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

#615683

On 7/19/2023 10:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/14/23 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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.
>> I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most
>> irrational and pseudoscientific part.
> 
> The "irrational and pseudoscientific part" IS ALL YOURS. What you claim 
> above is not at all Einstein's second postulate. Look up what it 
> actually is, and if you can understand it your confusion here will 
> disappear.
> 
> Tom Roberts

She redefines the postulate in order to defeat her version of it.

Why does anyone suppose Don Quixote chose windmills? In his mind
he always defeated them. Mental illness is a bitch.

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

#615684

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 19:40:25 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 10:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > On 7/14/23 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. 
> >> I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most 
> >> irrational and pseudoscientific part. 
> > 
> > The "irrational and pseudoscientific part" IS ALL YOURS. What you claim 
> > above is not at all Einstein's second postulate. Look up what it 
> > actually is, and if you can understand it your confusion here will 
> > disappear. 
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> She redefines the postulate in order to defeat her version of it. 

Or maybe poor idiot Tom does...

Google Einstein postulates. 3 first links I've got - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/28%3A_Special_Relativity/28.01%3A_Einsteins_Postulates
https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/28-1-einsteins-postulates

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

#615686

El miércoles, 19 de julio de 2023 a las 13:56:19 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 19:40:25 UTC+2, whodat wrote: 
> > On 7/19/2023 10:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > On 7/14/23 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. 
> > >> I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most 
> > >> irrational and pseudoscientific part. 
> > > 
> > > The "irrational and pseudoscientific part" IS ALL YOURS. What you claim 
> > > above is not at all Einstein's second postulate. Look up what it 
> > > actually is, and if you can understand it your confusion here will 
> > > disappear. 
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts 
> > She redefines the postulate in order to defeat her version of it.
> Or maybe poor idiot Tom does... 
> 
> Google Einstein postulates. 3 first links I've got - 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity 
> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/28%3A_Special_Relativity/28.01%3A_Einsteins_Postulates 
> https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/28-1-einsteins-postulates

Einstein's original expressions of the principle of relativity and of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light (section 2 of his 1905 paper):

"1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".

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

#615689

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 20:02:09 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 19 de julio de 2023 a las 13:56:19 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: 
> > On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 19:40:25 UTC+2, whodat wrote: 
> > > On 7/19/2023 10:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > > On 7/14/23 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. 
> > > >> I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most 
> > > >> irrational and pseudoscientific part. 
> > > > 
> > > > The "irrational and pseudoscientific part" IS ALL YOURS. What you claim 
> > > > above is not at all Einstein's second postulate. Look up what it 
> > > > actually is, and if you can understand it your confusion here will 
> > > > disappear. 
> > > > 
> > > > Tom Roberts 
> > > She redefines the postulate in order to defeat her version of it. 
> > Or maybe poor idiot Tom does... 
> > 
> > Google Einstein postulates. 3 first links I've got - 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity 
> > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/28%3A_Special_Relativity/28.01%3A_Einsteins_Postulates 
> > https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/28-1-einsteins-postulates
> Einstein's original expressions of the principle of relativity and of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light (section 2 of his 1905 paper): 
> 
> "1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not 
> affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of 
> two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. 

> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with 
> the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a 
> moving body".

Sounds like the second postulate is asserting constant speed
of light... Or doesn't it?

Of course, as your idiot guru "discovered" later - it's only
in inertial systems. I.e. nowhere.

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

#615691

El miércoles, 19 de julio de 2023 a las 14:14:51 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
> On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 20:02:09 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: 
> > El miércoles, 19 de julio de 2023 a las 13:56:19 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: 
> > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 19:40:25 UTC+2, whodat wrote: 
> > > > On 7/19/2023 10:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > > > On 7/14/23 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. 
> > > > >> I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most 
> > > > >> irrational and pseudoscientific part. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The "irrational and pseudoscientific part" IS ALL YOURS. What you claim 
> > > > > above is not at all Einstein's second postulate. Look up what it 
> > > > > actually is, and if you can understand it your confusion here will 
> > > > > disappear. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tom Roberts 
> > > > She redefines the postulate in order to defeat her version of it. 
> > > Or maybe poor idiot Tom does... 
> > > 
> > > Google Einstein postulates. 3 first links I've got - 
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity 
> > > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/28%3A_Special_Relativity/28.01%3A_Einsteins_Postulates 
> > > https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/28-1-einsteins-postulates 
> > Einstein's original expressions of the principle of relativity and of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light (section 2 of his 1905 paper): 
> > 
> > "1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not 
> > affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of 
> > two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. 
> 
> > 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with 
> > the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a 
> > moving body".
> Sounds like the second postulate is asserting constant speed 
> of light... Or doesn't it? 
> 

It is in plain English: "determined velocity c".

> Of course, as your idiot guru "discovered" later - it's only 
> in inertial systems. I.e. nowhere.

It is in plain English: "“stationary” system of co-ordinates". 

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

#615694

On 7/19/2023 2:22 PM, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 19 de julio de 2023 a las 14:14:51 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>> On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 20:02:09 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>>> El miércoles, 19 de julio de 2023 a las 13:56:19 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
>>>> On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 19:40:25 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
>>>>> On 7/19/2023 10:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/14/23 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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.
>>>>>>> I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most
>>>>>>> irrational and pseudoscientific part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "irrational and pseudoscientific part" IS ALL YOURS. What you claim
>>>>>> above is not at all Einstein's second postulate. Look up what it
>>>>>> actually is, and if you can understand it your confusion here will
>>>>>> disappear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>> She redefines the postulate in order to defeat her version of it.
>>>> Or maybe poor idiot Tom does...
>>>>
>>>> Google Einstein postulates. 3 first links I've got -
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
>>>> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/28%3A_Special_Relativity/28.01%3A_Einsteins_Postulates
>>>> https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/28-1-einsteins-postulates
>>> Einstein's original expressions of the principle of relativity and of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light (section 2 of his 1905 paper):
>>>
>>> "1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
>>> affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
>>> two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
>>
>>> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
>>> the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
>>> moving body".
>> Sounds like the second postulate is asserting constant speed
>> of light... Or doesn't it?
>>
> 
> It is in plain English: "determined velocity c".
> 
>> Of course, as your idiot guru "discovered" later - it's only
>> in inertial systems. I.e. nowhere.
> 
> It is in plain English: "“stationary” system of co-ordinates".

Specifically, Einstein started off with the second postulate being valid 
for just one frame, the “stationary” system of co-ordinates. Part of the 
SR paper was to show it's also true for all (inertial) systems of 
coordinates.

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

#615707

Volney wrote:

> On 7/19/2023 2:22 PM, Paparios wrote:
>> It is in plain English: "“stationary” system of co-ordinates".
> 
> Specifically, Einstein started off with the second postulate being valid
> for just one frame, the “stationary” system of co-ordinates. Part of the
> SR paper w̶a̶s̶ t̶o̶ s̶h̶o̶w̶ it's also true for all (inertial) systems of
> coordinates.

not true. Hitler was shocked the discover 𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗽𝘀 in 
polakia, as Auschwitz, Dachau etc, 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 he entered the scene. 
Proverbially, all comes from the fucking 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗮. A shithole. 
Inherently, the polakia destroyed gearmony.

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

#615697

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 20:22:30 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 19 de julio de 2023 a las 14:14:51 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: 
> > On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 20:02:09 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: 
> > > El miércoles, 19 de julio de 2023 a las 13:56:19 UTC-4, Maciej Wozniak escribió: 
> > > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 19:40:25 UTC+2, whodat wrote: 
> > > > > On 7/19/2023 10:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > > > > On 7/14/23 1:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. 
> > > > > >> I have started with this part of relativity because it is the most 
> > > > > >> irrational and pseudoscientific part. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The "irrational and pseudoscientific part" IS ALL YOURS. What you claim 
> > > > > > above is not at all Einstein's second postulate. Look up what it 
> > > > > > actually is, and if you can understand it your confusion here will 
> > > > > > disappear. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Tom Roberts 
> > > > > She redefines the postulate in order to defeat her version of it. 
> > > > Or maybe poor idiot Tom does... 
> > > > 
> > > > Google Einstein postulates. 3 first links I've got - 
> > > > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity 
> > > > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/28%3A_Special_Relativity/28.01%3A_Einsteins_Postulates 
> > > > https://openstax.org/books/college-physics-2e/pages/28-1-einsteins-postulates 
> > > Einstein's original expressions of the principle of relativity and of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light (section 2 of his 1905 paper): 
> > > 
> > > "1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not 
> > > affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of 
> > > two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. 
> > 
> > > 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with 
> > > the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a 
> > > moving body". 
> > Sounds like the second postulate is asserting constant speed 
> > of light... Or doesn't it? 
> >
> It is in plain English: "determined velocity c".

Well, as seen in the links I provided, despite Tom's denials 
most of your fellow idiots is interpreting it the same way
LCC did. 
But it's normal for a bunch of fanatic idiots that they 
can' never agree what the Truths of their Faith are.

> > Of course, as your idiot guru "discovered" later - it's only 
> > in inertial systems. I.e. nowhere.
> It is in plain English: "“stationary” system of co-ordinates".

Sure, but later, in his GR,  Giant Guru had to abandon this
nonsense. It was too much even for him.

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

#615305

Op 14/07/2023 om 2:59 schreef Laurence Clark Crossen:
> 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.

There exist axiomatic formalisms of SRT (I have also made my own one:) 
that build upon much more intuitive axioms, and get the constancy of 
light speed as a free result, as a theorem, rather than having to impose 
it as a counterintuitive postulate. So SRT works very fine that way, 
thank you.

-- 
guido wugi

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

#615314

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. 

No. It asserts that in a certain fixed system the speed of light is independent of
the source's motion and the time the measurement is made, where "speed" is
a certain defined notion (using rigid sticks and certain clock synchronisation
convention).

> Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. 

This is a meaningless statement using undefined notions.

> The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames.

If it were that easy, Einstein's paper would have never been accepted for
publication, and even if it were, it would have been declared invalid within
days of publication and forgotten.

Do you think everyone except you is stupid?

--
Jan

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

#615336

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-7, JanPB 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.
> No. It asserts that in a certain fixed system the speed of light is independent of 
> the source's motion and the time the measurement is made, where "speed" is 
> a certain defined notion (using rigid sticks and certain clock synchronisation 
> convention).
> > Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true.
> This is a meaningless statement using undefined notions.
> > The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames.
> If it were that easy, Einstein's paper would have never been accepted for 
> publication, and even if it were, it would have been declared invalid within 
> days of publication and forgotten. 
> 
> Do you think everyone except you is stupid? 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
Do you think the inventor of the atomic clock is stupid? He called relativity a joke and a swindle.

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

#615340

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-7, JanPB 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. 
> > No. It asserts that in a certain fixed system the speed of light is independent of 
> > the source's motion and the time the measurement is made, where "speed" is 
> > a certain defined notion (using rigid sticks and certain clock synchronisation 
> > convention). 
> > > Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. 
> > This is a meaningless statement using undefined notions. 
> > > The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. 
> > If it were that easy, Einstein's paper would have never been accepted for 
> > publication, and even if it were, it would have been declared invalid within 
> > days of publication and forgotten. 
> > 
> > Do you think everyone except you is stupid? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan

> Do you think the inventor of the atomic clock is stupid? He called relativity a joke and a swindle.

Cite?

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

#615348

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-7, JanPB 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. 
> > No. It asserts that in a certain fixed system the speed of light is independent of 
> > the source's motion and the time the measurement is made, where "speed" is 
> > a certain defined notion (using rigid sticks and certain clock synchronisation 
> > convention). 
> > > Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true. 
> > This is a meaningless statement using undefined notions. 
> > > The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames. 
> > If it were that easy, Einstein's paper would have never been accepted for 
> > publication, and even if it were, it would have been declared invalid within 
> > days of publication and forgotten. 
> > 
> > Do you think everyone except you is stupid? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> Do you think the inventor of the atomic clock is stupid? 

You are now changing the subject. I merely pointed out that your
original post regarding the second postulate was incorrect (actually,
it wasn't even wrong). Then I concluded with the actual statement
of the postulate.

Apparently, you were unable to respond, so you posted an irrelevancy instead.

> He called relativity a joke and a swindle.

Irrelevant. Changing the subject is not a valid argument.

--
Jan

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

#615337

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-7, JanPB 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.
> No. It asserts that in a certain fixed system the speed of light is independent of 
> the source's motion and the time the measurement is made, where "speed" is 
> a certain defined notion (using rigid sticks and certain clock synchronisation 
> convention).
> > Since all motion is relative motion, this is plainly not true.
> This is a meaningless statement using undefined notions.
> > The disproof given by many critics is comparing three inertial reference frames.
> If it were that easy, Einstein's paper would have never been accepted for 
> publication, and even if it were, it would have been declared invalid within 
> days of publication and forgotten. 
> 
> Do you think everyone except you is stupid? 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
I think people tend to be tribal and go with the crowd instead of thinking. Do you think Rutherford and Soddy were stupid? They had nothing but contempt for relativity.

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

#615341

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:41:41 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> I think people tend to be tribal and go with the crowd instead of thinking. Do you think Rutherford and Soddy were stupid? They had nothing but contempt for relativity.

Keep in mind that Rutherford also believed that he could turn lesser metals into gold... so how did that work out for him? In the end, not every idea proposed by brilliant scientists works out! All of them strike out now and then.

As always, all you need is evidence in support of your claim. Evidence rules. Got any?

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

#615353

On 7/14/23 6:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> I think people tend to be tribal and go with the crowd instead of thinking. 

I think you do not understand ANYTHING about physicists.

Tom Roberts

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

#615359

On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 05:17:37 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/14/23 6:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > I think people tend to be tribal and go with the crowd instead of thinking.
> I think you do not understand ANYTHING about physicists. 

And the first thing you don't understand is that they
are FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

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

#615387

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:18:32 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 05:17:37 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > On 7/14/23 6:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > I think people tend to be tribal and go with the crowd instead of thinking. 
> > I think you do not understand ANYTHING about physicists.
> And the first thing you don't understand is that they 
> are FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
Yes, ideologues have to force their doctrine on others and manipulate them by tactics such as taking offense as they do in politics and the relativists do here so frequently.

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

#615410

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:17:37 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/14/23 6:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > I think people tend to be tribal and go with the crowd instead of thinking.
> I think you do not understand ANYTHING about physicists. 

One of the standard features of crankhood is the assumption that
everything in life works like in a Hollywood thriller.

--
Jan

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

#615412

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 1:36:42 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:17:37 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > On 7/14/23 6:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > I think people tend to be tribal and go with the crowd instead of thinking. 
> > I think you do not understand ANYTHING about physicists.
> One of the standard features of crankhood is the assumption that 
> everything in life works like in a Hollywood thriller. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
Relativity is just science fiction. Actually it's fantasy. No, it's a fairy tale: "History of the concept: Statue of Rip Van Winkle in Irvington, New York: 
Some ancient myths depict a character skipping forward in time. In Hindu mythology, the Vishnu Purana mentions the story of King Raivata Kakudmi, who travels to heaven to meet the creator Brahma and is surprised to learn when he returns to Earth that many ages have passed.[2][3] The Buddhist Pāli Canon mentions the relativity of time. The Payasi Sutta tells of one of the Buddha's chief disciples, Kumara Kassapa, who explains to the skeptic Payasi that time in the Heavens passes differently than on Earth.[4] The Japanese tale of "Urashima Tarō",[5] first described in the Manyoshu tells of a young fisherman named Urashima-no-ko (浦嶋子) who visits an undersea palace. After three days, he returns home to his village and finds himself 300 years in the future, where he has been forgotten, his house is in ruins, and his family has died.[6] In Jewish tradition, the 1st-century BC scholar Honi ha-M'agel is said to have fallen asleep and slept for seventy years. When waking up he returned home but found none of the people he knew, and no one believed his claims of who he was.[7] " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#History_of_the_time_travel_concept 

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

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

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

csiph-web