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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 01:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcfd0afc-dd45-4e27-a516-a561121b4806@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456787 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 09:32:52 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: > 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. Keith, clocks are not any fucken avatars of Great Mystical Essence of the Core. Clocks are our tools. They wil do what we want them to do or they will go to a trash can. Simple? That's why The Shit concentrate on persuading us that closks indicating what it wants are "proper" and clocks indicating t'=t are not. All the rest - all this bullshit of tensors, spacetimes and other - is nothing but a smokescreen. The clue of The Shit is right here: these clocks are proper, accurate, valid because Great Guru said they are. You're free to buy it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iRCDC.52876$r6.29608@fx10.am4> |
| In reply to | #456788 |
On 24/04/2018 09:48, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 09:32:52 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: >> 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. > Keith, clocks are not any fucken avatars of Great Mystical > Essence of the Core. Clocks are our tools. They wil do what > we want them to do or they will go to a trash can. Simple? Well i don't want to fall out with you Mr.Wozniak, because i do think most of what you say makes good sense, but i can't bring myself to agree with you here. Surely no one is saying that it would be impossible to make a clock which did in fact behave the way that relativists predict, but simple oscillators, or indeed twins, will not behave as relativist predict, and the ISS would make an ideal platform on which to prove that. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 02:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc8322c3-71f1-41e3-9fdf-3673983045a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456792 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 11:33:04 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: > On 24/04/2018 09:48, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 09:32:52 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: > > >> 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. > > > Keith, clocks are not any fucken avatars of Great Mystical > > Essence of the Core. Clocks are our tools. They wil do what > > we want them to do or they will go to a trash can. Simple? > > Well i don't want to fall out with you Mr.Wozniak, because i do think > most of what you say makes good sense, but i can't bring myself to agree > with you here. Surely no one is saying that it would be impossible to > make a clock which did in fact behave the way that relativists predict, It's possible. And if we bought their "proper" bulshit and their standards - their Shit would come true. But we didn't. They can enchant the reality how much they want - nobody serious is following their madness. > but simple oscillators, or indeed twins, will not behave as relativist > predict, and the ISS would make an ideal platform on which to prove that. Maybe they will or maybe they won't. It doesn't really matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 12:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g7EDC.3415$GV1.2621@fx32.am4> |
| In reply to | #456793 |
On 24/04/2018 10:53, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 11:33:04 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 24/04/2018 09:48, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 09:32:52 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >>> Keith, clocks are not any fucken avatars of Great Mystical >>> Essence of the Core. Clocks are our tools. They wil do what >>> we want them to do or they will go to a trash can. Simple? >> >> Well i don't want to fall out with you Mr.Wozniak, because i do think >> most of what you say makes good sense, but i can't bring myself to agree >> with you here. Surely no one is saying that it would be impossible to >> make a clock which did in fact behave the way that relativists predict, > > It's possible. And if we bought their "proper" bulshit > and their standards - their Shit would come true. I don't believe that, and i very much doubt if you believe velocity could make twins age at different rates either eh! > But we didn't. > They can enchant the reality how much they want - > nobody serious is following their madness. Well that is news to me Mr.Wozniak. It seems to me that most serious scientists (by which i mean professionals), do at least give lip service to Einstein's Bull Shit. Indeed they would probably not keep their jobs for long if they didn't eh! >> but simple oscillators, or indeed twins, will not behave as relativist >> predict, and the ISS would make an ideal platform on which to prove that. > > Maybe they will or maybe they won't. It doesn't really > matter. Now we have fallen out Mr.Wozniak, because i think it does matter. A lot eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 04:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0879f14a-04ef-4424-aabb-0b750889dbd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456797 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 13:00:30 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: > On 24/04/2018 10:53, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 11:33:04 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: > >> On 24/04/2018 09:48, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 09:32:52 UTC+2, Keith Stein wrote: > >> > >>>> 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. > >> > >>> Keith, clocks are not any fucken avatars of Great Mystical > >>> Essence of the Core. Clocks are our tools. They wil do what > >>> we want them to do or they will go to a trash can. Simple? > >> > >> Well i don't want to fall out with you Mr.Wozniak, because i do think > >> most of what you say makes good sense, but i can't bring myself to agree > >> with you here. Surely no one is saying that it would be impossible to > >> make a clock which did in fact behave the way that relativists predict, > > > > It's possible. And if we bought their "proper" bulshit > > and their standards - their Shit would come true. > > I don't believe that, and i very much doubt if you believe velocity > could make twins age at different rates either eh! Can pears grow on a willow? Of course they can - all we have to do is to redefine a willow. Or a pear. Or something else. And if we accept the relativistic methods of determining age...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 04:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9067f70b-f61a-439a-9fbd-0dd6b130f617@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456787 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:32:52 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > 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, Well, no it's not a practical test. The problem is that atomic clocks can't handle takeoff acceleration. They are turned OFF during launch and then turned on again in orbit. > 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. I am 99.9% confident they will be consistent with GR (SR is not applicable because it is accurate ONLY when gravity is insignificant, which is definitely NOT the case on earth or in orbit). > 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 You might as well apologize, Mr. Stein, since there have been MANY tests of GR which confirm it. If you studied more and denigrated less, you would understand this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 05:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b10ec0d-7b17-476f-ac8b-96d6c868a604@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456800 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 13:33:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: > Well, no it's not a practical test. The problem is that atomic clocks > can't handle takeoff acceleration. And how about the acceleration of the tthermal oscillations of the caesium atom?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 14:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <h4GDC.14999$Vp2.1103@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #456800 |
On 24/04/2018 12:33, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:32:52 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> 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, > > Well, no it's not a practical test. The problem is that atomic clocks > can't handle takeoff acceleration. They are turned OFF during launch > and then turned on again in orbit. > The timer in the computer which you are reading this on Mr.Harnagel would be quite accurate enough to measure the claimed -24.7 us/day. This type of clock would be virtually immune to acceleration, and even second order effects would cancel since in Ed's experiment both clocks experience virtually identical accelerations. >> 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. > > I am 99.9% confident they will be consistent with GR (SR is not > applicable because it is accurate ONLY when gravity is insignificant, > which is definitely NOT the case on earth or in orbit). > The claimed time dilation on the GPS is worked out by adding a GR time dilation (due to change in gravitational potential) to an SR time dilation (due to change in velocity). On the GPS the GR (altitude) effect is much larger than the SR (velocity) effect, and so the clocks are claimed to run fast. On the ISS. on the other hand, the SR effect should be dominant, so according to the same calculation as used for the GPS, a clock on the ISS should run slow. How a clock in free fall is meant to know what orbit it is in is beyond comprehension 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 > > You might as well apologize, Mr. Stein, since there have been MANY tests > of GR which confirm it. If you studied more and denigrated less, you > would understand this. > And i think you should learn how the relativistic time dilations are actually calculated Mr.Harnagel, and then perhaps you might appreciate what Bull Shit it actually is eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fab31ec1-3eaa-45e6-828b-d591b6b66d80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456805 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:13:51 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > On 24/04/2018 12:33, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 1:32:52 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > > > 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, > > > > Well, no it's not a practical test. The problem is that atomic clocks > > can't handle takeoff acceleration. They are turned OFF during launch > > and then turned on again in orbit. > > > The timer in the computer which you are reading this on Mr.Harnagel > would be quite accurate enough to measure the claimed -24.7 us/day. Your computer clock gets updated regularly from the internet, which gets its time from the standard. Sorry, no sale. > This type of clock would be virtually immune to acceleration, and even > second order effects would cancel since in Ed's experiment both clocks > experience virtually identical accelerations. I'm not convinced of that. Launches aren't identical. > > > 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. > > > > I am 99.9% confident they will be consistent with GR (SR is not > > applicable because it is accurate ONLY when gravity is insignificant, > > which is definitely NOT the case on earth or in orbit). > > > The claimed time dilation on the GPS is worked out by adding a GR time > dilation (due to change in gravitational potential) to an SR time > dilation (due to change in velocity). No! GR includes the velocity effects, and they aren't quite the same as SR velocity effects. > On the GPS the GR (altitude) effect is much larger than the SR (velocity) > effect, Just call it the velocity effect. > and so the clocks are claimed to run fast. > On the ISS. on the other hand, the SR effect should be dominant, so > according to the same calculation as used for the GPS, a clock on the > ISS should run slow. > > How a clock in free fall is meant to know what orbit it is in is beyond > comprehension eh! Clocks run at their normal rate unless influenced by temperature, acceleration or such. Atomic clocks aren't affected by acceleration unless the cesium beam hits the containment wall, which is why they turn them off during launch. The cesium beam is ALWAYS in free fall, whether on earth or in orbit. > > > 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 > > > > You might as well apologize, Mr. Stein, since there have been MANY tests > > of GR which confirm it. If you studied more and denigrated less, you > > would understand this. > > > And i think you should learn how the relativistic time dilations are > actually calculated Mr.Harnagel, and then perhaps you might appreciate > what Bull Shit it actually is eh! > > keith stein I have done so, Mr. Stein, and it is obvious that YOU have NOT since you incorrectly refer to GR and SR corrections.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 22:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbipsk$1p37$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456607 |
Il 22/04/2018 02:40, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > 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. >>>>>> >> >> 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? >> > 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. > As regards the thought experiments, you convinced me. But as regards the measurement of the dipole anisotropy, which shows that the Earth is moving relative to the CMBR reference frame, not much. Because this reference frame could be considered as the privileged reference frame, which Lorentz could not find. > Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results are > consistent with special relativity. > In his books, the physicist Franco Selleri has shown that experiments that are consistent with SR are also consistent with his "weak relativity", which in practice is a theory of the aether. But not only, because the experiment on the Sagnac effect would not be consistent with SR, but with his theory. Therefore, even assuming that my demonstration isn't sufficient to falsify the second postulate of SR, it would be to choose between two theories both consistent with the result of the experiments. And it seems to me that a Ptolemaic theory, like the SR, is worse than a Copernican theory, like that of the aether. However, Einstein based his theory on the validity of the second postulate, but also claimed that 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 which I can make of my own free will" So Einstein supposed that the speed of light is isotropic in all RFs, not because it actually can be, but as a stipulation. Therefore I ask you: If a theory were developed, with the stipulation that the CMBR reference frame is the privileged reference frame, the only one in which the speed of light is really isotropic, would not, at least, have the same validity as the SR? Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 12:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fk4v7aFa8n2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456672 |
On 23/04/2018 6:04 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 22/04/2018 02:40, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >> 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. >>>>>>> >>> >>> 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? >>> > >> 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. >> > > As regards the thought experiments, you convinced me. > But as regards the measurement of the dipole anisotropy, which shows > that the Earth is moving relative to the CMBR reference frame, not much. > Because this reference frame could be considered as the privileged > reference frame, which Lorentz could not find. If there were a privileged reference frame, one would expect that to show up in experiments, and it doesn't. > > >> Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results are >> consistent with special relativity. >> > > In his books, the physicist Franco Selleri has shown that experiments > that are consistent with SR are also consistent with his "weak > relativity", which in practice is a theory of the aether. > But not only, because the experiment on the Sagnac effect would not be > consistent with SR, but with his theory. Any theory in which the speed of light is the same for all observers must necessarily reduce to the Lorentz Transformation, in the absence of gravity. This is indeed the reason that Lorentz arrived at his transformation, and why the same transformation that Einstein independently found is still called the Lorentz Transformation. Einstein started from a different premise, but the transformation itself is the mathematical model that constitutes the theory. As far as I can see, special relativity has no problem with the Sagnac effect. > > Therefore, even assuming that my demonstration isn't sufficient to > falsify the second postulate of SR, it would be to choose between two > theories both consistent with the result of the experiments. > And it seems to me that a Ptolemaic theory, like the SR, is worse than a > Copernican theory, like that of the aether. > > However, Einstein based his theory on the validity of the second > postulate, but also claimed that 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 which I can make of my own free will" > So Einstein supposed that the speed of light is isotropic in all RFs, > not because it actually can be, but as a stipulation. The motivation for it was the fact that experiments had failed to detect any variation in the speed of light, even in situations where such a variation had been expected and easily within the scope of the experiments to detect. It should be remembered that the Michelson–Morley experiment was intended to measure the speed of the Earth relative to the aether. That it produced a null result was completely unexpected. > > Therefore I ask you: > If a theory were developed, with the stipulation that the CMBR reference > frame is the privileged reference frame, the only one in which the speed > of light is really isotropic, would not, at least, have the same > validity as the SR? No, it wouldn't. One can pull theories out of the air, but to have any validity they have to match experimental results. Any theory that contains a privileged reference frame[*] must necessarily predict results which different from those of special relativity. Since experiments support special relativity, they must conflict with other theories that predict different outcomes, and thus falsify them. Sylvia. [*] Other than one that is inherently undetectable in the theory, which raises obvious doubts about its existence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <743f0b4b-1a65-4f23-863a-a40457248a52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456701 |
(0.5 * electron mass * (c^2)) / (m^3) = 4.09355282e-14 pascals 4.09355282e-14 Joules/m^3 = CMBR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f25fa47-1704-489d-9341-941d73f1659d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456702 |
(0.5 * electron mass * (c^2)) / (m^3) = 4.09355282e-14 pascals 4.09355282e-14 Joules/m^3 = CMBR (0.5electron mass*c^2)/13.605693eV/137.035999172^2 = 1 CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR CMBR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa21b74c-6b2b-4300-b6cc-e312d7059ee8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456703 |
((((13.5995645006 eV) / (2pi * hbar)) / c) * ((hbar / planck length) / c) * tau) / 1.5 = 1 kg / m (((13.5995645006 eV) / ((2 * pi) * hbar)) / c) / (10 973 731.568508 (m^(-1))) = 0.999549563 13.6056930029eV/(2pi*hbar)/c/(10973731.568508 m^-1) = 1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-22 22:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb8b0a60-5324-4231-9826-488715e72454@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456704 |
(0.5 * electron mass * (c^2)) / (m^3) = 4.09355282e-14 pascals 4.09355282e-14 Joules/m^3 = CMBR (0.5electron mass*c^2)/13.605693eV/137.035999172^2 = 1 ((((13.5995645006 eV) / (2pi * hbar)) / c) * ((hbar / planck length) / c) * tau) / 1.5 = 1 kg / m (((13.5995645006 eV) / ((2pi) * hbar)) / c) / (10973731.568508 (m^(-1))) = 0.999549563 13.6056930029eV/(2pi*hbar)/c/(10973731.568508 m^-1) = 1 1 / (((10973731.568508 m * (137.035999172^2)) / (hbar / planck length)) * (2 kg)) = 1.58314159e-11 hertz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 17:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fk5en0FdbnuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456703 |
On 23/04/2018 1:06 PM, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > (0.5 * electron mass * (c^2)) / (m^3) = 4.09355282e-14 pascals > > 4.09355282e-14 Joules/m^3 = CMBR > > (0.5electron mass*c^2)/13.605693eV/137.035999172^2 = 1 > > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > CMBR > This seems quite silly even by your usual standards. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07b1b583-694b-4cac-a487-232382195dfe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456709 |
Sylvia Else On 23/04/2018 1:06 PM, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > (0.5 * electron mass * (c^2)) / (m^3) = 4.09355282e-14 pascals > > 4.09355282e-14 Joules/m^3 = CMBR > > (0.5electron mass*c^2)/13.605693eV/137.035999172^2 = 1 > > > CMBR > This seems quite silly even by your usual standards. Sylvia. Silly ? .... Yes But so are the Persistent Obfuscating Non-Aetherists CMBR & Matter are “Emergent Relativistic Ballast” from the Vacuum just as (electrons are around the nucleus of atoms) The force from the nucleus causes the EMERGENCE of a virtual Particle from the Vacuum.... an Electron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2ce03b4-6d6d-4de7-8708-67c31323d293@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456730 |
Sylvia Else On 23/04/2018 1:06 PM, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > (0.5 * electron mass * (c^2)) / (m^3) = 4.09355282e-14 pascals > > 4.09355282e-14 Joules/m^3 = CMBR > > (0.5electron mass*c^2)/13.605693eV/137.035999172^2 = 1 > > > CMBR > This seems quite silly even by your usual standards. Sylvia. Silly ? .... Yes But so are the Persistent Obfuscating Non-Aetherists CMBR & Matter are “Emergent Relativistic Ballast” from the Vacuum just as (electrons are around the nucleus of atoms) The force from the nucleus causes the EMERGENCE of a virtual Particle from the Vacuum.... an Electron ((1836.1548459958/2)^0.5-30) /0.299792458 = 1 (1836.154845995829979245^0.25) / (hbar / planck length) = 1.00323783 The proton electron mass ratio is momentum^4 Electrons are (Relativistic Ballast)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 16:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbkpbj$t4r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456701 |
Il 23/04/2018 04:37, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 23/04/2018 6:04 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Il 22/04/2018 02:40, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>> On 21/04/2018 7:08 PM, 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. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> As regards the thought experiments, you convinced me. >> But as regards the measurement of the dipole anisotropy, which shows >> that the Earth is moving relative to the CMBR reference frame, not much. >> Because this reference frame could be considered as the privileged >> reference frame, which Lorentz could not find. > > If there were a privileged reference frame, one would expect that to > show up in experiments, and it doesn't. > look down >> >>> Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results >>> are consistent with special relativity. >>> >> >> In his books, the physicist Franco Selleri has shown that experiments >> that are consistent with SR are also consistent with his "weak >> relativity", which in practice is a theory of the aether. >> But not only, because the experiment on the Sagnac effect would not be >> consistent with SR, but with his theory. > > Any theory in which the speed of light is the same for all observers > must necessarily reduce to the Lorentz Transformation, in the absence of > gravity. This is indeed the reason that Lorentz arrived at his > transformation, and why the same transformation that Einstein > independently found is still called the Lorentz Transformation. I did not believe that Einstein had independently found the so-called Lorentz transformations. Because Einstein was not very good in math. But also because I don'like Einstein, because he treated his wife Mileva Marić, badly. I believe that Mileva contributed to the development of SR, so much so that in the original documents, there was also her name. IMHO Einstein will have been good, but also very cunning. > Einstein > started from a different premise, but the transformation itself is the > mathematical model that constitutes the theory. > > As far as I can see, special relativity has no problem with the Sagnac > effect. > In his book "Weak Relativity", Franco Selleri has dedicated the entire chapter 9 to show that "no theoretical justification of the Sagnac effect has been obtained from the two relativistic theorie" (SR and / or GR). Here is the link from which you can download the book (free). <http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf>. >> >> Therefore, even assuming that my demonstration isn't sufficient to >> falsify the second postulate of SR, it would be to choose between two >> theories both consistent with the result of the experiments. >> And it seems to me that a Ptolemaic theory, like the SR, is worse than >> a Copernican theory, like that of the aether. > >> >> However, Einstein based his theory on the validity of the second >> postulate, but also claimed that 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 which I can make of my own >> free will" >> So Einstein supposed that the speed of light is isotropic in all RFs, >> not because it actually can be, but as a stipulation. > > The motivation for it was the fact that experiments had failed to detect > any variation in the speed of light, even in situations where such a > variation had been expected and easily within the scope of the > experiments to detect. It should be remembered that the Michelson–Morley > experiment was intended to measure the speed of the Earth relative to > the aether. That it produced a null result was completely unexpected. > As I wrote above, in his book Franco Selleri has shown that the results of the MMR experiment are also compatible with its Weak Relativity, which contemplates the existence of a privileged reference frame. >> >> Therefore I ask you: >> If a theory were developed, with the stipulation that the CMBR >> reference frame is the privileged reference frame, the only one in >> which the speed of light is really isotropic, would not, at least, >> have the same validity as the SR? > > No, it wouldn't. One can pull theories out of the air, but to have any > validity they have to match experimental results. Any theory that > contains a privileged reference frame[*] must necessarily predict > results which different from those of special relativity. Since > experiments support special relativity, they must conflict with other > theories that predict different outcomes, and thus falsify them. > > [*] Other than one that is inherently undetectable in the theory, which > raises obvious doubts about its existence See above. However I reformulate the question. If a theory compatible with the results of the MMR experiment were developed, with the clause that the frame of reference of the CMBR is the privileged reference frame, the only one in that the speed of light is really isotropic, it would not be, at least, do they have the same validity as SR? Thanks for the time you have been giving me. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fk7nndFt7s0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456724 |
On 24/04/2018 12:07 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 23/04/2018 04:37, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >> On 23/04/2018 6:04 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> Il 22/04/2018 02:40, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>> On 21/04/2018 7:08 PM, 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> As regards the thought experiments, you convinced me. >>> But as regards the measurement of the dipole anisotropy, which shows >>> that the Earth is moving relative to the CMBR reference frame, not much. >>> Because this reference frame could be considered as the privileged >>> reference frame, which Lorentz could not find. >> >> If there were a privileged reference frame, one would expect that to >> show up in experiments, and it doesn't. >> > > look down > >>> >>>> Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results >>>> are consistent with special relativity. >>>> >>> >>> In his books, the physicist Franco Selleri has shown that experiments >>> that are consistent with SR are also consistent with his "weak >>> relativity", which in practice is a theory of the aether. >>> But not only, because the experiment on the Sagnac effect would not >>> be consistent with SR, but with his theory. >> >> Any theory in which the speed of light is the same for all observers >> must necessarily reduce to the Lorentz Transformation, in the absence >> of gravity. This is indeed the reason that Lorentz arrived at his >> transformation, and why the same transformation that Einstein >> independently found is still called the Lorentz Transformation. > > I did not believe that Einstein had independently found the so-called > Lorentz transformations. > Because Einstein was not very good in math. > But also because I don'like Einstein, because he treated his wife Mileva > Marić, badly. > I believe that Mileva contributed to the development of SR, so much so > that in the original documents, there was also her name. > IMHO Einstein will have been good, but also very cunning. I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by anyone who's done high school algebra. General relativity is more difficult, but there are plenty of people who can do the math. > >> Einstein started from a different premise, but the transformation >> itself is the mathematical model that constitutes the theory. >> >> As far as I can see, special relativity has no problem with the Sagnac >> effect. >> > > In his book "Weak Relativity", Franco Selleri has dedicated the entire > chapter 9 to show that "no theoretical justification of the > Sagnac effect has been obtained from the two relativistic theorie" (SR > and / or GR). > Here is the link from which you can download the book (free). > <http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf>. Selleri doesn't dispute that special relativity gives the correct result in the frame of the laboratory, but he claims that it gives a null result in the rotating frame. That involves a naive application of special relativity. A person in a rotating frame is not in an inertial frame, and can tell the plane of rotation, distance to the centre of rotation and direction of rotation. Their obvious approach to the calculation is to transform into the non-rotating frame, apply special relativity, and then transform back into their own rotating frame. This will clearly not yield a null result. >>> >>> Therefore, even assuming that my demonstration isn't sufficient to >>> falsify the second postulate of SR, it would be to choose between two >>> theories both consistent with the result of the experiments. >>> And it seems to me that a Ptolemaic theory, like the SR, is worse >>> than a Copernican theory, like that of the aether. >> >>> >>> However, Einstein based his theory on the validity of the second >>> postulate, but also claimed that 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 which I can make of my >>> own free will" >>> So Einstein supposed that the speed of light is isotropic in all RFs, >>> not because it actually can be, but as a stipulation. >> >> The motivation for it was the fact that experiments had failed to >> detect any variation in the speed of light, even in situations where >> such a variation had been expected and easily within the scope of the >> experiments to detect. It should be remembered that the >> Michelson–Morley experiment was intended to measure the speed of the >> Earth relative to the aether. That it produced a null result was >> completely unexpected. >> > > As I wrote above, in his book Franco Selleri has shown that the results > of the MMR experiment are also compatible with its Weak Relativity, > which contemplates the existence of a privileged reference frame. As does Lorentz Aether theory, whose results are also compatible, and with the same outcome - the theory does not allow the determination of one's velocity relative to the posited privileged reference frame. If a theory is insensitive to the velocity relative to the privileged frame, then one can reasonably argue that the privileged frame was just an artifact of the approach used to get to the result, and has no external reality. > >>> >>> Therefore I ask you: >>> If a theory were developed, with the stipulation that the CMBR >>> reference frame is the privileged reference frame, the only one in >>> which the speed of light is really isotropic, would not, at least, >>> have the same validity as the SR? >> >> No, it wouldn't. One can pull theories out of the air, but to have any >> validity they have to match experimental results. Any theory that >> contains a privileged reference frame[*] must necessarily predict >> results which different from those of special relativity. Since >> experiments support special relativity, they must conflict with other >> theories that predict different outcomes, and thus falsify them. >> >> [*] Other than one that is inherently undetectable in the theory, >> which raises obvious doubts about its existence > > See above. > However I reformulate the question. > > If a theory compatible with the results of the MMR experiment were > developed, with the clause that the frame of reference of the CMBR > is the privileged reference frame, the only one in that the speed of > light is really isotropic, it would not be, at least, do they have the > same validity as SR? It needs to be compatible not just with MMR, but with all the other experiments that support special relativity. For that to be the case, the theory must be equivalent to the Lorentz Transformation, the posited privileged frame will not appear in the theory, and its existence will not be supported by the theory. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web