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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615199 > unrolled thread

How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience.

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

Contents

  How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 17:59 -0700
    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 18:48 -0700
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:28 -0700
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 00:34 -0500
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:31 -0700
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:01 -0700
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:14 -0700
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:25 -0700
            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:37 -0700
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:50 -0700
                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:53 -0700
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-14 16:09 +0200
                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:06 -0700
                      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-14 17:56 +0200
                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-14 15:38 +0000
                      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:38 -0700
                        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-14 18:14 +0000
                          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:23 -0700
            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 01:01 -0500
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 23:06 -0700
                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:51 -0700
            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:16 -0700
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:42 -0700
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:40 -0700
                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:43 -0700
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:01 -0700
                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 14:14 -0500
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:05 -0700
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:08 -0700
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:13 -0700
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:42 -0700
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:45 -0700
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:01 -0700
                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:23 -0700
                      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-14 22:41 +0200
                        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 15:58 -0500
                      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:46 -0700
                        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 14:55 -0700
                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:43 -0700
                      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 13:52 -0700
                        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 16:07 -0500
                        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 17:56 -0400
                          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 15:14 -0700
                            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 19:00 -0400
                          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:08 -0700
                      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 14:57 -0700
                        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 17:53 -0700
                          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 22:17 -0700
                          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 09:58 -0700
                            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 10:17 -0700
                              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 10:33 -0700
                                Exit Strategy (was Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-15 12:42 -0500
                                  Re: Exit Strategy (was Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-18 11:37 -0500
                                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 11:14 -0700
                                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:30 -0700
                                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-16 01:33 -0400
                                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 22:42 -0700
                                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:35 -0700
                                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-16 10:46 -0500
                            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-15 12:32 -0500
                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 15:55 -0500
                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-14 14:01 -0700
                      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:08 -0700
                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 14:16 -0500
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:57 -0700
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 00:55 -0500
            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 19:05 -0400
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Billie Koustoubos <slbu@obbsblub.bs> - 2023-07-15 01:15 +0000
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 20:50 -0500
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:46 -0700
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:48 -0700
            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 09:09 -0500
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 07:50 -0700
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 00:45 -0500
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 22:55 -0700
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:36 -0700
    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 22:30 -0500
    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:49 -0700
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 14:11 -0500
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-19 10:40 -0500
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-19 12:40 -0500
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 10:56 -0700
            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-19 11:02 -0700
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 11:14 -0700
                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-19 11:22 -0700
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-19 15:27 -0400
                    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Alexandre Antopolsky <neop@sxxoneke.ka> - 2023-07-19 21:32 +0000
                  Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 12:53 -0700
    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-14 22:55 +0200
    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 15:07 -0700
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:35 -0700
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 17:57 -0700
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 19:18 -0700
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 16:41 -0700
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 18:12 -0700
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-14 22:17 -0500
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 22:18 -0700
            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 10:07 -0700
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:36 -0700
            Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:42 -0700
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 17:22 -0700
              Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 21:31 -0700
                Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 22:01 -0700
    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-15 17:54 -0700
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-15 22:07 -0500
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-16 01:47 -0400
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 22:54 -0700
    Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-16 17:03 +1000
      Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 01:00 -0700
        Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-17 14:48 +1000
          Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 23:44 -0700

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#615309

On 7/14/2023 3:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

1:43:06 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:

>> "The rate at which two objects in motion in a single frame of reference get closer together is called the mutual or closing speed. This may approach twice the speed of light, as in the case of two particles traveling at close to the speed of light in opposite directions with respect to the reference frame."

> What you designate closing speed is also designated relative speed and is the same thing. The second postulate denies this and claims it is only 1C. It is great that relative speeds are sometimes acknowledged in relativity. The problem is that they are denied in the second postulate.

 > OWhat you designate closing speed is also designated relative speed 
and is the same thing. The second postulate denies this and claims it is 
only 1C. It is great that relative speeds are sometimes acknowledged in 
relativity. Problem is when they are denied in the second postulate.n 
Friday, July 14, 2023 at

The second postulate does no such thing. Your straw men keep failing.

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

#615312

On 7/14/2023 4:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> What you designate closing speed is also designated relative speed and is the same thing.

No, it is not. Closing speed is the sum of the speeds of the two light 
beams, or of two rockets(*) moving away from the starting point, as seen 
by a third party observer there. For two light beams it will be 2c. For 
two rockets moving at .9c the closing speed will be 1.8c. Note that 
*nothing* is actually moving at 2c, or 1.8c.

If an observer on one rocket(*) is measuring the speed of the other 
rocket relative to itself, he has to use the SR speed combination 
formula. If each rocket left the start at .9c relative to it, the 
correct formula is (0.9c+0.9c)/(1+(0.9c*0.9c)/c^2) or 1.8c/1.81 or 
0.994475c. Note that in this case something *is* moving at the 
calculated speed, the second rocket as measured by the first rocket.

> The second postulate denies this and claims it is only 1C.

The second postulate mentions the speed of light relative to the 
observer measuring the speed. Closing speed is the speed relative to 
something else, not the observer. In your case, one light beam relative 
to the other light beam.

> It is great that relative speeds are sometimes acknowledged in relativity. The problem is that they are denied in the second postulate.

Closing speeds are not relative speeds. Use the correct definitions of them!


(*) I changed the problem to two rockets moving at 0.9c since light 
itself doesn't have a reference frame.

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

#615317

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:56:54 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/14/2023 4:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > What you designate closing speed is also designated relative speed and is the same thing.
> No, it is not. Closing speed is the sum of the speeds of the two light 
> beams, or of two rockets(*) moving away from the starting point, as seen 
> by a third party observer there. For two light beams it will be 2c. For 
> two rockets moving at .9c the closing speed will be 1.8c. Note that 
> *nothing* is actually moving at 2c, or 1.8c. 
> 
> If an observer on one rocket(*) is measuring the speed of the other 
> rocket relative to itself, he has to use the SR speed combination 
> formula. If each rocket left the start at .9c relative to it, the 
> correct formula is (0.9c+0.9c)/(1+(0.9c*0.9c)/c^2) or 1.8c/1.81 or 
> 0.994475c. Note that in this case something *is* moving at the 
> calculated speed, the second rocket as measured by the first rocket.
> > The second postulate denies this and claims it is only 1C.
> The second postulate mentions the speed of light relative to the 
> observer measuring the speed. Closing speed is the speed relative to 
> something else, not the observer. In your case, one light beam relative 
> to the other light beam.
> > It is great that relative speeds are sometimes acknowledged in relativity. The problem is that they are denied in the second postulate.
> Closing speeds are not relative speeds. Use the correct definitions of them! 
> 
> 
> (*) I changed the problem to two rockets moving at 0.9c since light 
> itself doesn't have a reference frame.
So two rockets moving apart at .9c are moving at a closing speed of 1.8c and at 0.994475c simultaneously—Reductio ad absurdum. The transformation formula is absurd. Introducing the observer is just nonsense. Closing speed is relative speed. Relativity definitions blinker you.

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

#615323

On 7/14/2023 6:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:56:54 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/14/2023 4:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>> What you designate closing speed is also designated relative speed and is the same thing.
>> No, it is not. Closing speed is the sum of the speeds of the two light
>> beams, or of two rockets(*) moving away from the starting point, as seen
>> by a third party observer there. For two light beams it will be 2c. For
>> two rockets moving at .9c the closing speed will be 1.8c. Note that
>> *nothing* is actually moving at 2c, or 1.8c.
>>
>> If an observer on one rocket(*) is measuring the speed of the other
>> rocket relative to itself, he has to use the SR speed combination
>> formula. If each rocket left the start at .9c relative to it, the
>> correct formula is (0.9c+0.9c)/(1+(0.9c*0.9c)/c^2) or 1.8c/1.81 or
>> 0.994475c. Note that in this case something *is* moving at the
>> calculated speed, the second rocket as measured by the first rocket.
>>> The second postulate denies this and claims it is only 1C.
>> The second postulate mentions the speed of light relative to the
>> observer measuring the speed. Closing speed is the speed relative to
>> something else, not the observer. In your case, one light beam relative
>> to the other light beam.
>>> It is great that relative speeds are sometimes acknowledged in relativity. The problem is that they are denied in the second postulate.
>> Closing speeds are not relative speeds. Use the correct definitions of them!
>>
>>
>> (*) I changed the problem to two rockets moving at 0.9c since light
>> itself doesn't have a reference frame.

> So two rockets moving apart at .9c are moving at a closing speed of 1.8c and at 0.994475c simultaneously—Reductio ad absurdum.

Nope. You have to factor in the length contraction/time dilation to get 
the correct answer. The rocket observer observing the other rocket is 
moving at high speed relative to the observer measuring the closing speed.

> The transformation formula is absurd.

Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's absurd. It just 
means you can't understand it.

> Introducing the observer is just nonsense.

Everything is relative to some frame. It is easier to state some 
observer stationary in the frame.

> Closing speed is relative speed.

Nope. They are defined differently, so cannot be the same.

> Relativity definitions blinker you.

The definitions define what they mean (how's that for a tautology?).

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

#615330

On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 23:56:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/14/2023 4:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > What you designate closing speed is also designated relative speed and is the same thing.
> No, it is not. Closing speed is the sum of the speeds of the two light 

And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, 
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

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

#615313

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:43:06 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:01:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:43:50 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:40:23 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 9:16:45 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:25:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:14:31 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:01:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:48:36 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:59:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 1. The second postulate asserts light speed is the same regardless of relative motion. Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. 
> > > > > > > > > No, there is no disproof of this at all. You are just making it up as you go along! Your so-called "critics" are just fellow crackpots, of which there are many! 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Read a dang textbook, because you are looking more and more like a world-class crank and a total ignoramus! 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > "Light Velocity and Relativity" by Arthur S. Otis Ph.D. Stanford University. p.vi= "...the postulate of the constant velocity of light was set forth as the result of mistaken reasoning and that corrected reasoning shows that the postulate was not needed in the first place...." If you read this critic, you may have some chance of understanding relativity is mistaken. 
> > > > > > > Nice try, but nevertheless a Big Fail on your part. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Arthur S Otis... 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > https://www.sinton-family-trees.com/ft_main.php?rin=2179 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ... was a psychologist with zero training in physics, and was clearly an anit-Einstein crank... just like you! 
> > > 
> > > > > > How many critics of relativity have you persuaded? I doubt you have persuaded anyone of your pseudoscience. 
> > > 
> > > > > So, how many physicists have *you* persuaded that they have it all wrong and that you have it all figured out? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are delusional! 
> > > 
> > > > I haven't pretended to have persuaded anyone. 
> > > And yet you have clearly persuaded yourself that you know more about relativity than did Einstein! You have found his errors that have eluded mainstream physicists for more than a century. You must be so proud! 
> > > 
> > > That, in turn, clearly makes you delusional! 
> 
> > Take two flashlights end to end, pointing in opposite directions, and turn them on. How fast are the beams going compared to each other? According to relativity 1C. According to sane individuals 2C.
> You really need to study this stuff. In your example, NOTHING is moving at more than C. What you are describing is better known as "closing speed", as observed by a third party, who sees the wavefronts moving apart at 2C, whereas each light beam itself is moving at just C. NOTHING is moving faster than C. The closing speed would be the rate at which the distance between the two wavefronts is increasing 
> 
> Do some homework before exposing your complete ignorance of the subject matter. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#:~:text=The%20rate%20at%20which%20two,respect%20to%20the%20reference%20frame. 
> 
> "The rate at which two objects in motion in a single frame of reference get closer together is called the mutual or closing speed. This may approach twice the speed of light, as in the case of two particles traveling at close to the speed of light in opposite directions with respect to the reference frame."
Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V.

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

#615339

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V.

Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C.

That textbook is anxiously awaiting for you to read it!

You obviously do not know what you do not know!

“If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. When you’re incompetent, the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”

- David Dunning

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

#615358

On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 02:53:57 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V.
> Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C. 

Some fantasy of an insane crazie. As anyone can check in GPS,
real m easurement results have nothing in common with that.

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

#615386

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V.
> Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C. 
Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect. 

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

#615388

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > 
> > > Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V. 
> > Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C.
> Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect.
The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made!

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

#615391

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V. 

> > > Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C. 

> > Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect.

I'll just note here that the Doppler Effect is another facet of physics well beyond your grasp. Light travels at C and the Doppler Effect tells you if it is approaching or receding. Once again you don't know what you don't know. 

> The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made!

You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to that university!

Making it up as you go along is not science!

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

#615394 — Exit Strategy (was Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience.)

On 7/15/2023 12:33 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V.
> 
>>>> Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C.
> 
>>> Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect.
> 
> I'll just note here that the Doppler Effect is another facet of physics well beyond your grasp. Light travels at C and the Doppler Effect tells you if it is approaching or receding. Once again you don't know what you don't know.
> 
>> The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made!
> 
> You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to that university!
> 
> Making it up as you go along is not science!

What I'm beginning to see is an exit strategy. The lies are becoming
increasingly unbelievable and even conflict with what she has been
posting recently. Cornered rat and all like that.

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

#615580 — Re: Exit Strategy (was Re: How easy it is to understand relativity is pseudoscience.)

On 7/15/2023 12:42 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 7/15/2023 12:33 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark 
>> Crossen wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark 
>>> Crossen wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark 
>>>>> Crossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the 
>>>>>> closing speed is C + V.
>>
>>>>> Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can 
>>>>> *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C.
>>
>>>> Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure 
>>>> of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the 
>>>> Doppler effect.
>>
>> I'll just note here that the Doppler Effect is another facet of 
>> physics well beyond your grasp. Light travels at C and the Doppler 
>> Effect tells you if it is approaching or receding. Once again you 
>> don't know what you don't know.
>>
>>> The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, 
>>> I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One 
>>> of the best decisions I ever made!
>>
>> You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to 
>> that university!
>>
>> Making it up as you go along is not science!
> 
> What I'm beginning to see is an exit strategy. The lies are becoming
> increasingly unbelievable and even conflict with what she has been
> posting recently. Cornered rat and all like that.

I can't be sure "Laurence" has exited but I hope she has because this
exercise is going nowhere.

I have a half brother with some similarities. He always had a terrific
memory to the point that by the time he was in the third grade the
other kids in class were picking on him calling him "Mr. Computer
Brain." Understand this was about 1950 when computers were a thing of
the future. He compensated by taking on a persona he thought to be
similar to theirs, using (then) forbidden words like "ain't." It
seemed to work most of the time.

When he got out of grad school he went directly to the top of any
possible career for his chosen discipline. I never understood his
choice because I never thought he was much good at it, but with that
superb memory he passed all his undergrad and graduate studies with
honors. This "top of the heap" job didn't last very long, they asked
him to leave. I think that because he didn't fit very well he had a
strong hand in torpedoing that job.

Now here's the "Jane" AKA "Laurence" who, I just discovered (by reading
other social media offerings from her) and researching a little that she
too went to the top of the heap (although a different heap) within two
years of completing her graduate studies and similarly that job didn't
last very long either before she was relegated to a rather run of the
mill boring job for the rest of her career. That's not to say her
permanent job wasn't admirable to the general public, just that it
wasn't of the caliber attributed to her at graduation. Funny thing,
my half brother ended up in a very similar situation.

What this post of mine is about isn't so much the disciplines as it is
about the selection process. People with great memories are given
advances early on that they are unable to maintain because while they
have a great memory for facts they do not have a level of understanding
that is required for creativity.

My life has never achieved such lofty positional goals but I have always
been the creative one in the family, someone who could look at all of
the facts in a particular situation and recombine them along with
something unexpected to create a new situation, or if you will a
completely new solution never done before. And that was the basis
of my success as a consultant. Strangely enough the readers here
saw "Laurence" attack me for my successes, something I have no problem
bragging about today without divulging the details.

Anyway now you know that "Laurence" was quite a force to be reckoned
with and part of the reason for her fall from grace. I applaud her
for her successes even though she appears jealous of mine, very much
as my half brother is.

BTW, what you saw here from Laurence is her attempt at creativity by
winding back the clocks of science. Her failures are evident.

Before the dog piling begins here, forget about it. Because I know the
whole story and those inclined to attack do not it will never have
a negative toll on me.  But people will be what people will be. This
medium seems to bring out the worse in folks.

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

#615398

On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 19:33:34 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V. 
> 
> > > > Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C. 
> 
> > > Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect.
> I'll just note here that the Doppler Effect is another facet of physics well beyond your grasp. Light travels at C and the Doppler Effect tells you if it is approaching or receding. Once again you don't know what you don't know.
> > The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made!
> You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to that university! 
> 
> Making it up as you go along is not science!

Your bunch of idiots has shown us - yes, it is science.

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

#615408

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:33:34 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V. 
> 
> > > > Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C. 
> 
> > > Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect.
> I'll just note here that the Doppler Effect is another facet of physics well beyond your grasp. Light travels at C and the Doppler Effect tells you if it is approaching or receding. Once again you don't know what you don't know.
> > The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made!
> You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to that university! 
> 
> Making it up as you go along is not science!
I'm really not impressed by anything but your stupidity and the stupidity of the theory of special relativity, as adequately exposed in Otis' book.  Another proof that light velocity is additive for the observer is stellar aberration. You should have skipped the university that has filled your head with pseudoscience.

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

#615447

On 7/15/2023 4:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:33:34 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made!
>> You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to that university!
>>
>> Making it up as you go along is not science!

> I'm really not impressed by anything but your stupidity and the stupidity of the theory of special relativity, as adequately exposed in Otis' book.

With that pseudoscience, Otis should have stuck with elevators.

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

#615449

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 07:33:11 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/15/2023 4:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:33:34 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> >> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> >>> The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made! 
> >> You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to that university! 
> >> 
> >> Making it up as you go along is not science! 
> 
> > I'm really not impressed by anything but your stupidity and the stupidity of the theory of special relativity, as adequately exposed in Otis' book.
> With that pseudoscience, Otis should have stuck with elevators.


And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, 
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

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

#615409

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:33:34 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V. 
> 
> > > > Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C. 
> 
> > > Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect.
> I'll just note here that the Doppler Effect is another facet of physics well beyond your grasp. Light travels at C and the Doppler Effect tells you if it is approaching or receding. Once again you don't know what you don't know.
> > The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made!
> You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to that university! 
> 
> Making it up as you go along is not science!
Considering that the only reason to comment here to relativists is to see what kind of defense they can make of their foolishness, and considering they can never muster any, I am really only writing here for the sake of the critics skeptical of relativity. They mostly have the sense only to read and not subject themselves to a bunch of shit-slinging howler monkeys.

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

#615477

On 7/15/2023 3:35 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:33:34 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 10:17:24 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V.
>>
>>>>> Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C.
>>
>>>> Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect.
>> I'll just note here that the Doppler Effect is another facet of physics well beyond your grasp. Light travels at C and the Doppler Effect tells you if it is approaching or receding. Once again you don't know what you don't know.
>>> The velocity of the starlight from Sirius is C + 5.5 km/sec. Luckily, I never went to university or I may never have understood this! One of the best decisions I ever made!
>> You don't actually know anything about it... you should have gone to that university!
>>
>> Making it up as you go along is not science!

> Considering that the only reason to comment here to relativists is to see what kind of defense they can make of their foolishness, and considering they can never muster any, I am really only writing here for the sake of the critics skeptical of relativity. They mostly have the sense only to read and not subject themselves to a bunch of shit-slinging howler monkeys.

Another area of your expertise exposed, shit-slinging.

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

#615390

On 7/15/2023 11:58 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:57:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

>>> Then when the observer is moving towards the light beam the closing speed is C + V.

>> Nooooooo! The observer who is traveling toward the light beam can *never* measure the speed of light as exceeding C.

> Our Sun is traveling towards Sirius at 5.5 km/sec. This is a measure of a one-way velocity of light that exceeds C and is given by the Doppler effect.


You're 2 for 2 being wrong in your post above.

"1 c = 299,792.458 km/s"

<https://www.inchcalculator.com/convert/speed-of-light-to-kilometer-per-second/>


"Tonight, use the brilliant star Sirius – and, if you’re in the Northern
Hemisphere, the star Vega – to imagine the direction our sun and solar
system are traveling through space. The sun in its orbit is traveling
away from Sirius and toward the star Vega. So if you stand outside at
dusk or nightfall with your back to Sirius – facing northwest, Vega’s
direction at that time – you’ll be facing the direction our solar system
moves through the Milky Way galaxy. Cool, huh?"

https://earthsky.org/sky-archive/two-stars-flag-suns-path-in-milky-way/

Please check your facts before posting nonsense to Usenet.

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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web