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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #613780 > unrolled thread

Relativity is a sacred cow.

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

Contents

  Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:15 -0700
    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 13:56 -0500
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 14:43 -0700
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 20:07 -0500
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:10 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 22:34 -0500
    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:58 -0700
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 17:49 -0700
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 20:40 -0500
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:11 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:21 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 22:36 -0500
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-26 22:53 -0500
    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-27 13:02 +1000
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:09 -0700
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 20:10 -0700
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:31 -0700
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-27 22:53 -0400
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:10 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-28 13:22 +1000
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:26 -0700
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-28 13:38 +1000
                  Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 07:04 -0700
                    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-29 15:36 +1000
                      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-29 11:25 -0700
                        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 13:42 -0500
                        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-30 22:09 +1000
                          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 05:52 -0700
                          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 09:20 -0400
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-28 12:02 -0500
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-28 14:11 -0400
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:27 -0700
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:39 -0700
                  Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 21:36 +0000
                    Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 14:41 -0700
                      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 22:02 +0000
                        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:05 -0700
                          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 22:48 +0000
                            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:12 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:38 -0700
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 09:32 -0400
                  Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 06:41 -0700
                  Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Buster Snyders <srrs@nynybnse.ss> - 2023-07-01 15:31 +0000
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 13:08 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 15:00 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-28 16:04 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-28 18:48 -0500
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-27 21:13 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-28 09:11 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:35 -0700
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Russel Schenck <cscr@nsukeckn.rl> - 2023-06-28 16:32 +0000
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-28 13:19 +1000
      Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-28 15:40 +0000
        Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-29 16:09 +1000
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 23:32 -0700
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-29 10:09 +0000
          Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-29 11:47 -0400
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-29 16:14 +0000
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-29 19:09 -0400
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-29 19:49 -0500
            Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 05:44 -0700
              Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-30 22:21 -0400
                Re: Relativity is a sacred cow. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-01 11:02 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#613780 — Relativity is a sacred cow.

“ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which
was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought.
There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This
statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too
true. ”
—A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#613786

On 6/26/2023 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which
> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought.
> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This
> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too
> true. ”
> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.

The "absolute velocity of light" is a much misunderstood
teaching. Unfortunately I am not inclined to attempt to
rationalize it to anyone but I hope you'll eventually
see through the protests and actually understand it.

I will say that where all the "standards" we use to
measure can vary with a local environment one cannot
actually assert that any aspect is absolute other than
sometimes some of the numbers are considered "fixed."

Anyway, enjoy exploring the issues.

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

#613801

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:56:55 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> > was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> > modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> > within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> > There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> > statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> > true. ” 
> > —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
> The "absolute velocity of light" is a much misunderstood 
> teaching. Unfortunately I am not inclined to attempt to 
> rationalize it to anyone but I hope you'll eventually 
> see through the protests and actually understand it. 
> 
> I will say that where all the "standards" we use to 
> measure can vary with a local environment one cannot 
> actually assert that any aspect is absolute other than 
> sometimes some of the numbers are considered "fixed." 
> 
> Anyway, enjoy exploring the issues.
Is it me, or do you sound sanctimonious? Anyway, "fixed" is definitely the word for it!

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

#613812

On 6/26/2023 4:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:56:55 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 6/26/2023 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which
>>> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
>>> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
>>> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought.
>>> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This
>>> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too
>>> true. ”
>>> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
>> The "absolute velocity of light" is a much misunderstood
>> teaching. Unfortunately I am not inclined to attempt to
>> rationalize it to anyone but I hope you'll eventually
>> see through the protests and actually understand it.
>>
>> I will say that where all the "standards" we use to
>> measure can vary with a local environment one cannot
>> actually assert that any aspect is absolute other than
>> sometimes some of the numbers are considered "fixed."
>>
>> Anyway, enjoy exploring the issues.
> Is it me, or do you sound sanctimonious? Anyway, "fixed" is definitely the word for it!

Trust me, it is you. Reporting apparent (perhaps obvious to some)
facts is never sanctimonious. Consider that how we word things
can form a deterrent to conversation that is, after all, the
reason for these newsgroups. I'm afraid you might have lost
objectivity. Nymshifter is a wonderful example of that problem.
Please don't become a poor copy. One of the cheapest things in
this world is a soapbox. In the end the person standing on one
invariably becomes a laughingstock even when people in the
immediate vicinity remain polite.

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

#613825

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 4:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:56:55 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> >> On 6/26/2023 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> >>> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> >>> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> >>> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> >>> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> >>> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> >>> true. ” 
> >>> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53. 
> >> The "absolute velocity of light" is a much misunderstood 
> >> teaching. Unfortunately I am not inclined to attempt to 
> >> rationalize it to anyone but I hope you'll eventually 
> >> see through the protests and actually understand it. 
> >> 
> >> I will say that where all the "standards" we use to 
> >> measure can vary with a local environment one cannot 
> >> actually assert that any aspect is absolute other than 
> >> sometimes some of the numbers are considered "fixed." 
> >> 
> >> Anyway, enjoy exploring the issues. 
> > Is it me, or do you sound sanctimonious? Anyway, "fixed" is definitely the word for it!
> Trust me, it is you. Reporting apparent (perhaps obvious to some) 
> facts is never sanctimonious. Consider that how we word things 
> can form a deterrent to conversation that is, after all, the 
> reason for these newsgroups. I'm afraid you might have lost 
> objectivity. Nymshifter is a wonderful example of that problem. 
> Please don't become a poor copy. One of the cheapest things in 
> this world is a soapbox. In the end the person standing on one 
> invariably becomes a laughingstock even when people in the 
> immediate vicinity remain polite.
I am not afraid of your opinions. They are irrational.

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

#613829

On 6/26/2023 10:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 6/26/2023 4:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:56:55 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2023 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which
>>>>> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
>>>>> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
>>>>> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought.
>>>>> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This
>>>>> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too
>>>>> true. ”
>>>>> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
>>>> The "absolute velocity of light" is a much misunderstood
>>>> teaching. Unfortunately I am not inclined to attempt to
>>>> rationalize it to anyone but I hope you'll eventually
>>>> see through the protests and actually understand it.
>>>>
>>>> I will say that where all the "standards" we use to
>>>> measure can vary with a local environment one cannot
>>>> actually assert that any aspect is absolute other than
>>>> sometimes some of the numbers are considered "fixed."
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, enjoy exploring the issues.
>>> Is it me, or do you sound sanctimonious? Anyway, "fixed" is definitely the word for it!
>> Trust me, it is you. Reporting apparent (perhaps obvious to some)
>> facts is never sanctimonious. Consider that how we word things
>> can form a deterrent to conversation that is, after all, the
>> reason for these newsgroups. I'm afraid you might have lost
>> objectivity. Nymshifter is a wonderful example of that problem.
>> Please don't become a poor copy. One of the cheapest things in
>> this world is a soapbox. In the end the person standing on one
>> invariably becomes a laughingstock even when people in the
>> immediate vicinity remain polite.

> I am not afraid of your opinions. They are irrational.

Only relatively :-)

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

#613810

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:15:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> true. ” 
> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.

 Nonsense. A Hollywood fantasy.

--
Jan

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

#613811

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:15:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> > was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> > modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> > within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> > There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> > statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> > true. ” 
> > —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
> Nonsense. A Hollywood fantasy. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
It is undeniable that the speed of light is absolute according to relativity to the point that it is exempt from relative velocity. Many highly intelligent people knowledgeable about relativity agree with this. If you want to be persuasive (obviously you have said nothing of any substance that would be) you would have to acknowledge that C is exempt from relative velocity and that makes it an absolute.

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

#613815

On 6/26/2023 7:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:15:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which
>>> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
>>> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
>>> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought.
>>> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This
>>> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too
>>> true. ”
>>> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
>> Nonsense. A Hollywood fantasy.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jan
> It is undeniable that the speed of light is absolute according to relativity 

Of course it is deniable. When clocks and physical dimensions are
dependent on the local environment nothing can ever be absolute.

Relativity does not erase some rules while leaving others intact.

> to the point that it is exempt from relative velocity. Many highly 
> intelligent people knowledgeable about relativity agree with this. 

Where do you get this? Got a citation?

> If you want to be persuasive (obviously you have said nothing of 
> any substance that would be) you would have to acknowledge that C 
> is exempt from relative velocity and that makes it an absolute.

There is the classical problem of taking a horse to water. Do try to
remember that the *measured* speed of light is constant. How good
is your yardstick? Do all clocks tick at the same speed? But then
it is much easier to remain ignorant, and quite in the vogue in most
quarters. Back when I was trying to figure this out for myself those
who were attempting to explain it to me simply recited as though from
a catechism while not actually understanding the topic themselves.

And it makes little difference if the person explaining actually
understands because there is a rather strong natural reticence in
the typical human against this.

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

#613826

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 6:40:57 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 7:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> >> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:15:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> >>> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> >>> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> >>> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> >>> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> >>> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> >>> true. ” 
> >>> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53. 
> >> Nonsense. A Hollywood fantasy. 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Jan 
> > It is undeniable that the speed of light is absolute according to relativity
> Of course it is deniable. When clocks and physical dimensions are 
> dependent on the local environment nothing can ever be absolute. 
> 
> Relativity does not erase some rules while leaving others intact.
> > to the point that it is exempt from relative velocity. Many highly 
> > intelligent people knowledgeable about relativity agree with this.
> Where do you get this? Got a citation?
> > If you want to be persuasive (obviously you have said nothing of 
> > any substance that would be) you would have to acknowledge that C 
> > is exempt from relative velocity and that makes it an absolute.
> There is the classical problem of taking a horse to water. Do try to 
> remember that the *measured* speed of light is constant. How good 
> is your yardstick? Do all clocks tick at the same speed? But then 
> it is much easier to remain ignorant, and quite in the vogue in most 
> quarters. Back when I was trying to figure this out for myself those 
> who were attempting to explain it to me simply recited as though from 
> a catechism while not actually understanding the topic themselves. 
> 
> And it makes little difference if the person explaining actually 
> understands because there is a rather strong natural reticence in 
> the typical human against this.
I'm not impressed by your chest beating. I thought you were pretending to be humble and courteous.

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

#613827

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:11:40 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 6:40:57 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> > On 6/26/2023 7:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > >> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:15:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > >>> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> > >>> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> > >>> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> > >>> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> > >>> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> > >>> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> > >>> true. ” 
> > >>> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53. 
> > >> Nonsense. A Hollywood fantasy. 
> > >> 
> > >> -- 
> > >> Jan 
> > > It is undeniable that the speed of light is absolute according to relativity 
> > Of course it is deniable. When clocks and physical dimensions are 
> > dependent on the local environment nothing can ever be absolute. 
> > 
> > Relativity does not erase some rules while leaving others intact. 
> > > to the point that it is exempt from relative velocity. Many highly 
> > > intelligent people knowledgeable about relativity agree with this. 
> > Where do you get this? Got a citation? 
> > > If you want to be persuasive (obviously you have said nothing of 
> > > any substance that would be) you would have to acknowledge that C 
> > > is exempt from relative velocity and that makes it an absolute. 
> > There is the classical problem of taking a horse to water. Do try to 
> > remember that the *measured* speed of light is constant. How good 
> > is your yardstick? Do all clocks tick at the same speed? But then 
> > it is much easier to remain ignorant, and quite in the vogue in most 
> > quarters. Back when I was trying to figure this out for myself those 
> > who were attempting to explain it to me simply recited as though from 
> > a catechism while not actually understanding the topic themselves. 
> > 
> > And it makes little difference if the person explaining actually 
> > understands because there is a rather strong natural reticence in 
> > the typical human against this.
> I'm not impressed by your chest beating. I thought you were pretending to be humble and courteous.

If the atom can compete with light at a motion black hole
how can they not both be in an absolute relationship.
The atom can leave light behind if it is moving ahead of
it at near light speed.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#613830

On 6/26/2023 10:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 6:40:57 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 6/26/2023 7:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 4:58:47 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 11:15:17 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which
>>>>> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
>>>>> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
>>>>> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought.
>>>>> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This
>>>>> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too
>>>>> true. ”
>>>>> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
>>>> Nonsense. A Hollywood fantasy.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jan
>>> It is undeniable that the speed of light is absolute according to relativity
>> Of course it is deniable. When clocks and physical dimensions are
>> dependent on the local environment nothing can ever be absolute.
>>
>> Relativity does not erase some rules while leaving others intact.
>>> to the point that it is exempt from relative velocity. Many highly
>>> intelligent people knowledgeable about relativity agree with this.
>> Where do you get this? Got a citation?
>>> If you want to be persuasive (obviously you have said nothing of
>>> any substance that would be) you would have to acknowledge that C
>>> is exempt from relative velocity and that makes it an absolute.
>> There is the classical problem of taking a horse to water. Do try to
>> remember that the *measured* speed of light is constant. How good
>> is your yardstick? Do all clocks tick at the same speed? But then
>> it is much easier to remain ignorant, and quite in the vogue in most
>> quarters. Back when I was trying to figure this out for myself those
>> who were attempting to explain it to me simply recited as though from
>> a catechism while not actually understanding the topic themselves.
>>
>> And it makes little difference if the person explaining actually
>> understands because there is a rather strong natural reticence in
>> the typical human against this.

> I'm not impressed by your chest beating. I thought you were pretending to be humble and courteous.

So whose problem is that?

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

#613832

On 6/26/2023 10:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

> I'm not impressed by your chest beating. I thought you were pretending to be humble and courteous.

Clear proof you lack objectivity. Sigh.

The first relevant question is has this worked? Acting out,
as you display here, is usually designed to increase any
number of emotionally related/relevant neurotransmitters.

When disturbed individuals are triggered into to sort of
postings you've been making today usually a "quick fix"
is achieved by "acting out."

The only question is, did it help? Usually such behavior
is successful in the short term. But there's always tomorrow
and the effects, if any, will have worn off demanding a
repetition and usually an escalation. Within the past week
we saw precisely that effect in the postings of an individual
calling themselves "physics freak." He's been troubled for
rather a long time. Raw intelligence can help an individual
get past such difficulties. We will shortly see how you do.

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

#613822

On 27-June-23 4:15 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which
> was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
> modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow
> within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought.
> There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This
> statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too
> true. ”
> —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.

Experiments had failed to detect variations in the speed of light. So 
Einstein in essence said "What if there are no such variations? What 
would be the consequences of that?" And we got special relativity.

Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
lived longer than almost any human being.


Sylvia.

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

#613823

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27-June-23 4:15 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> > was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> > modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> > within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> > There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> > statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> > true. ” 
> > —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
> Experiments had failed to detect variations in the speed of light. So 
> Einstein in essence said "What if there are no such variations? What 
> would be the consequences of that?" And we got special relativity. 
> 
> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> lived longer than almost any human being. 
> 
> 
> Sylvia.
I'm sorry that you cannot understand that no experiment has ever shown that light does not share the velocity of the source (is independent of it) or that it is exempt from relative velocity. However, this is clearly the case.

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

#613824

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27-June-23 4:15 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> > was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> > modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> > within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> > There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> > statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> > true. ” 
> > —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
> Experiments had failed to detect variations in the speed of light. So 
> Einstein in essence said "What if there are no such variations? What 
> would be the consequences of that?" And we got special relativity. 
> 
> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> lived longer than almost any human being. 
> 
> 
> Sylvia.
No Sylvia.  SR lives or dies according to the Big Ben Paradox.

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

#613879

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27-June-23 4:15 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > “ Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take something else, which 
> > was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in 
> > modern physics. It is lese-majeste’ to make any criticism of the velocity of light. It is a sacred cow 
> > within a sacred cow, and it is just about the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. 
> > There is a textbook on physics which openly says, “Relativity is now accepted as a faith.” This 
> > statement, although utterly astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too 
> > true. ” 
> > —A. Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow, (Sheed and Ward, 1952), pp. 52-53.
> Experiments had failed to detect variations in the speed of light. So 
> Einstein in essence said "What if there are no such variations? What 
> would be the consequences of that?" And we got special relativity. 
> 
> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> lived longer than almost any human being. 
> 
> 
> Sylvia.
The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source. It only shows the absence of evidence for ether wind. That is a distinctly different measurement.

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

#613897

On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the
>> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has
>> lived longer than almost any human being.
>>
>>
>> Sylvia.

> The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source.

The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source, 
either.

What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is 
dependent of the source.

So far, no such experiment exists.

Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate 
relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still 
hasn't been invalidated.

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

#613898

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> 
> >> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the 
> >> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has 
> >> lived longer than almost any human being. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> 
> > The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source.
> The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source, 
> either. 
> 
> What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is 
> dependent of the source. 
> 
> So far, no such experiment exists. 
> 
> Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate 
> relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still 
> hasn't been invalidated.
Logic is sufficient. Occam's razor indicates the simplest solution. That is the ballistic hypothesis. That means simple additive velocity calculations assuming light shares the velocity of the source explains it without a very unlikely ad hoc and complex mathematical transformation explanation. Which is more likely, an explanation that accounts for additive velocity or one that magically negates it with math?  Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary proof, so it is relativity that requires the proof, not the ballistic hypothesis. The MMX has not validated special relativity. It is an unwarranted inference from the MMX.

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

#613900

On 28-June-23 1:10 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/27/2023 4:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>> Special relativity lives or dies according to whether variations in the
>>>> speed of light are found. So far, none have, and special relativity has
>>>> lived longer than almost any human being.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>> The MMX does not show that light velocity is independent of the source.
>> The MMX does not show that light velocity is dependent of the source,
>> either.
>>
>> What's needed is an experiment that *does* show the speed of light is
>> dependent of the source.
>>
>> So far, no such experiment exists.
>>
>> Even Einstein stated just one experimental result would invalidate
>> relativity. Here we are, well over 100 years later, and relativity still
>> hasn't been invalidated.
> Logic is sufficient. Occam's razor indicates the simplest solution. That is the ballistic hypothesis. That means simple additive velocity calculations assuming light shares the velocity of the source explains it without a very unlikely ad hoc and complex mathematical transformation explanation. Which is more likely, an explanation that accounts for additive velocity or one that magically negates it with math?  Extraordinary claims are what require extraordinary proof, so it is relativity that requires the proof, not the ballistic hypothesis. The MMX has not validated special relativity. It is an unwarranted inference from the MMX.

Occam's razor is about avoiding needless complication. It doesn't say 
"come up with the simplest explanation that you think will work, and 
then close your eyes to avoid seeing counter-examples."

Sylvia.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web