, I don't want to believe you don't know what CMBR means. You're conflating knowledge of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with knowledge of what CMBR stands for. > >>> >>> >>>>> Thought experiments >>>>> >>>>> Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked >>>>> on its surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR >>>>> photons as a set of cars that move on its surface at the constant >>>>> speed of 1 m/s. >>>>> Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface >>>>> of the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose >>>>> that it is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be >>>>> revealed that the cars approach the truck at different speeds >>>>> depending on the direction, and with suitable calculations it would >>>>> be possible to determine its speed with respect to the point it is >>>>> traversing. >>>>> For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from >>>>> opposite directions was measured by the truck, and these were >>>>> respectively 0.9 and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and >>>>> its speed with respect to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. >>>>> But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars >>>>> (which would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it >>>>> does not have adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not that >>>>> the cars are really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as this >>>>> would be impossible. >>>> >>>> You're assuming that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of >>>> Galilean relativity. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. >>>> >>> >>> I assume that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of reality >>> and not that of a stipulation, like special relativity. >> >> So you're assuming that your conception of reality matches reality >> itself. Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. >> >> The experimental evidence is not consistent with your version reality. >> It might have been, but it isn't. Your version of reality is incorrect. >> > > I rely on the CMBR dipole anisotropy, which was measured by multiple > space missions: > COBE in 1989; > WMAP in 2001; > PLANK in 2009. > It shows that the Earth is moving at a speed of about 370 km / s > compared to the reference frame of the CMBR, which in practice > constitutes the space (or the aether, for those who want to define it > still in this way). > > However, I have already shown in the first part of the demonstration > that the Earth is moving with respect to the CMBR reference frame and > that, therefore, if the speed of the CMBR photons is isotropic towards > this reference frame, it cannot really be also towards the Earth. > > The second part, which you have "challenged", has only served to further > demonstrate that the speed of the CMBR photons cann't be isotropic on > the Earth, because their frequency isn't isotropic (also without > considering the aforementioned slight anisotropies) due to dipole > anisotropy. > > So I performed the demonstration in two different ways. > I don't know in what other ways the scientific community would like me > to prove it. > > As I wrote in the previous post, I think that the only way in which the > scientific community can "challenge" my demonstration is to state that > the special relativity would see the truck as an inertial frame and the > surface of the sphere as another inertial frame, which moves under it. > Which is a Ptolemaic view of reality. > And that I could "challenge" in turn, asking what the engine that drives > the wheels of the truck, would do. > But I already imagine what would be answered to me. > > However I think that only with a Ptolemaic view of reality, perhaps it > would be possible to "challenge" my demonstration. > But is a Ptolemaic view of reality, credible? > > Dino Bruniera > > That the background radiation spectrum is not the same in all directions is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that this implies that the photons have different speeds relative to the Earth. So far, your arguments have been circular. Special relativity provides a consistent model of reality derived inexorably from certain assumptions, one of which is that the laws of physics depend only on relative velocities. That does not in itself mean that it is right, but it does mean that any model in which the speed of light is shown to be not constant must contain an assumption that contradicts the assumptions on which special relativity is based. Thus attempting to show that special relativity is wrong by way of thought experiments is a fool's errand, because such attempts are necessarily circular. This approach is doomed to failure. It is a logical impossibility. It is an ex-parrot. The only way to get closer to the truth is through real experiments. Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results are consistent with special relativity. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 12:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lmmndddl6vn5abjimr527he3fgf8uh5vrd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #456607 |
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:40:15 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: > ... It is an ex-parrot..... Missed that the first time through. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6_3DC.1282512$iE.760279@fx05.am4> |
| In reply to | #456607 |
On 22/04/2018 01:40, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 21/04/2018 7:08 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Il 21/04/2018 01:28, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>> On 21/04/2018 6:40 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> Il 20/04/2018 04:56, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>>> On 20/04/2018 7:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>> Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed >>>>>> of light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the >>>>>> second postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the >>>>>> speed of light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is >>>>>> falsified. >>>>>> >>>>>> The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t >>>>> >>>>> OK, this was the first clue that this was a crank post - the use of >>>>> a non-standard abbreviation without a definition. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well >>>> known. >>>> Just do a search through google. >>> >>> In due course, I'll be able to find this one. Nevertheless, my point >>> stands. >>> >> >> CMBR = Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation >> >> I bring you what is written on wikipedia: >> "The discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation constitutes a >> major development in modern physical cosmology.". >> >> So if a person does not know what CMBR means, how can he discuss >> physical cosmology? >> However, I don't want to believe you don't know what CMBR means. > > You're conflating knowledge of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation > with knowledge of what CMBR stands for. I would have thought there would be a very high correlation between those two alternatives myself. Even i could work out CMBR, Silvia. >>>>>> Thought experiments >>>>>> >>>>>> Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked >>>>>> on its surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR >>>>>> photons as a set of cars that move on its surface at the constant >>>>>> speed of 1 m/s. >>>>>> Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface >>>>>> of the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose >>>>>> that it is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be >>>>>> revealed that the cars approach the truck at different speeds >>>>>> depending on the direction, and with suitable calculations it >>>>>> would be possible to determine its speed with respect to the point >>>>>> it is traversing. >>>>>> For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from >>>>>> opposite directions was measured by the truck, and these were >>>>>> respectively 0.9 and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and >>>>>> its speed with respect to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. >>>>>> But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars >>>>>> (which would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it >>>>>> does not have adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not >>>>>> that the cars are really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as >>>>>> this would be impossible. >>>>> >>>>> You're assuming that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of >>>>> Galilean relativity. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I assume that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of reality >>>> and not that of a stipulation, like special relativity. >>> >>> So you're assuming that your conception of reality matches reality >>> itself. Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. >>> >>> The experimental evidence is not consistent with your version >>> reality. It might have been, but it isn't. Your version of reality is >>> incorrect. >>> >> >> I rely on the CMBR dipole anisotropy, which was measured by multiple >> space missions: >> COBE in 1989; >> WMAP in 2001; >> PLANK in 2009. >> It shows that the Earth is moving at a speed of about 370 km / s >> compared to the reference frame of the CMBR, which in practice >> constitutes the space (or the aether, for those who want to define it >> still in this way). >> >> However, I have already shown in the first part of the demonstration >> that the Earth is moving with respect to the CMBR reference frame and >> that, therefore, if the speed of the CMBR photons is isotropic towards >> this reference frame, it cannot really be also towards the Earth. >> >> The second part, which you have "challenged", has only served to >> further demonstrate that the speed of the CMBR photons cann't be >> isotropic on the Earth, because their frequency isn't isotropic (also >> without considering the aforementioned slight anisotropies) due to >> dipole anisotropy. >> >> So I performed the demonstration in two different ways. >> I don't know in what other ways the scientific community would like me >> to prove it. >> >> As I wrote in the previous post, I think that the only way in which >> the scientific community can "challenge" my demonstration is to state >> that the special relativity would see the truck as an inertial frame >> and the surface of the sphere as another inertial frame, which moves >> under it. >> Which is a Ptolemaic view of reality. >> And that I could "challenge" in turn, asking what the engine that >> drives the wheels of the truck, would do. >> But I already imagine what would be answered to me. >> >> However I think that only with a Ptolemaic view of reality, perhaps it >> would be possible to "challenge" my demonstration. >> But is a Ptolemaic view of reality, credible? >> >> Dino Bruniera >> >> > > That the background radiation spectrum is not the same in all directions > is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that this implies that the > photons have different speeds relative to the Earth. So far, your > arguments have been circular. > > Special relativity provides a consistent model of reality derived > inexorably from certain assumptions, one of which is that the laws of > physics depend only on relative velocities. That does not in itself mean > that it is right, but it does mean that any model in which the speed of > light is shown to be not constant must contain an assumption that > contradicts the assumptions on which special relativity is based. > > Thus attempting to show that special relativity is wrong by way of > thought experiments is a fool's errand, because such attempts are > necessarily circular. This approach is doomed to failure. It is a > logical impossibility. It is an ex-parrot. The only way to get closer to > the truth is through real experiments. > > Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results are > consistent with special relativity. > > Sylvia. I offer you my son Edward's suggestion for a simple experiment to test the relativistic time dilations : 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS 2. FLY ONE TO THE International Space Station. 3. Next flight up, take up the other. 4. Compare the readings on the two clocks when reunited on the ISS. Simple, accurate and cheap test of the SR/GR time dilations, and i am 99% confident the results will not be consistent with Special Relativity, and 95% confident they will not be consistent with GR either. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 12:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fk4trkF9vi1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456661 |
On 23/04/2018 3:53 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > I offer you my son Edward's suggestion for a simple experiment to test > the relativistic time dilations : > > 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS > 2. FLY ONE TO THE International Space Station. > 3. Next flight up, take up the other. > 4. Compare the readings on the two clocks when reunited on the ISS. > > > Simple, accurate and cheap test of the SR/GR time dilations, and i am > 99% confident the results will not be consistent with Special > Relativity, and 95% confident they will not be consistent with GR either. > Why would you be confident? You appear to have nothing other than intuition to support your view, and intuition has long been found wanting when it comes to science. GPS clock measurements behave in a way that is consistent with general relativity. There is no reason to expect clocks on the international space station would be any different. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 08:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <AUfDC.425478$9S2.420202@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #456700 |
On 23/04/2018 03:14, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 23/04/2018 3:53 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >> >> I offer you my son Edward's suggestion for a simple experiment to test >> the relativistic time dilations : >> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE International Space Station. >> 3. Next flight up, take up the other. >> 4. Compare the readings on the two clocks when reunited on the ISS. >> >>' >> Simple, accurate and cheap test of the SR/GR time dilations, and i am >> 99% confident the results will not be consistent with Special >> Relativity, and 95% confident they will not be consistent with GR either. >>, > > Why would you be confident? 1. I have read Einstein's derivation of the SR time dilation, and i recognize Bull Shit when i see it eh! 2. Einstein predicted that clocks at the equator will run slower than an identical clock at the poles. They don't. Einstein subsequently discovered a second time dilation (GR) which, on Earth, happened to be exactly equal and opposite to his previously predicted (SR) time dilation. This makes be doubt that either effect is real, although you may notice that i am slightly more confident that the SR effect is bogus. > You appear to have nothing other than > intuition to support your view, and intuition has long been found > wanting when it comes to science. > GPS clock measurements behave in a way that is consistent with general > relativity. There is no reason to expect clocks on the international > space station would be any different. Applying the same calculation that says the GPS clocks run faster by 37 us/day to clocks on the ISS suggests that they should run slower by 24.6 us/day. This is because the clocks in the GPS are in a much higher orbit where the GR time dilation is claimed to be much bigger than the SR time dilation, which should dominate at the lower ISS orbit. On the ISS the clocks would be compared when they are stationary, relative to each other. and adjacent. The clock comparison with the GPS clocks are for clocks that are moving rapidly relative to each other and are 20,000 km apart. Which test do you think would be the more accurate Sylvia ? > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 19:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fk5p00FfknkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456710 |
On 23/04/2018 5:26 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 23/04/2018 03:14, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 23/04/2018 3:53 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> >>> >>> I offer you my son Edward's suggestion for a simple experiment to >>> test the relativistic time dilations : >>> >>> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS >>> 2. FLY ONE TO THE International Space Station. >>> 3. Next flight up, take up the other. >>> 4. Compare the readings on the two clocks when reunited on the ISS. >>> >>> ' >>> Simple, accurate and cheap test of the SR/GR time dilations, and i am >>> 99% confident the results will not be consistent with Special >>> Relativity, and 95% confident they will not be consistent with GR >>> either. >>> , >> >> Why would you be confident? > > 1. I have read Einstein's derivation of the SR time dilation, and i > recognize Bull Shit when i see it eh! > > 2. Einstein predicted that clocks at the equator will run slower than an > identical clock at the poles. They don't. Einstein subsequently > discovered a second time dilation (GR) which, on Earth, happened to be > exactly equal and opposite to his previously predicted (SR) time > dilation. This makes be doubt that either effect is real, although you > may notice that i am slightly more confident that the SR effect is bogus. It is not a coincidence that the two effects cancel. The Earth is the shape it is because that's the shape that gives the same gravitational potential everywhere. Were it to have a different shape, material would flow along the surface towards areas of lower potential until the shape was as it currently is, and it is that potential in general relativity that determines the relative clock rates. Einstein was mistaken in special relativity because he (presumably) hadn't realised that gravity plays a part. > >> You appear to have nothing other than intuition to support your view, >> and intuition has long been found wanting when it comes to science. > >> GPS clock measurements behave in a way that is consistent with general >> relativity. There is no reason to expect clocks on the international >> space station would be any different. > > Applying the same calculation that says the GPS clocks run faster by 37 > us/day to clocks on the ISS suggests that they should run slower by 24.6 > us/day. This is because the clocks in the GPS are in a much higher > orbit where the GR time dilation is claimed to be much bigger than the > SR time dilation, which should dominate at the lower ISS orbit. > > On the ISS the clocks would be compared when they are stationary, > relative to each other. and adjacent. > The clock comparison with the GPS > clocks are for clocks that are moving rapidly relative to each other and > are 20,000 km apart. Which test do you think would be the more accurate > Sylvia ? You seem to have lost sight of the point at issue, which is that given the behaviour of GPS clocks, you have no reason to expect the ISS experiment to give a null result. You appear to want to treat your baseless expectation of a null result as if it were a definite proven outcome. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <acebb33a-4b70-433b-aae1-fff30b60972e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456710 |
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:26:26 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > 1. I have read Einstein's derivation of the SR time dilation, and i > recognize Bull Shit when i see it eh! You must live a very smelly life, seeing much BS everywhere. I have studied the assumptions from which the LT is derived and find the smell of roses. > 2. Einstein predicted that clocks at the equator will run slower than an > identical clock at the poles. They don't. Einstein subsequently > discovered a second time dilation (GR) which, on Earth, happened to be > exactly equal and opposite to his previously predicted (SR) time > dilation. This makes be doubt that either effect is real, although you > may notice that i am slightly more confident that the SR effect is bogus. You don't believe it's possible for two effects can cancel out? Hmmm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03be2c57-1e12-49e3-acac-4eefe745889a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456661 |
El domingo, 22 de abril de 2018, 14:53:08 (UTC-3), Keith Stein escribió: > On 22/04/2018 01:40, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 21/04/2018 7:08 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Il 21/04/2018 01:28, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > >>> On 21/04/2018 6:40 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > >>>> Il 20/04/2018 04:56, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > >>>>> On 20/04/2018 7:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > >>>>>> Demonstration that on Earth (that is an inertial frame) the speed > >>>>>> of light cannot be isotropic and therefore cannot be c, so the > >>>>>> second postulate of Special Relativity (SR), which states that the > >>>>>> speed of light has the same value c in all inertial frames, is > >>>>>> falsified. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The frequency of the photons of the CMBR measured on Earth, isn’t > >>>>> > >>>>> OK, this was the first clue that this was a crank post - the use of > >>>>> a non-standard abbreviation without a definition. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> If the abbreviation is CMBR, it may not be standard, but it is well > >>>> known. > >>>> Just do a search through google. > >>> > >>> In due course, I'll be able to find this one. Nevertheless, my point > >>> stands. > >>> > >> > >> CMBR = Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation > >> > >> I bring you what is written on wikipedia: > >> "The discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation constitutes a > >> major development in modern physical cosmology.". > >> > >> So if a person does not know what CMBR means, how can he discuss > >> physical cosmology? > >> However, I don't want to believe you don't know what CMBR means. > > > > You're conflating knowledge of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation > > with knowledge of what CMBR stands for. > > I would have thought there would be a very high correlation between > those two alternatives myself. Even i could work out CMBR, Silvia. > > > >>>>>> Thought experiments > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Imagine the Universe as a big rubber ball with many points marked > >>>>>> on its surface (representing locations in space). Now imagine CMBR > >>>>>> photons as a set of cars that move on its surface at the constant > >>>>>> speed of 1 m/s. > >>>>>> Imagine then the Earth as a pickup truck that moves on the surface > >>>>>> of the sphere, but at a lower speed than 1 m/s, and let us suppose > >>>>>> that it is able to measure its speed against the cars. It would be > >>>>>> revealed that the cars approach the truck at different speeds > >>>>>> depending on the direction, and with suitable calculations it > >>>>>> would be possible to determine its speed with respect to the point > >>>>>> it is traversing. > >>>>>> For example, if the speed of only two of the cars coming from > >>>>>> opposite directions was measured by the truck, and these were > >>>>>> respectively 0.9 and 1.1 m/s, the difference would be 0.2 m/s and > >>>>>> its speed with respect to this point would be half, i.e., 0.1 m/s. > >>>>>> But if the truck measured a speed of 1 m/s for both of the cars > >>>>>> (which would represent the MMX experiment), it would mean that it > >>>>>> does not have adequate tools to detect the exact speed and not > >>>>>> that the cars are really moving towards it at a speed of 1 m/s, as > >>>>>> this would be impossible. > >>>>> > >>>>> You're assuming that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of > >>>>> Galilean relativity. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I assume that the big-rubber ball universe obeys the laws of reality > >>>> and not that of a stipulation, like special relativity. > >>> > >>> So you're assuming that your conception of reality matches reality > >>> itself. Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. > >>> > >>> The experimental evidence is not consistent with your version > >>> reality. It might have been, but it isn't. Your version of reality is > >>> incorrect. > >>> > >> > >> I rely on the CMBR dipole anisotropy, which was measured by multiple > >> space missions: > >> COBE in 1989; > >> WMAP in 2001; > >> PLANK in 2009. > >> It shows that the Earth is moving at a speed of about 370 km / s > >> compared to the reference frame of the CMBR, which in practice > >> constitutes the space (or the aether, for those who want to define it > >> still in this way). > >> > >> However, I have already shown in the first part of the demonstration > >> that the Earth is moving with respect to the CMBR reference frame and > >> that, therefore, if the speed of the CMBR photons is isotropic towards > >> this reference frame, it cannot really be also towards the Earth. > >> > >> The second part, which you have "challenged", has only served to > >> further demonstrate that the speed of the CMBR photons cann't be > >> isotropic on the Earth, because their frequency isn't isotropic (also > >> without considering the aforementioned slight anisotropies) due to > >> dipole anisotropy. > >> > >> So I performed the demonstration in two different ways. > >> I don't know in what other ways the scientific community would like me > >> to prove it. > >> > >> As I wrote in the previous post, I think that the only way in which > >> the scientific community can "challenge" my demonstration is to state > >> that the special relativity would see the truck as an inertial frame > >> and the surface of the sphere as another inertial frame, which moves > >> under it. > >> Which is a Ptolemaic view of reality. > >> And that I could "challenge" in turn, asking what the engine that > >> drives the wheels of the truck, would do. > >> But I already imagine what would be answered to me. > >> > >> However I think that only with a Ptolemaic view of reality, perhaps it > >> would be possible to "challenge" my demonstration. > >> But is a Ptolemaic view of reality, credible? > >> > >> Dino Bruniera > >> > >> > > > > That the background radiation spectrum is not the same in all directions > > is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that this implies that the > > photons have different speeds relative to the Earth. So far, your > > arguments have been circular. > > > > Special relativity provides a consistent model of reality derived > > inexorably from certain assumptions, one of which is that the laws of > > physics depend only on relative velocities. That does not in itself mean > > that it is right, but it does mean that any model in which the speed of > > light is shown to be not constant must contain an assumption that > > contradicts the assumptions on which special relativity is based. > > > > Thus attempting to show that special relativity is wrong by way of > > thought experiments is a fool's errand, because such attempts are > > necessarily circular. This approach is doomed to failure. It is a > > logical impossibility. It is an ex-parrot. The only way to get closer to > > the truth is through real experiments. > > > > Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results are > > consistent with special relativity. > > > > Sylvia. > > I offer you my son Edward's suggestion for a simple experiment to test > the relativistic time dilations : > > 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS > 2. FLY ONE TO THE International Space Station. > 3. Next flight up, take up the other. > 4. Compare the readings on the two clocks when reunited on the ISS. > > > Simple, accurate and cheap test of the SR/GR time dilations, and i am > 99% confident the results will not be consistent with Special > Relativity, and 95% confident they will not be consistent with GR either. > > keith stein Cut the crap. SR and GR are being tested almost everyday at several laboratories around the world (including hundreds of universities laboratories). The fact you are ignorant about this is your problem. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 06:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c880adc-49a9-4413-887a-1d841da0ed0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456718 |
On Monday, 23 April 2018 14:26:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > Cut the crap. SR and GR are being tested almost everyday at several laboratories around the world (including hundreds of universities laboratories). And in GPS, where closks indicatevery clear t'=t, against your idiotic prophecies, your moronic screams and your arm waving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 08:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <B4BDC.2108$B36.1430@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #456722 |
On 23/04/2018 14:09, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Monday, 23 April 2018 14:26:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > >> Cut the crap. SR and GR are being tested almost everyday at several laboratories around the world (including hundreds of universities laboratories). > > And in GPS, where closks indicatevery clear t'=t, "like serious clocks always did" eh! > against your idiotic prophecies, your moronic > screams and your arm waving. I'm sure you are right Mr.Wozniak, but what is needed is a simple test which would prove these "idiotic prophecies" are indeed "idiotic". My son Edward proposed the following test over 20 years ago, and i have been campaigning for it ever since. (Back then it was the Mir Space Station, rather than the ISS, but same difference eh!) 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS 2. FLY ONE TO THE International Space Station. 3. Next flight up, take up the other. 4. Compare the readings on the two clocks when reunited on the ISS. ' Simple, accurate and cheap test of the SR/GR time dilations, and i am 99% confident the results will not be consistent with Special Relativity, and 95% confident they will not be consistent with GR either. So i invite you to join the campaign, Mr.Wozniak. They can't go on forever claiming to be scientists and refusing such a very simple, inexpensive, (the magnitude of the claimed time dilations are such they could be easily measured with the ticker in any modern computer), and direct test of their idiotic prophecies eh! But in the very unlikely event that this test were to confirm the SR/GR predictions, then i for one would have to apologize for all the rude things i've said about relativists eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web