Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615581 > unrolled thread

Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

Started by	Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com>
First post	2023-07-18 09:39 -0700
Last post	2023-07-18 15:15 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 61 — 11 participants

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

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

#615757

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-20 10:55 -0400
Message-ID	<u9bhtn$2odtu$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615711

On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them.

>> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that
>> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of
>> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants
>> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of
>> light at the observer would imply there were different values of
>> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre
>> notion)

> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.

Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.

If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.

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

#615759

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 08:18 -0700
Message-ID	<06ff8434-0c3f-427f-b92f-7eb2ec64f12en@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615757

On Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 16:55:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> >>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them. 
> 
> >> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that 
> >> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of 
> >> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants 
> >> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of 
> >> light at the observer would imply there were different values of 
> >> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre 
> >> notion) 
> 
> > There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 

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]

#615769

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 10:40 -0700
Message-ID	<41a7a83f-4004-4ce6-bc5d-e9434fd50449n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615757

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> >>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them. 
> 
> >> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that 
> >> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of 
> >> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants 
> >> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of 
> >> light at the observer would imply there were different values of 
> >> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre 
> >> notion) 
> 
> > There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> 
> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ. There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement. A good place to start is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition 4th Edition" by Thomas S. Kuhn.  Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion. These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has been frequently. There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can use that to directly detect one way speed of starlight from the frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer. For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec. Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.

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

#615774

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-20 15:05 -0400
Message-ID	<u9c0i3$2ram7$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615769

On 7/20/2023 1:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>>>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them.
>>
>>>> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that
>>>> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of
>>>> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants
>>>> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of
>>>> light at the observer would imply there were different values of
>>>> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre
>>>> notion)
>>
>>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the
>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>
>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.

> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ.

So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has 
always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the 
source. Always.

> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement.

Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash 
statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the 
theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always 
moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong.

> Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion.

They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they? 
Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a 
religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic 
church as well.

> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has been frequently.

Galileo's bishops weren't scientists!

> There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can use that to directly detect one way speed of starlight from the frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer.

Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength 
(diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both 
types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c, 
the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star)

> For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec.

No, it doesn't.

> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.

I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist 
and no physicist.

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

#615779

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 13:01 -0700
Message-ID	<ea9e28d6-843a-4dc6-a791-49311466d6c0n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615774

On Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 21:05:43 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 1:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >>>> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them. 
> >> 
> >>>> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that 
> >>>> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of 
> >>>> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants 
> >>>> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of 
> >>>> light at the observer would imply there were different values of 
> >>>> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre 
> >>>> notion) 
> >> 
> >>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter. 
> >> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> >> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> >> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> >> 
> >> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we. 
> 
> > Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ.
> So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has 
> always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the 
> source. Always.
> > There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement.
> Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash 

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]

#615934

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-23 18:40 -0400
Message-ID	<u9ka94$c6r2$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615779

On 7/20/2023 4:01 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> 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.
> 
Sorry, janitor, this is an adult discussion that's far beyond your 
comprehension level, even if "Lawrence" is a crank.

Now go back to your bird cage, parrot, and don't come back here until 
you learn what "not even wrong" means.

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

#615938

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-23 21:04 -0700
Message-ID	<eede8ff2-63b9-46f7-b8e0-877eee57302dn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615934

On Monday, 24 July 2023 at 00:40:39 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 4:01 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> 
> > 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. 
> >
> Sorry, janitor, this is an adult discussion that's far beyond your 
> comprehension level, even if "Lawrence" is a crank. 
> 
> Now go back to your bird cage, parrot, and don't come back here until 
> you learn what "not even wrong" means.

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]

#615782

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 13:15 -0700
Message-ID	<fad01597-1731-44cb-a387-f2e753dbcec0n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615774

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the
>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>
>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.

> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ.

So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has
always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the
source. Always.

@It is stupid to deny that a change in frequency of light is not a direct measure of additive velocity. Light has only been interpreted as moving at c by some and not by other scientists—for example, Ritz. The data does not show that light always moves at c—quite the opposite.

> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement.

Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash
statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the
theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always
moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong.

@Your rash statement: "If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we." Your theory of relativity is always wrong because it's always conflicting with the reproducible data of the Doppler effect for starlight. You keep claiming your interpretations of data are data. Try to distinguish the difference.  

> Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion.

They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they?
Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a
religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic
church as well.

@This shows extreme ignorance of the history of science. Try to understand that the Catholic Church and Aristotelianism were united as the official science of the time. Their problem was with the accepted science of Aristotelianism. They were going against its authority. The point is the established authority doesn't always operate rationally. Relativity goes against the scientific method. That's what its critics have pointed out all along.

> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has been frequently.

Galileo's bishops weren't scientists!

@Neither are relativists! They are bishops.

> There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can use that to directly detect one-way speed of starlight from the frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer.

Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength
(diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both
types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c,
the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star)

@Obviously, if you factor out the frequency and wavelength, you get c. 

> For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec.

No, it doesn't.

@Construing frequency changes as wavelength changes is ad hoc nonsense. That's what you have to rely on to deny that frequency is a measure of speed. Sirius' radial velocity is 5.5 km/sec. How could that be so if it is not c + 5.5? 

> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.

I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist
and no physicist. 

@Otis was also a mathematician, and you are flunking his intelligence test.

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

#615787

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-20 17:08 -0400
Message-ID	<u9c7o2$2sf3r$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615782

On 7/20/2023 4:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
>>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the
>>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>>
>>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
> 
>> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ.
> 
> So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has
> always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the
> source. Always.
> 
> @It is stupid to deny that a change in frequency of light is not a direct measure of additive velocity. Light has only been interpreted as moving at c by some and not by other scientists—for example, Ritz. The data does not show that light always moves at c—quite the opposite.

Sorry, but the speed of light has repeatedly been measured, and it is 
always c regardless of the motion of the source. As I said, facts always 
overrule theory when they conflict.


> 
>> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement.
> 
> Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash
> statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the
> theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always
> moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong.
> 
> @Your rash statement: "If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we."

Yes, if the speed of light were c+v, scientists would accept that and 
kooks would have to find something else to kook about.

> Your theory of relativity is always wrong because it's always conflicting with the reproducible data

Such as...? Peer reviewed experiments, nothing from kꚙkbooks, please.

> of the Doppler effect for starlight.

The Doppler effect for starlight is in agreement with a constant speed 
c, regardless of the motion of the source.

> You keep claiming your interpretations of data are data. Try to distinguish the difference.

Huh? If a rock weighs 10 kg, then it weighs 10 Kg. Nobody is going to 
interpret that as the rock weighing 7 kg. If the speed of light is c, 
then its speed is c. Period.
> 
>> Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion.
> 
> They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they?
> Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a
> religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic
> church as well.
> 
> @This shows extreme ignorance of the history of science. Try to understand that the Catholic Church and Aristotelianism were united as the official science of the time.

Sorry, cherrypicking Bible phrases isn't science. Especially not modern 
science. Science as we now know it didn't truly exist then, in fact 
Galileo and Copernicus helped to create modern science, by believing in 
what the data told them, not what the priests told them.

> Their problem was with the accepted science of Aristotelianism. They were going against its authority.

No, they were going against the authority of the church, who told them 
this is what to believe despite the evidence.

  The point is the established authority doesn't always operate 
rationally. Relativity goes against the scientific method.

Say what? Measure the speed of light and it is always c. Relativity 
predicts time dilation, scientists look for evidence of time dilation 
and find it. Repeat for relativity of simultaneity. Repeat for length 
contraction, much more elusive, but nothing contrary. Build particle 
accelerators and watch them work. Design and build a GPS system and 
watch it work.

> That's what its critics have pointed out all along.

So the critics have nothing.
> 
>> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has been frequently.
> 
> Galileo's bishops weren't scientists!
> 
> @Neither are relativists! They are bishops.

Sorry, that's crankspeak, essentially calling the science of relativity 
a religion, not science.
> 
>> There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can use that to directly detect one-way speed of starlight from the frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer.
> 
> Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength
> (diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both
> types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c,
> the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star)
> 
> @Obviously, if you factor out the frequency and wavelength, you get c.

Yes, frequency*wavelength gives c.
> 
>> For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec.
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> @Construing frequency changes as wavelength changes is ad hoc nonsense. That's what you have to rely on to deny that frequency is a measure of speed. Sirius' radial velocity is 5.5 km/sec. How could that be so if it is not c + 5.5?

Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when 
Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec.
w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c.

w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the 
light from Sirius reaches us at c.
> 
>> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.
> 
> I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist
> and no physicist.
> 
> @Otis was also a mathematician, and you are flunking his intelligence test.

But still not a physicist.

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

#615789

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-20 17:27 -0500
Message-ID	<khtqn3Fh2pcU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615787

On 7/20/2023 4:08 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 4:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares 
>> the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the 
>> other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
>>>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>>>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of 
>>>> the
>>>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>>>
>>>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
>>
>>> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? 
>>> I beg to differ.
>>
>> So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has
>> always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the
>> source. Always.
>>
>> @It is stupid to deny that a change in frequency of light is not a 
>> direct measure of additive velocity. Light has only been interpreted 
>> as moving at c by some and not by other scientists—for example, Ritz. 
>> The data does not show that light always moves at c—quite the opposite.
> 
> Sorry, but the speed of light has repeatedly been measured, and it is 
> always c regardless of the motion of the source. As I said, facts always 
> overrule theory when they conflict.
> 
> 
>>
>>> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, 
>>> and there is literature that you might like to consult before making 
>>> a rash statement.
>>
>> Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash
>> statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the
>> theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always
>> moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong.
>>
>> @Your rash statement: "If your claim were true we wouldn't even be 
>> here, would we."
> 
> Yes, if the speed of light were c+v, scientists would accept that and 
> kooks would have to find something else to kook about.
> 
>> Your theory of relativity is always wrong because it's always 
>> conflicting with the reproducible data
> 
> Such as...? Peer reviewed experiments, nothing from kꚙkbooks, please.
> 
>> of the Doppler effect for starlight.
> 
> The Doppler effect for starlight is in agreement with a constant speed 
> c, regardless of the motion of the source.
> 
>> You keep claiming your interpretations of data are data. Try to 
>> distinguish the difference.
> 
> Huh? If a rock weighs 10 kg, then it weighs 10 Kg. Nobody is going to 
> interpret that as the rock weighing 7 kg. If the speed of light is c, 
> then its speed is c. Period.
>>
>>> Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed 
>>> and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion.
>>
>> They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they?
>> Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a
>> religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic
>> church as well.
>>
>> @This shows extreme ignorance of the history of science. Try to 
>> understand that the Catholic Church and Aristotelianism were united as 
>> the official science of the time.
> 
> Sorry, cherrypicking Bible phrases isn't science. Especially not modern 
> science. Science as we now know it didn't truly exist then, in fact 
> Galileo and Copernicus helped to create modern science, by believing in 
> what the data told them, not what the priests told them.
> 
>> Their problem was with the accepted science of Aristotelianism. They 
>> were going against its authority.
> 
> No, they were going against the authority of the church, who told them 
> this is what to believe despite the evidence.
> 
>   The point is the established authority doesn't always operate 
> rationally. Relativity goes against the scientific method.
> 
> Say what? Measure the speed of light and it is always c. Relativity 
> predicts time dilation, scientists look for evidence of time dilation 
> and find it. Repeat for relativity of simultaneity. Repeat for length 
> contraction, much more elusive, but nothing contrary. Build particle 
> accelerators and watch them work. Design and build a GPS system and 
> watch it work.
> 
>> That's what its critics have pointed out all along.
> 
> So the critics have nothing.
>>
>>> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted 
>>> science has been frequently.
>>
>> Galileo's bishops weren't scientists!
>>
>> @Neither are relativists! They are bishops.
> 
> Sorry, that's crankspeak, essentially calling the science of relativity 
> a religion, not science.
>>
>>> There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can 
>>> use that to directly detect one-way speed of starlight from the 
>>> frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. 
>>> This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer.
>>
>> Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength
>> (diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both
>> types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c,
>> the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star)
>>
>> @Obviously, if you factor out the frequency and wavelength, you get c.
> 
> Yes, frequency*wavelength gives c.
>>
>>> For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> @Construing frequency changes as wavelength changes is ad hoc 
>> nonsense. That's what you have to rely on to deny that frequency is a 
>> measure of speed. Sirius' radial velocity is 5.5 km/sec. How could 
>> that be so if it is not c + 5.5?
> 
> Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when 
> Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec.
> w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c.
> 
> w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the 
> light from Sirius reaches us at c.
>>
>>> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity 
>>> and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.
>>
>> I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist
>> and no physicist.
>>
>> @Otis was also a mathematician, and you are flunking his intelligence 
>> test.
> 
> But still not a physicist.

And neither is "Laurence".

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

#615822

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 21:21 -0700
Message-ID	<7d7514a3-5c29-484d-91e4-75c590c6b9acn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615787

On Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 23:08:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 4:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter. 
> >>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> >>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> >>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> >>> 
> >>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we. 
> > 
> >> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ. 
> > 
> > So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has 
> > always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the 
> > source. Always. 
> > 
> > @It is stupid to deny that a change in frequency of light is not a direct measure of additive velocity. Light has only been interpreted as moving at c by some and not by other scientists—for example, Ritz. The data does not show that light always moves at c—quite the opposite.
> Sorry, but the speed of light has repeatedly been measured, and it is 
> always c regardless of the motion of the source. As I said, facts always 
> overrule theory when they conflict.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring t'=t
in improper seconds.

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

#615845

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date	2023-07-21 10:46 -0700
Message-ID	<c2d6b32b-37c8-471f-b782-fa427d32d6d3n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615787

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 2:08:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 4:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> > Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter. 
> >>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> >>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> >>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> >>> 
> >>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we. 
> > 
> >> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ. 
> > 
> > So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has 
> > always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the 
> > source. Always. 
> > 
> > @It is stupid to deny that a change in frequency of light is not a direct measure of additive velocity. Light has only been interpreted as moving at c by some and not by other scientists—for example, Ritz. The data does not show that light always moves at c—quite the opposite.
> Sorry, but the speed of light has repeatedly been measured, and it is 
> always c regardless of the motion of the source. As I said, facts always 
> overrule theory when they conflict.
> > 
> >> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement. 
> > 
> > Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash 
> > statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the 
> > theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always 
> > moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong. 
> > 
> > @Your rash statement: "If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we."
> Yes, if the speed of light were c+v, scientists would accept that and 
> kooks would have to find something else to kook about.
> > Your theory of relativity is always wrong because it's always conflicting with the reproducible data
> Such as...? Peer reviewed experiments, nothing from kꚙkbooks, please.
> > of the Doppler effect for starlight.
> The Doppler effect for starlight is in agreement with a constant speed 
> c, regardless of the motion of the source.
> > You keep claiming your interpretations of data are data. Try to distinguish the difference.
> Huh? If a rock weighs 10 kg, then it weighs 10 Kg. Nobody is going to 
> interpret that as the rock weighing 7 kg. If the speed of light is c, 
> then its speed is c. Period.
> > 
> >> Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion. 
> > 
> > They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they? 
> > Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a 
> > religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic 
> > church as well. 
> > 
> > @This shows extreme ignorance of the history of science. Try to understand that the Catholic Church and Aristotelianism were united as the official science of the time.
> Sorry, cherrypicking Bible phrases isn't science. Especially not modern 
> science. Science as we now know it didn't truly exist then, in fact 
> Galileo and Copernicus helped to create modern science, by believing in 
> what the data told them, not what the priests told them.
> > Their problem was with the accepted science of Aristotelianism. They were going against its authority.
> No, they were going against the authority of the church, who told them 
> this is what to believe despite the evidence.
> The point is the established authority doesn't always operate 
> rationally. Relativity goes against the scientific method.
> Say what? Measure the speed of light and it is always c. Relativity 
> predicts time dilation, scientists look for evidence of time dilation 
> and find it. Repeat for relativity of simultaneity. Repeat for length 
> contraction, much more elusive, but nothing contrary. Build particle 
> accelerators and watch them work. Design and build a GPS system and 
> watch it work.
> > That's what its critics have pointed out all along.
> So the critics have nothing.
> > 
> >> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has been frequently. 
> > 
> > Galileo's bishops weren't scientists! 
> > 
> > @Neither are relativists! They are bishops.
> Sorry, that's crankspeak, essentially calling the science of relativity 
> a religion, not science.
> > 
> >> There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can use that to directly detect one-way speed of starlight from the frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer. 
> > 
> > Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength 
> > (diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both 
> > types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c, 
> > the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star) 
> > 
> > @Obviously, if you factor out the frequency and wavelength, you get c.
> Yes, frequency*wavelength gives c.
> > 
> >> For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec. 
> > 
> > No, it doesn't. 
> > 
> > @Construing frequency changes as wavelength changes is ad hoc nonsense. That's what you have to rely on to deny that frequency is a measure of speed. Sirius' radial velocity is 5.5 km/sec. How could that be so if it is not c + 5.5?
> Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when 
> Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec. 
> w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c. 
> 
> w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the 
> light from Sirius reaches us at c.
> > 
> >> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963. 
> > 
> > I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist 
> > and no physicist. 
> > 
> > @Otis was also a mathematician, and you are flunking his intelligence test.
> But still not a physicist.
>"Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when
Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec.
w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c.

>w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the
light from Sirius reaches us at c. "

Math is a language and your math is jibberish. Why would you divide 300,005.5 km/sec by 1+5.5/c? That would not give c.

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

#615859

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-21 17:36 -0400
Message-ID	<u9etpp$3eosk$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615845

On 7/21/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 2:08:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/20/2023 4:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
>>>>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>>>>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the
>>>>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>>>>
>>>>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
>>>
>>>> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ.
>>>
>>> So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has
>>> always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the
>>> source. Always.
>>>
>>> @It is stupid to deny that a change in frequency of light is not a direct measure of additive velocity. Light has only been interpreted as moving at c by some and not by other scientists—for example, Ritz. The data does not show that light always moves at c—quite the opposite.
>> Sorry, but the speed of light has repeatedly been measured, and it is
>> always c regardless of the motion of the source. As I said, facts always
>> overrule theory when they conflict.
>>>
>>>> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement.
>>>
>>> Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash
>>> statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the
>>> theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always
>>> moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong.
>>>
>>> @Your rash statement: "If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we."
>> Yes, if the speed of light were c+v, scientists would accept that and
>> kooks would have to find something else to kook about.
>>> Your theory of relativity is always wrong because it's always conflicting with the reproducible data
>> Such as...? Peer reviewed experiments, nothing from kꚙkbooks, please.
>>> of the Doppler effect for starlight.
>> The Doppler effect for starlight is in agreement with a constant speed
>> c, regardless of the motion of the source.
>>> You keep claiming your interpretations of data are data. Try to distinguish the difference.
>> Huh? If a rock weighs 10 kg, then it weighs 10 Kg. Nobody is going to
>> interpret that as the rock weighing 7 kg. If the speed of light is c,
>> then its speed is c. Period.
>>>
>>>> Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion.
>>>
>>> They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they?
>>> Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a
>>> religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic
>>> church as well.
>>>
>>> @This shows extreme ignorance of the history of science. Try to understand that the Catholic Church and Aristotelianism were united as the official science of the time.
>> Sorry, cherrypicking Bible phrases isn't science. Especially not modern
>> science. Science as we now know it didn't truly exist then, in fact
>> Galileo and Copernicus helped to create modern science, by believing in
>> what the data told them, not what the priests told them.
>>> Their problem was with the accepted science of Aristotelianism. They were going against its authority.
>> No, they were going against the authority of the church, who told them
>> this is what to believe despite the evidence.
>> The point is the established authority doesn't always operate
>> rationally. Relativity goes against the scientific method.
>> Say what? Measure the speed of light and it is always c. Relativity
>> predicts time dilation, scientists look for evidence of time dilation
>> and find it. Repeat for relativity of simultaneity. Repeat for length
>> contraction, much more elusive, but nothing contrary. Build particle
>> accelerators and watch them work. Design and build a GPS system and
>> watch it work.
>>> That's what its critics have pointed out all along.
>> So the critics have nothing.
>>>
>>>> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has been frequently.
>>>
>>> Galileo's bishops weren't scientists!
>>>
>>> @Neither are relativists! They are bishops.
>> Sorry, that's crankspeak, essentially calling the science of relativity
>> a religion, not science.
>>>
>>>> There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can use that to directly detect one-way speed of starlight from the frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer.
>>>
>>> Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength
>>> (diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both
>>> types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c,
>>> the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star)
>>>
>>> @Obviously, if you factor out the frequency and wavelength, you get c.
>> Yes, frequency*wavelength gives c.
>>>
>>>> For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>
>>> @Construing frequency changes as wavelength changes is ad hoc nonsense. That's what you have to rely on to deny that frequency is a measure of speed. Sirius' radial velocity is 5.5 km/sec. How could that be so if it is not c + 5.5?
>> Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when
>> Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec.
>> w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c.
>>
>> w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the
>> light from Sirius reaches us at c.
>>>
>>>> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.
>>>
>>> I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist
>>> and no physicist.
>>>
>>> @Otis was also a mathematician, and you are flunking his intelligence test.
>> But still not a physicist.
>> "Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when
> Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec.
> w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c.
> 
>> w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the
> light from Sirius reaches us at c. "
> 
> Math is a language and your math is jibberish. Why would you divide 300,005.5 km/sec by 1+5.5/c? That would not give c.

Sorry you have trouble keeping up. (300,005.5 km/sec)/(1+((5.5 
km/sec)/(300,000 km/sec))). It would have been better to simplify the 
equation before substituting for v.

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

#615862

From	Yudorki Poroskov <roks@syodoory.si>
Date	2023-07-21 21:51 +0000
Message-ID	<u9eulj$3m6o4$3@paganini.bofh.team>
In reply to	#615859

Volney wrote:

>> Math is a language and your math is jibberish. Why would you divide
>> 300,005.5 km/sec by 1+5.5/c? That would not give c.
> 
> Sorry you have trouble keeping up. (300,005.5 km/sec)/(1+((5.5
> km/sec)/(300,000 km/sec))). It would have been better to simplify the
> equation before substituting for v.

I beg you to reconsider.

Now, Erdogan is pleading with the West, presenting himself as a "peace 
maker" after what he did to Putin: he return the Nazi lunatic Azov 
commanders to the clown, allowed Sweden in NATO, practically stabbing 
Russia in the back. To think, Putin saved his ass when there was a coup 
against Erdogan. Putin didn't even retaliated when Erdogan air force shot 
down a Russian fighter jet. Erdogan is a slimy , little creature that 
cannot be trusted. One day he is with God, the next day dealing with the 
devil.

This Turkish trader is impossible to gauge. I wouldn't buy anything more 
from him, regardless of my nationality.

Erdogan lost all credibility by releasing detained nazi Azov commanders 
from his captivity. 𝗜_𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸_𝘁𝗼_𝗵𝗶𝗺_𝗮𝘁_𝗮𝗹𝗹.

Erdo and the UN had a over a year to resolve the issues but did not. Cause 
𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿_𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗼 was hoping and expecting Russia to lose the war.

https://%72t.com/news/580085-erdogan-grain-deal-putin/

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

#615876

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-07-21 22:02 -0700
Message-ID	<b98dd962-6330-4892-a9a9-8c453588cdc9n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615859

On Friday, 21 July 2023 at 23:37:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 7/21/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 2:08:21 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 7/20/2023 4:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >>> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter. 
> >>>>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> >>>>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> >>>>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we. 
> >>> 
> >>>> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ. 
> >>> 
> >>> So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has 
> >>> always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the 
> >>> source. Always. 
> >>> 
> >>> @It is stupid to deny that a change in frequency of light is not a direct measure of additive velocity. Light has only been interpreted as moving at c by some and not by other scientists—for example, Ritz. The data does not show that light always moves at c—quite the opposite. 
> >> Sorry, but the speed of light has repeatedly been measured, and it is 
> >> always c regardless of the motion of the source. As I said, facts always 
> >> overrule theory when they conflict. 
> >>> 
> >>>> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement. 
> >>> 
> >>> Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash 
> >>> statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the 
> >>> theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always 
> >>> moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong. 
> >>> 
> >>> @Your rash statement: "If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we." 
> >> Yes, if the speed of light were c+v, scientists would accept that and 
> >> kooks would have to find something else to kook about. 
> >>> Your theory of relativity is always wrong because it's always conflicting with the reproducible data 
> >> Such as...? Peer reviewed experiments, nothing from kꚙkbooks, please. 
> >>> of the Doppler effect for starlight. 
> >> The Doppler effect for starlight is in agreement with a constant speed 
> >> c, regardless of the motion of the source. 
> >>> You keep claiming your interpretations of data are data. Try to distinguish the difference. 
> >> Huh? If a rock weighs 10 kg, then it weighs 10 Kg. Nobody is going to 
> >> interpret that as the rock weighing 7 kg. If the speed of light is c, 
> >> then its speed is c. Period. 
> >>> 
> >>>> Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion. 
> >>> 
> >>> They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they? 
> >>> Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a 
> >>> religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic 
> >>> church as well. 
> >>> 
> >>> @This shows extreme ignorance of the history of science. Try to understand that the Catholic Church and Aristotelianism were united as the official science of the time. 
> >> Sorry, cherrypicking Bible phrases isn't science. Especially not modern 
> >> science. Science as we now know it didn't truly exist then, in fact 
> >> Galileo and Copernicus helped to create modern science, by believing in 
> >> what the data told them, not what the priests told them. 
> >>> Their problem was with the accepted science of Aristotelianism. They were going against its authority. 
> >> No, they were going against the authority of the church, who told them 
> >> this is what to believe despite the evidence. 
> >> The point is the established authority doesn't always operate 
> >> rationally. Relativity goes against the scientific method. 
> >> Say what? Measure the speed of light and it is always c. Relativity 
> >> predicts time dilation, scientists look for evidence of time dilation 
> >> and find it. Repeat for relativity of simultaneity. Repeat for length 
> >> contraction, much more elusive, but nothing contrary. Build particle 
> >> accelerators and watch them work. Design and build a GPS system and 
> >> watch it work. 
> >>> That's what its critics have pointed out all along. 
> >> So the critics have nothing. 
> >>> 
> >>>> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has been frequently. 
> >>> 
> >>> Galileo's bishops weren't scientists! 
> >>> 
> >>> @Neither are relativists! They are bishops. 
> >> Sorry, that's crankspeak, essentially calling the science of relativity 
> >> a religion, not science. 
> >>> 
> >>>> There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can use that to directly detect one-way speed of starlight from the frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer. 
> >>> 
> >>> Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength 
> >>> (diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both 
> >>> types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c, 
> >>> the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star) 
> >>> 
> >>> @Obviously, if you factor out the frequency and wavelength, you get c. 
> >> Yes, frequency*wavelength gives c. 
> >>> 
> >>>> For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec. 
> >>> 
> >>> No, it doesn't. 
> >>> 
> >>> @Construing frequency changes as wavelength changes is ad hoc nonsense. That's what you have to rely on to deny that frequency is a measure of speed. Sirius' radial velocity is 5.5 km/sec. How could that be so if it is not c + 5.5? 
> >> Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when 
> >> Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec. 
> >> w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c. 
> >> 
> >> w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the 
> >> light from Sirius reaches us at c. 
> >>> 
> >>>> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963. 
> >>> 
> >>> I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist 
> >>> and no physicist. 
> >>> 
> >>> @Otis was also a mathematician, and you are flunking his intelligence test. 
> >> But still not a physicist. 
> >> "Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when 
> > Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec. 
> > w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c. 
> > 
> >> w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the 
> > light from Sirius reaches us at c. " 
> > 
> > Math is a language and your math is jibberish. Why would you divide 300,005.5 km/sec by 1+5.5/c? That would not give c.
> Sorry you have trouble keeping up. (300,005.5 km/sec)/(1+((5.5 

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]

#615783

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date	2023-07-20 13:23 -0700
Message-ID	<b9256cdd-df99-497f-ab61-c52d5788c2fcn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#615774

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 1:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 7:55:54 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 7/19/2023 6:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: 
> >>>> On 7/19/2023 4:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>>> The only reason Lorentz and Poincare came up with their transformations was to save the ether from the null result of the MMX. I was pointing to the mindless reverence Einstein showed the Maxwell equations even after he discarded the ether which was implicit in them. 
> >> 
> >>>> Although Maxwell believed in an aether, Einstein certainly noticed that 
> >>>> Maxwell's Equations didn't directly reference any aether. The speed of 
> >>>> light in Maxwell's Equations, for example, depends only on the constants 
> >>>> we now call epsilon_0 and mu_0. (Additionally, differing speeds of 
> >>>> light at the observer would imply there were different values of 
> >>>> epsilon_0 and/or mu_0 for different sources. Which is a rather bizarre 
> >>>> notion) 
> >> 
> >>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter. 
> >> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure 
> >> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of the 
> >> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that. 
> >> 
> >> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we. 
> 
> > Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? I beg to differ.
> So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has 
> always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the 
> source. Always.
> > There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, and there is literature that you might like to consult before making a rash statement.
> Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash 
> statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the 
> theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always 
> moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong.
> > Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion.
> They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they? 
> Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a 
> religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic 
> church as well.
> > These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted science has been frequently.
> Galileo's bishops weren't scientists!
> > There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can use that to directly detect one way speed of starlight from the frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer.
> Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength 
> (diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both 
> types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c, 
> the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star)
> > For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec.
> No, it doesn't.
> > Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.
> I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist 
> and no physicist.
Frequency is universally accepted to be a direct measure of the speed of sound as in ambulance sirens, giving S + V.

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

#615788

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-20 18:05 -0400
Message-ID	<u9cb2v$2sr9j$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615783

On 7/20/2023 4:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Frequency is universally accepted to be a direct measure of the speed of sound as in ambulance sirens, giving S + V.

But light isn't sound, is it. Sound is a wave in a medium and travels at 
a speed relative to the medium. Light isn't.

Coming up with the luminiferous aether which existed to transport light 
like sound waves and for light to move relative to, probably set physics 
back a decade or two.

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

#615790

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-20 17:39 -0500
Message-ID	<khtrd1Fh2pcU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615788

On 7/20/2023 5:05 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 4:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 
>> Frequency is universally accepted to be a direct measure of the speed 
>> of sound as in ambulance sirens, giving S + V.
> 
> But light isn't sound, is it. Sound is a wave in a medium and travels at 
> a speed relative to the medium. Light isn't.
> 
> Coming up with the luminiferous aether which existed to transport light 
> like sound waves and for light to move relative to, probably set physics 
> back a decade or two.

Einstein threw up his hands and said some form of ether exists but
he didn't know what it is.

Partial quote:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of
light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and
time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed
with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of
parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
applied to it."

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

BTW, Laurence's understanding is quite limited. Sound is the actual
manipulation of a medium where light appears to move from one
transmitting medium to another unimpeded. e.g air to water to air
again. Sound sustains significant losses during similar motion.

There is *no* rational equivalency between light and sound.

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

#615813

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-07-20 22:49 -0400
Message-ID	<u9croj$33b2t$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#615790

On 7/20/2023 6:39 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 5:05 PM, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/20/2023 4:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>> Frequency is universally accepted to be a direct measure of the speed 
>>> of sound as in ambulance sirens, giving S + V.
>>
>> But light isn't sound, is it. Sound is a wave in a medium and travels 
>> at a speed relative to the medium. Light isn't.
>>
>> Coming up with the luminiferous aether which existed to transport 
>> light like sound waves and for light to move relative to, probably set 
>> physics back a decade or two.
> 
> Einstein threw up his hands and said some form of ether exists but
> he didn't know what it is.
> 
Yes but the luminiferous aether wasn't it. He accepted that empty space 
could host things like electric fields but the luminiferous aether was 
more like air to a sound wave, something which actively propagated light.

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

#615825

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date	2023-07-21 00:12 -0500
Message-ID	<khuif0Fki4lU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#615813

On 7/20/2023 9:49 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 6:39 PM, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/20/2023 5:05 PM, Volney wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2023 4:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frequency is universally accepted to be a direct measure of the 
>>>> speed of sound as in ambulance sirens, giving S + V.
>>>
>>> But light isn't sound, is it. Sound is a wave in a medium and travels 
>>> at a speed relative to the medium. Light isn't.
>>>
>>> Coming up with the luminiferous aether which existed to transport 
>>> light like sound waves and for light to move relative to, probably 
>>> set physics back a decade or two.
>>
>> Einstein threw up his hands and said some form of ether exists but
>> he didn't know what it is.
>>
> Yes but the luminiferous aether wasn't it. He accepted that empty space 
> could host things like electric fields but the luminiferous aether was 
> more like air to a sound wave, something which actively propagated light.

Without disputing your take on this matter I can only recognize that
which I read, not read into. Again more questions than answers.

Einstein presumed that something transmits light. Brilliant as he
was I don't know I'm ready to follow him on this particular trek.
On some things he was certain, but this was not one of those. It
would certainly be more convenient to blindly follow. But where
he poses a question I eagerly listen and patiently wait, quite
probably past the end of my life.

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

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

csiph-web

Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

Contents

#615757

#615759

#615769

#615774

#615779

#615934

#615938

#615782

#615787

#615789

#615822

#615845

#615859

#615862

#615876

#615783

#615788

#615790

#615813

#615825