Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616449 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-31 16:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-01 21:33 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 16:42 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-01 10:41 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 18:15 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 18:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-01 12:10 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 21:47 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 22:04 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 15:52 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:50 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 02:55 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:57 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 03:09 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 07:01 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:01 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 12:42 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Rob Bibler <rreb@bieillii.ir> - 2023-08-03 20:02 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 14:29 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 22:37 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:28 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 04:11 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 13:34 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:41 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 23:31 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:21 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 00:50 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 10:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 14:38 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 10:11 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-06 21:00 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:34 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Rondell Verre <eror@vedllele.ee> - 2023-08-05 20:10 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:52 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 12:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 14:43 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:36 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:22 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:00 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 17:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:39 -0400
Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-07 15:53 +0000
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 19:24 +0200
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-07 18:32 +0000
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 22:43 +0200
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:29 -0500
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 16:45 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 11:01 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 16:48 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Nat Vaikule <nukv@vektnaaa.nv> - 2023-08-07 21:25 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:34 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Jarrell Martirosov <ajrr@riilromm.aa> - 2023-08-08 10:03 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 18:01 -0500
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 18:53 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 19:07 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 13:20 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 18:58 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ronaldo Amerhanov <hera@aeladhrd.ma> - 2023-08-12 20:57 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 06:07 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:06 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-14 16:21 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:39 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ozzie Jakushov <ezhu@ijjhhouv.az> - 2023-08-04 21:35 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Beraldo Hapy <lhap@aaloyohe.pl> - 2023-08-05 03:00 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 05:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Dalton Dubman <nlat@tualtadd.db> - 2023-08-08 14:02 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-08 10:45 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:48 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 12:31 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 08:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 11:56 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Kaosayn Shakhbazyan <nazs@aoonaaoo.ah> - 2023-08-10 16:30 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:12 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 16:04 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 00:19 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 19:06 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 02:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-04 08:03 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:23 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-04 13:22 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 01:21 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 19:10 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:56 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 08:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 16:13 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 09:24 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:22 +0200
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 17:28 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 10:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 04:25 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 09:08 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:14 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 07:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Shkelqim Jadrennikov <meem@qnoeeooq.ds> - 2023-08-01 20:49 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 22:57 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 06:43 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:11 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Darling Vavravsky <rlrg@kakkdvyv.lv> - 2023-08-01 20:33 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Chaney Charnolusky <ycck@sarhhnkn.ca> - 2023-08-01 20:59 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 08:33 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-01 23:09 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 09:15 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-02 10:17 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 03:23 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-02 11:47 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 05:12 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 16:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 16:51 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 10:57 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 18:26 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 23:04 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:59 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 23:00 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 15:01 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Moody Vallah <mahv@ohoymldo.lv> - 2023-08-03 19:41 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:00 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction James Dzhunkovsky <uskv@mdjjsnue.ze> - 2023-08-03 19:23 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:07 +0200
Re: There is no material length contraction JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 18:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Lamont Bakhmutov <mktk@tomhmtmm.ml> - 2023-08-01 21:10 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Thad Mokrinsky <aonk@yoitaito.rm> - 2023-08-01 21:33 +0000
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-04 13:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3WfklATjbbf4CjjVukCMPAxz6cM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616739 |
Le 04/08/2023 à 00:03, Sylvia Else a écrit : > It predicts the result of observing the ticks through a telescope, and > measuring the interval between them. The relativistic Doppler effect > formula gives the answer. > Sylvia. In current kinematics, there is a longitudinal Doppler effect (for example the Doppler effect relating to sounds). But in relativity, it is difficult to speak of a single Doppler effect, because there are two. There were also two in classical mechanics, but the second effect is so weak for low speeds (gamma factor) that it is rightly ignored. I think (not out of arrogance, but out of love of what is true) that it would be better on this point to adopt my terminology. I call longitudinal relativistic effect the effect of the first degree due to spatial anisochrony (or speed of light). I call INTERNAL relativistic effect the effect of the second degree linked to the relativistic factor gamma. I refute the idea of transverse Doppler effect which leads to confusion. When I see a rocket arriving at me, its displacement is purely longitudinal (cosµ=-1). It therefore has a longitudinal Doppler effect of the first degree. But it also has a "transverse" Doppler effect as it does not move transversely in any way. The term therefore seems to me liable to misinterpretation. I therefore prefer the term INTERNAL Doppler effect. These two Doppler effects are cumulative. The object which moves in space will therefore undergo two Doppler effects and the residual equations will become for the apparent speeds, for the perceived proper durations, for the perceived lengths, and for the received wavelengths. Vapp=Vo/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) t'=t.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) L'=L.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) lambda'=lambda.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) Notion of relativistic Doppler effects, my love Sylvia. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 01:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97545b69-8098-41ef-8b90-1f045ccbc547n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616648 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 11:04:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 01-Aug-23 3:12 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 04:10:22 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 01-Aug-23 11:38 am, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:41:31 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable. > >>>>> Here's how: > >>>>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames. > >>>>> 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is > >>>>> contracting. > >>>>> This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation > >>>>> to give him constant light speed in all frames. > >>>>> The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows: > >>>>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames. > >>>>> 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick .... > >>>>> 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material > >>>>> length.. > >>>>> 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma. > >>>>> 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said > >>>> there was. > >>> > >>> So what did Einstein said what is contracting? The LPL as I said above? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > >> measurements. That's it. > > > > Is it, lady? > > So, if anyone asked your insdane guru: "an observer > > moving with c/2 wrt solar system is going to measure > > a day. What result do you expect in the name of your > > insane physics?" > > The answer would be...? > > Such questions are ill-framed. The observer is moving, so their distance > away from the Earth will vary over the course of day, and the time light > takes to travel from the Earth to the observer will also vary. > > So what is an Earth day from the perspective of the observer? Is it the > time it takes for the observer to see the Earth rotate once through a > powerful telescope? > > Perhaps you want it to be the time it takes to rotate in the observer's > coordinate system, but that has no physical reality, because it's not > something that can be measured, even in principle. It represents just > part of the mathematical model that the observer can use to calculate > the expected length of the day as seen by the observer though their > telescope. > > Sylvia. Sylvia, Where your model of proper & coordinate time betrays itself as useless is when one tries to simultaneously model how massive bodies are attracted to one another when in equilibrium wrt that attraction. Einstein had to punt on that entire aspect of his theory--it forced him to compartmentalize relativity into two flavors: special and general. And for a long time, right up until a few months ago, people believed that general relativity did in fact rescue special relativity from falsification by that mutual attraction. But then the Big Ben Paradox came along and upset everything. Now it is back to the drawing board for SR if it is to be salvaged for a new generation of students and their textbooks. As of right now, SR is as wrecked as the supposed "age of the Universe" calculations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 19:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kj198pFb2gpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616654 |
On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 11:04:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 01-Aug-23 3:12 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 04:10:22 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 01-Aug-23 11:38 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:41:31 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable. >>>>>>> Here's how: >>>>>>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames. >>>>>>> 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is >>>>>>> contracting. >>>>>>> This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation >>>>>>> to give him constant light speed in all frames. >>>>>>> The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows: >>>>>>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames. >>>>>>> 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick .... >>>>>>> 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material >>>>>>> length.. >>>>>>> 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma. >>>>>>> 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said >>>>>> there was. >>>>> >>>>> So what did Einstein said what is contracting? The LPL as I said above? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do >>>> measurements. That's it. >>> >>> Is it, lady? >>> So, if anyone asked your insdane guru: "an observer >>> moving with c/2 wrt solar system is going to measure >>> a day. What result do you expect in the name of your >>> insane physics?" >>> The answer would be...? >> >> Such questions are ill-framed. The observer is moving, so their distance >> away from the Earth will vary over the course of day, and the time light >> takes to travel from the Earth to the observer will also vary. >> >> So what is an Earth day from the perspective of the observer? Is it the >> time it takes for the observer to see the Earth rotate once through a >> powerful telescope? >> >> Perhaps you want it to be the time it takes to rotate in the observer's >> coordinate system, but that has no physical reality, because it's not >> something that can be measured, even in principle. It represents just >> part of the mathematical model that the observer can use to calculate >> the expected length of the day as seen by the observer though their >> telescope. >> >> Sylvia. > Sylvia, > > Where your model of proper & coordinate time betrays itself as useless is when one tries to simultaneously model how massive bodies are attracted to one another when in equilibrium wrt that attraction. Einstein had to punt on that entire aspect of his theory--it forced him to compartmentalize relativity into two flavors: special and general. And for a long time, right up until a few months ago, people believed that general relativity did in fact rescue special relativity from falsification by that mutual attraction. But then the Big Ben Paradox came along and upset everything. Now it is back to the drawing board for SR if it is to be salvaged for a new generation of students and their textbooks. As of right now, SR is as wrecked as the supposed "age of the Universe" calculations. You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 09:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1dGSEYF97DIbJgWs-9uNz3xlLYs@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616656 |
Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit : > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote: > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't. > > Sylvia. Quel est ce problème? Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en quelques secondes si on me l'expose. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5768a32b-5131-4395-8682-efd2fbf5f815n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616660 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit : > > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote: > > > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't. > > > > Sylvia. > Quel est ce problème? > > Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en > quelques secondes si on me l'expose. > > R.H. Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox Bonne chance, Patrice Doleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iBXUtbfH3Aq4uVBlewVOTUq8IWg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616682 |
Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit : > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote: >> >> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't. >> > >> > Sylvia. >> Quel est ce problème? >> >> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en >> quelques secondes si on me l'expose. >> >> R.H. > > Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe. > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox > > Bonne chance, > > Patrice Doleon --- Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with special relativity. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun. Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not? Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit. --- Merci beaucoup Patrice, je vais traduire ça en français, et je vais répondre si je peux. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33b89fe5-0025-443f-b3d2-be06c42b40ccn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616683 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:13:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit : > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit : > >> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote: > >> > >> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't. > >> > > >> > Sylvia. > >> Quel est ce problème? > >> > >> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en > >> quelques secondes si on me l'expose. > >> > >> R.H. > > > > Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe. > > > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox > > > > Bonne chance, > > > > Patrice Doleon > --- > Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2 > ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the > sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, > the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in > London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant > observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every > two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand, in accordance with > special relativity. He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still > makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around > the sun. From these two observations the distant observer concludes that > in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only > half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the > sun. > > Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not? > > Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant > spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit. > --- > > Merci beaucoup Patrice, je vais traduire ça en français, et je vais > répondre si je peux. > > R.H. Dr. Hachel, may I suggest that you appeal to the generous spirits of Python and rotchm, who I believe are Frenchman and French Canadian respectively, to translate the Big Ben Paradox a la francias. They have a command of both the English language and the Big Ben Paradox. I believe that Athel also has a command of your language and is also a keen student of the BBP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 20:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kj29isFg5n3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616684 |
On 2023-08-03 16:24:53 +0000, patdolan said: > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 9:13:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit :> > On Thursday, August 3, >> 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:> >> Le 03/08/2023 à >> 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit :> >> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan >> wrote:> >>> >> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a >> problem. I don't.> >> >> >> > Sylvia.> >> Quel est ce problème?> >>> >> >> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre >> en> >> quelques secondes si on me l'expose.> >>> >> R.H.> >> > Voilà, >> Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe.> >> > >> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox> >> >> > Bonne chance,> >> > Patrice Doleon >> ---> Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( γ=2> ) relative >> to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the> sun's >> axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him,> the >> distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in> >> London. After taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant> >> observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for >> every> two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand, in >> accordance with> special relativity. He also observes that Big Ben's >> little hand still> makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that >> the earth makes around> the sun. From these two observations the >> distant observer concludes that> in his inertial frame of reference the >> earth's orbital velocity is only> half the velocity necessary to keep >> the earth in stable orbit around the> sun.>> Will the earth spiral into >> the sun? If not, why not?>> Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in >> this paradox. Invariant> spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause >> of the earth's orbit.> --->> Merci beaucoup Patrice, je vais traduire >> ça en français, et je vais> répondre si je peux.>> R.H. > Dr. Hachel, may I suggest that you appeal to the generous spirits of > Python and rotchm, who I believe are Frenchman and French Canadian > respectively, to translate the Big Ben Paradox a la francias. They > have a command of both the English language and the Big Ben Paradox. I > believe that Athel also has a command of your language command is too strong, but I can make myself understood. > and is also a keen student of the BBP. If you believe that you'll believe anything. -- athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MkmOMbc0elpaNZ_2Db1Fqhw24Qw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616682 |
Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit : > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote: >> >> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't. >> > >> > Sylvia. >> Quel est ce problème? >> >> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en >> quelques secondes si on me l'expose. >> >> R.H. > > Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe. > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox > > Bonne chance, > > Patrice Doleon If we admit that the rocket passes very far (say a thousand light years from the earth) and transversely, we can imagine that it will have time to remain transverse long enough to measure the effects of slowing down time by 2 for quite a long time. Moreover, the perimeter of revolution of the earth around the sun will be smaller, because if the Oy axis is invariant, everyone knows that the Ox axis will be halved. We will have a period twice as long (it apparently turns less quickly) and on a shorter circumference. These two effects, if they were real, would favor a fall of the body in the center of the system. However, it is quite obvious that it is not because an extraterrestrial rocket will pass 1000 light-years from the earth that the earth will decide to fall on the sun. It's absurd. So yes, the earth will appear to rotate half as fast as a period of revolution, and on an ellipse a=R and b=R/2. But that is only an appearance. Let's take the problem differently. Suppose the rocket is hurtling towards the earth at 0.8c. We imagine that the earth's orbit is drawn on a piece of paper on the table and the rocket descends from the ceiling towards the plane of the orbit drawn. The rocket does not perceive any contraction of the distances, since it approaches the plane without transverse displacement. The orbit is intact. But on the other hand, terrestrial watches rotate three times faster, and the earth rotates three times faster around its orbit. It is obvious that if it were real, at this speed three times greater, it would leave its axis. v'(tang_app)=v(tang).sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)] These are only effects of perspective. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0440225e-b265-4f0a-8822-be59c6c2200cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616687 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:28:03 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 03/08/2023 à 17:57, patdolan a écrit : > > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:56:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > >> Le 03/08/2023 à 11:10, Sylvia Else a écrit : > >> > On 03-Aug-23 6:21 pm, patdolan wrote: > >> > >> > You seem to think that the Big Ben paradox is a problem. I don't. > >> > > >> > Sylvia. > >> Quel est ce problème? > >> > >> Je ne connais pas ce paradoxe, mais je peux probablement le résoudre en > >> quelques secondes si on me l'expose. > >> > >> R.H. > > > > Voilà, Dr Hachel. S'il vous plaît essayez de résoudre le paradoxe. > > > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/768152/big-ben-paradox > > > > Bonne chance, > > > > Patrice Doleon > If we admit that the rocket passes very far (say a thousand light years > from the earth) and transversely, we can imagine that it will have time to > remain transverse long enough to measure the effects of slowing down time > by 2 for quite a long time. > > Moreover, the perimeter of revolution of the earth around the sun will be > smaller, because if the Oy axis is invariant, everyone knows that the Ox > axis will be halved. > > We will have a period twice as long (it apparently turns less quickly) and > on a shorter circumference. > > These two effects, if they were real, would favor a fall of the body in > the center of the system. > > However, it is quite obvious that it is not because an extraterrestrial > rocket will pass 1000 light-years from the earth that the earth will > decide to fall on the sun. It's absurd. > > So yes, the earth will appear to rotate half as fast as a period of > revolution, and on an ellipse a=R and b=R/2. > > But that is only an appearance. > > Let's take the problem differently. Suppose the rocket is hurtling towards > the earth at 0.8c. We imagine that the earth's orbit is drawn on a piece > of paper on the table and the rocket descends from the ceiling towards the > plane of the orbit drawn. > > The rocket does not perceive any contraction of the distances, since it > approaches the plane without transverse displacement. The orbit is intact. > > But on the other hand, terrestrial watches rotate three times faster, and > the earth rotates three times faster around its orbit. > > It is obvious that if it were real, at this speed three times greater, it > would leave its axis. v'(tang_app)=v(tang).sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)] > > These are only effects of perspective. > > R.H. Thank you for your insights, Dr. Hachel. BTW, I notice that your posts to Sylvia continue to demonstrate an increasing warmth of sentiment and, dare I say, romance. Please keep this forum informed in the event of an engagement and/or nuptials.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 04:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8524e56-ff85-4d2c-9418-d8b0911f7fc8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616456 |
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 01-Aug-23 11:38 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:41:31 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 01-Aug-23 9:42 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> Einstein invented length contraction to make his Postulate P2 constant light speed in all frames viable.
> >>> Here's how:
> >>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remain constant in all frames.
> >>> 2. Einstein invented length contraction without specifyin what is
> >>> contracting.
> >>> This allowed him to claim that Length contraction along with time dilation
> >>> to give him constant light speed in all frames.
> >>> The real reason why the speed of light is not constant in all frames is as follows:
> >>> 1. The material length of a meter stick remains constant in all frames.
> >>> 2. The light-path-length (LPL)...the length that light must travel to cover the material length of a meter stick ....
> >>> 3. The LPL of the observer's meter stick is 1meter ...the same as its material
> >>> length..
> >>> 4. The LPL of a meter moving wrt the observer is predicted to be 1/gamma or gamma.
> >>> 5. Einstein assumed that the LPL of the moving meter stick only 1/gamma. and thus all meter stick moving wrt the observer will have LPL 1/gamma. This is wrong. The LPL of a moving meter can be gamma. This means that SR is only half of the story.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Indeed, there is no material length contraction. Einstein never said
> >> there was.
> >
> > So what did Einstein said what is contracting? The LPL as I said above?
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do
> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain
> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you,
> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable
> conse
Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better.
My model:
1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in
the aether.
2 Material length (such as a meter stick) is constant in all frames
3. The length light need to t ravel to cover the material length of a meter stick is variable..and this length is identified as LPL. (light path length)
4. The time for light tio cover the material length of a meter stick is variable.
5. Variable length/variable time = Constant "c"
So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 09:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uab058$3lnuo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616491 |
On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do >> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain >> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, >> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable >> conse > > Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for your non-model to be better. > My model: > 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in [...] > So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. You do realize, don't you, that you just contradicted yourself? A self-contradictory "model" can't be a scientific model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 06:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f38baa9-7118-49a3-8729-38bedff7170dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616498 |
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 15:08:59 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > >> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain > >> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, > >> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable > >> conse > > > > Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for > your non-model to be better. > > My model: > > 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in > [...] > > So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. > You do realize, don't you, that you just contradicted yourself? > > A self-contradictory "model" can't be a scientific model. Of course it can, your Shit is an example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbcc7c15-5f3c-45e4-87e1-22c61ccfbcc1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616498 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:59 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > >> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain > >> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, > >> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable > >> conse > > > > Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for > your non-model to be better. Hey idiot.why my model is not a model??? > > My model: > > 1. The speed of light is variable...it depends on the absolute speed of the source and the receiver in > [...] > > So you see ......my model is better because it provides explanation why the sped of light is constant in all frames. > You do realize, don't you, that you just contradicted yourself? > > A self-contradictory "model" can't be a scientific model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4482df5-54fa-4500-8481-2a0dcb98e29an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616508 |
What could take away atomic length and its fundamental absolute dimensions? How does speed math do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shkelqim Jadrennikov <meem@qnoeeooq.ds> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 20:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uabr4l$3nge7$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #616517 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > What could take away atomic length and its fundamental absolute > dimensions? How does speed math do it? you too, a 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 from ukurina by chance?? You talk very 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆. there are no time and spatial dimensions in 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺_𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀. Atoms are quantum. You never see an atom, but just imagine it and approximate. who is your daddy, in physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-01 22:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uacgn3$3umcv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616508 |
On 8/1/2023 10:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:59 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do >>>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain >>>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, >>>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable >>>> conse >>> >>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. >> You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for >> your non-model to be better. > > Hey idiot.why my model is not a model??? Because you never followed the scientific method. Because you don't show that you derived any hypothesis from scientific observations and evidence. Because you show no experiments which support your "theory". Because you don't show your own experimental results when testing/developing your "theory". Because you provide no examples of your "theory" in practice, showing others not familiar with it how it works/what happens. Because you make no predictions for the outcome of experiments from your "theory". Because you don't provide any experiment that, when performed, will produce one outcome if your "theory" is correct and another outcome if your "theory" is wrong, and ordinary physics is correct. This would validate or refute your "theory". All this is necessary to develop a science model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c8c18fc-1de5-47c5-95f6-762925c7b205n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616577 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:57:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 8/1/2023 10:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:59 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > >>>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain > >>>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, > >>>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable > >>>> conse > >>> > >>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > >> You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for > >> your non-model to be better. > > > > Hey idiot.why my model is not a model??? > Because you never followed the scientific method. > > Because you don't show that you derived any hypothesis from scientific > observations and evidence. > > Because you show no experiments which support your "theory". > > Because you don't show your own experimental results when > testing/developing your "theory". > > Because you provide no examples of your "theory" in practice, showing > others not familiar with it how it works/what happens. > > Because you make no predictions for the outcome of experiments from your > "theory". > > Because you don't provide any experiment that, when performed, will > produce one outcome if your "theory" is correct and another outcome if > your "theory" is wrong, and ordinary physics is correct. This would > validate or refute your "theory". > All these artificial becauses cause scientists failed to find the simple model that could lead to a simple model that can lead to a simple TOE......after 110 years of trying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 14:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uagqjn$rop6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616673 |
On 8/3/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:57:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 8/1/2023 10:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:59 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do >>>>>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain >>>>>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, >>>>>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable >>>>>> conse >>>>> >>>>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. >>>> You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for >>>> your non-model to be better. >>> >>> Hey idiot.why my model is not a model??? >> Because you never followed the scientific method. >> >> Because you don't show that you derived any hypothesis from scientific >> observations and evidence. >> >> Because you show no experiments which support your "theory". >> >> Because you don't show your own experimental results when >> testing/developing your "theory". >> >> Because you provide no examples of your "theory" in practice, showing >> others not familiar with it how it works/what happens. >> >> Because you make no predictions for the outcome of experiments from your >> "theory". >> >> Because you don't provide any experiment that, when performed, will >> produce one outcome if your "theory" is correct and another outcome if >> your "theory" is wrong, and ordinary physics is correct. This would >> validate or refute your "theory". >> > All these artificial becauses cause scientists failed to find the simple model that > could lead to a simple model that can lead to a simple TOE......after 110 years of trying. No, Stupid Ken. Each of those statements come from the scientific method. All scientists need to follow the scientific method if they wish to create a valid scientific model. The lack of a TOE is irrelevant. It just means nobody has discovered a valid TOE so far. And apparently any such TOE will not be simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-03 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e692cbd-ce83-4a46-a662-244814812c3an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616698 |
On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 20:11:07 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/3/2023 9:43 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:57:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/1/2023 10:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:08:59 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/1/2023 7:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:10:22 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Relativity is a theoretical model. It tells you what to expect if you do > >>>>>> measurements. That's it. If you want to interpret the result of certain > >>>>>> measurements as meaning that a length has contracted, that's up to you, > >>>>>> but it goes beyond the theory, and your interpretation has no observable > >>>>>> conse > >>>>> > >>>>> Ha.....so relativity is a model I think that my model is better. > >>>> You don't even have a science model, Stupid Ken, so it's impossible for > >>>> your non-model to be better. > >>> > >>> Hey idiot.why my model is not a model??? > >> Because you never followed the scientific method. > >> > >> Because you don't show that you derived any hypothesis from scientific > >> observations and evidence. > >> > >> Because you show no experiments which support your "theory". > >> > >> Because you don't show your own experimental results when > >> testing/developing your "theory". > >> > >> Because you provide no examples of your "theory" in practice, showing > >> others not familiar with it how it works/what happens. > >> > >> Because you make no predictions for the outcome of experiments from your > >> "theory". > >> > >> Because you don't provide any experiment that, when performed, will > >> produce one outcome if your "theory" is correct and another outcome if > >> your "theory" is wrong, and ordinary physics is correct. This would > >> validate or refute your "theory". > >> > > All these artificial becauses cause scientists failed to find the simple model that > > could lead to a simple model that can lead to a simple TOE......after 110 years of trying. > No, Stupid Ken. Each of those statements come from the scientific > method. All scientists need to follow the scientific method if they wish > to create a valid scientific model. Only such an idiot can beliave such absurd lies, stupid Mike. Bur anyway, your Shit is not a valid scientific model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web