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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359488 > unrolled thread

BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY?

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

Contents

  BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 03:44 -0700
    Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-03 07:32 -0400
      Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-03 15:53 +0000
        Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-03 14:03 -0400
          Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-03 19:23 +0000
    Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 05:50 -0700
      Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-03 15:19 +0000
      Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-08-03 22:25 +0200
        Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:51 -0700
    Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 07:19 -0700
      Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 07:28 -0700
      Re: BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 12:00 -0700
        PENTCHO VALEV DISHONEST AND JUST SILLY Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 12:04 -0700

#359488 — BRIAN COX DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0 
 Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly" 

They don't. Even if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate were true, "Moving clocks run slowly" still remains a false statement. As shown in the picture below, according to Einstein's relativity, a single MOVING clock does indeed show less and less time elapsed than multiple stationary clocks as it passes them consecutively: 

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/Clocks_1.png 

However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks moving, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that this time the STATIONARY CLOCK SHOWS LESS AND LESS TIME ELAPSED than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency - it predicts that moving clocks run both slower and faster than stationary clocks. We have reductio ad absurdum, which means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#359489

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0 
> Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly" 
>
>They don't. Even if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate were true, "Moving clocks run slowly" still remains a false statement. As shown in the picture below, according to Einstein's relativity, a single MOVING clock does indeed show less and less time elapsed than multiple stationary clocks as it passes them consecutively: 
>
>http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Reciprocity/Clocks_1.png 
>
>However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks moving, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that this time the STATIONARY CLOCK SHOWS LESS AND LESS TIME ELAPSED than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency - it predicts that moving clocks run both slower and faster than stationary clocks. We have reductio ad absurdum, which means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.
>
>Pentcho Valev

         Idiot, it is not "moving" that causes the relative 
elapsed time, it is arriving at a destination in less
time than Newton predicts.

        And it doesn't matter if it is a round trip, or not.
There is no way to reverse the situation as long as
an actual physical distance is traveled.


       Distance, speed and time are the parameters,
and experiments clearly show Einstein was right.

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

#359524

kefischer wrote:

>         Idiot, it is not "moving" that causes the relative
> elapsed time, it is arriving at a destination in less time than Newton
> predicts.

So you imply an "arriving" without motion "moving". How is this possible 
according to the divergent matter model?

>         And it doesn't matter if it is a round trip, or not.
> There is no way to reverse the situation as long as an actual physical
> distance is traveled.

The round trip is necessary to compare the clocks, without which the whole 
thing gets irrelevant.

>        Distance, speed and time are the parameters,
> and experiments clearly show Einstein was right.

Name one. Anyway, those are dimensions, not parameters. Parameters are 
only when you parametrise and used to define and express the 
characteristics of a system. For instance, in

   f(x)=ax^2+bx+c;

a, b and c are parameters, but not x.

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

#359540

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:53:28 +0000 (UTC), Bohu¹ Matu¹ka
<bohu@paranetnet.net> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>>         Idiot, it is not "moving" that causes the relative
>> elapsed time, it is arriving at a destination in less time than Newton
>> predicts.
>
>So you imply an "arriving" without motion "moving". How is this possible 
>according to the divergent matter model?

       Stop faking the language problem, TROLL,
obviously there is motion  in the trip, but that
motion is not what causes the difference in
clock readings.

       Going faster (in the Divergent  Matter model)
means the quicker you get there, the less the
Earth has expanded, so the trip was not as long
as it would be at slower speeds.

       In space (in the model), massive bodies
have to be moving apart at high velocity to
avoid expanding into each other, which has
nothing to do with space itself.
       Examination of actual experiments is
needed in some cases in order to understand
what happens, that has been done in some
cases, not in others.
      

>>         And it doesn't matter if it is a round trip, or not.
>> There is no way to reverse the situation as long as an actual physical
>> distance is traveled.
>
>The round trip is necessary to compare the clocks, without which the whole 
>thing gets irrelevant.

         The phenomenon has been checked in a
number of ways, and it is clear that going faster
and getting there or back here is what causes
the difference.

          A round trip is no different than two
one-way trips, except for being able to
compare clocks side by side.

         The clocks in Paris run at the same
rate as the ones in Denver, so the effect
should show up in that one-way trip.                


>>        Distance, speed and time are the parameters,
>> and experiments clearly show Einstein was right.
>
>Name one. Anyway, those are dimensions, not parameters. Parameters are 
>only when you parametrise and used to define and express the 
>characteristics of a system. For instance, in
>
>   f(x)=ax^2+bx+c;
>
>a, b and c are parameters, but not x.

        Nonsense, time is a dimension in 
General Relativity, it is not in Newtonian
mechanics, and Divergent Matter uses
Newtonian mechanics modified by the
expansion of matter and everything but
space distances (space distance should
not be confused with the number of
meters that will fit between objects if
they are moving relative to each other).

      Divergent Matter uses "rational physics",
from the first thought of the floor accelerating
upward, to the fact that "gravitational forces"
acting at a distance   DO   NOT  EXIST,
and there is  NO   SUCH  THING  as
gravitational mass.

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

#359548

kefischer wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:53:28 +0000 (UTC), Bohu¹ Matu¹ka
> <bohu@paranetnet.net> wrote:
> 
>>kefischer wrote:
>>
>>>         Idiot, it is not "moving" that causes the relative
>>> elapsed time, it is arriving at a destination in less time than Newton
>>> predicts.
>>
>>So you imply an "arriving" without motion "moving". How is this possible
>>according to the divergent matter model?
> 
>        Stop faking the language problem, TROLL,
> obviously there is motion  in the trip, but that motion is not what
> causes the difference in clock readings.
>        Going faster (in the Divergent  Matter model)
> means the quicker you get there, the less the Earth has expanded, so the
> trip was not as long as it would be at slower speeds.

This is great. Right?

>        In space (in the model), massive bodies
> have to be moving apart at high velocity to avoid expanding into each
> other, which has nothing to do with space itself.
>        Examination of actual experiments is
> needed in some cases in order to understand what happens, that has been
> done in some cases, not in others.

Hmm?
       
>          The clocks in Paris run at the same
> rate as the ones in Denver, so the effect should show up in that one-way
> trip.

Escapes me. They never meet.

>       Divergent Matter uses "rational physics",
> from the first thought of the floor accelerating upward, to the fact
> that "gravitational forces" acting at a distance   DO   NOT  EXIST,
> and there is  NO   SUCH  THING  as gravitational mass.

What is the acceleration in the divergent matter model, as different from 
the Newtonian model?

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

#359498

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 6:44:15 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0 
>  Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly" 
> 
> They don't. ... "Moving clocks run slowly" still remains a false statement.

Idiot pintcho, words have meaning in context.  True that Moving clocks dont run slow. But in the context of the clip, for the dedicated audience, "Moving clocks run slowly" is "ok". You definitely have a reading and comprehension problem. 


> However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks 
> moving, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails 
> that this time the STATIONARY CLOCK SHOWS LESS AND LESS TIME ELAPSED 
> than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's relativity is an
>  inconsistency 

Nope. In both cases, the moving clocks "run slow" (in the sense that, they "tick slower", even if the moving ones here have a bigger value. Can you figure out why? 

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

#359516

rotchm wrote:

> On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 6:44:15 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0
>>  Brian Cox (2:25) : "Moving clocks run slowly"
>> 
>> They don't. ... "Moving clocks run slowly" still remains a false
>> statement.
> 
> Idiot pintcho, words have meaning in context.  True that Moving clocks
> dont run slow. But in the context of the clip, for the dedicated
> audience, "Moving clocks run slowly" is "ok". You definitely have a
> reading and comprehension problem.

What do you mean by "dedicated audience"? Not calling the audience 
"stupid", right?

>> However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks
>> moving, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that
>> this time the STATIONARY CLOCK SHOWS LESS AND LESS TIME ELAPSED than
>> the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's relativity is an
>>  inconsistency
> 
> Nope. In both cases, the moving clocks "run slow" (in the sense that,
> they "tick slower", even if the moving ones here have a bigger value.
> Can you figure out why?

You are so wrong. No clocks, ever, can run slower. Pentcho is perfectly 
right.

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

#359555

rotchm schreef op 03-aug-2015 om 14:50:
> On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 6:44:15 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0 Brian Cox (2:25) :
>> "Moving clocks run slowly"
>>
>> They don't. ... "Moving clocks run slowly" still remains a false
>> statement.
>
> Idiot pintcho, words have meaning in context.  True that Moving
> clocks dont run slow. But in the context of the clip, for the
> dedicated audience, "Moving clocks run slowly" is "ok". You
> definitely have a reading and comprehension problem.

Do you *really* think that anything you say has any effect
on this twerp?

>
>
>> However, if the single clock is stationary and the multiple clocks
>> moving, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails
>> that this time the STATIONARY CLOCK SHOWS LESS AND LESS TIME
>> ELAPSED than the multiple moving clocks. Clearly Einstein's
>> relativity is an inconsistency
>
> Nope. In both cases, the moving clocks "run slow" (in the sense that,
> they "tick slower", even if the moving ones here have a bigger value.
> Can you figure out why?

Good grief. Stop responding to this kind of excrement.
Only then will it *perhaps* go away. If you keep replying,
it will definitely not go away.

Dirk Vdm

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

#359559

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 4:26:45 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
 
> Do you *really* think that anything you say has any effect
> on this twerp?

> Good grief. Stop responding to this kind of excrement.
> Only then will it *perhaps* go away.

I rarely reply to him. Once a year, I give him the benefit of doubt; its that time of year. But since he hasnt responded to my comments, that indicates that he knows I'm right and that he has no counterarguments. Maybe in a years time he will...

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

#359508

Other silly Einsteinians interpret "moving clocks run slowly" as "the faster you move, the slower time will pass for you": 

http://www.yaabot.com/12541/the-relevance-of-general-relativity/ 
 "2015 marks 100 years since The General Theory of Relativity was dropped onto the world by Albert Einstein. (...) Essentially, the major implications of the theory of Relativity were: (...) The only constant in the universe is the speed of light. The more you accelerate to this cosmic speed limit, the slower time will pass for you. This allows for 'trips' to the future by simply doing a roundtrip to your location at a high enough speed." 

"The more you accelerate to this cosmic speed limit, the slower time will pass for you" is not a valid consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (that is, even if the postulate were true, the conclusion is still false). The valid conclusion is: 

The faster you move, the FASTER time will pass for you, as you compare your clocks with those of a stationary observer. 

Here is the original non sequitur (invalid argument): 

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ 
 ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." 

Herbert Dingle noticed the invalidity and asked a fatal question: 

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf 
 SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, Herbert Dingle, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. (...) How is the slower-working clock distinguished?" 

Dingle's question is rhetorical - the slower-working clock cannot be distinguished on the basis of Einstein's 1905 postulates alone. The postulates entail that, as judged from an inertial system, the other inertial system's clocks run more slowly, or, what is the same, the system's own clocks run faster than the other inertial system's clocks. In Einstein's scenario, for an observer in the moving clock's system, his own clock runs faster than the stationary clock at B; for a stationary observer at B, his own clock runs faster than the moving clock. 

Einstein's famous conclusions that made him a superstar, "moving clocks run slow" and "time travel into the future is possible", are based on two flaws. Initially Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, which allowed him to validly deduce that: 

moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system. 

Then he illegitimately dropped the second part of the above conclusion and informed the gullible world that: 

moving clocks run slow, that is, time travel into the future is possible. 

Since then, Einsteiniana's hypnotists have been relentlessly brainwashing the gullible world and destroying human rationality: 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117878.000-a-special-theory-of-relativity.html 
 John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yMiUq7W_xI 
 Brian Greene: "Time Travel is Possible (2:48) If you wanted to leapfrog into the future, if you wanted to see what the Earth would be like a million years from now, Einstein told us how to do that." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8lBIcHre0 
 Brian Cox (03:56): "Time travel into the future is possible". 

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf 
 Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo 
 "In this video lecture, Neil deGrasse Tyson, America's most noted astrophysicist, describes the Twins Paradox, a hypothetical scenario in which high-speed travel slows down the aging of one twin, while the other twin ages at a normal rate." 

http://www.davidreneke.com/time-travel-is-possible-says-prof-brian-cox/ 
 "Time Travel Is Possible Says Prof Brian Cox (...) Traveling into the past is impossible. Possibly. The idea of mono-directional time travel is a slap in the face for most science fiction storylines, but fortunately for Marty McFly there's no risk of accidentally sleeping with his mother from 1955 in this scenario. However, zooming around on hovering skateboards in the future is totally plausible. (...) "Can you build a time machine?" said Cox. "The answer is yes." Assuming we could build a spaceship that will accelerate an astronaut close to the speed of light, only for them to return a few hours later (in the astronaut's time frame), through a quirk of relativity it's possible that thousands of years would have passed on Earth. Therefore, the superfast spaceship will have become a time machine! Want to go further into the future? No problem! Fly the spaceship even faster." 

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/back-future-30th-anniversary-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481 
 "ABC News spoke to author, astrophysicist, cosmologist and basically one of the smartest men on the planet, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson... (...) ABC: Is time travel possible? Dr. Tyson: We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion." 

Referring to the gullible world, Einstein once said: "I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious": 

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html 
 John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out." 

 Pentcho Valev

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

#359510

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
<crap snipped>

idiot pintcho, do you realize that you are paranoid? that you are obsessed by what people say? Who cares what they say... dont trust them; trust the math. So, why dont you show the math in your posts instead of the popular words used by some authors?

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

#359545

Brian Cox knows no limits: he flies towards the spotlight at 0.75c and informs the gullible audience that the light hits him in the face at c, not 1.75c. The gullible audience should also believe that this was a prediction of Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory (in fact, Maxwell's 19th century theory predicted that the light would hit Brian Cox in the face at 1.75c, not c): 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc 
 Einstein's Relativity 

 Pentcho Valev

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

#359547 — PENTCHO VALEV DISHONEST AND JUST SILLY

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:00:05 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [The usual bullshit]

Pentcho Valev knows no limits: he consistently tells whoppers and then
blames them on other people.  This is a mental problem that he needs to
Address before they let him out of his rubber room.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web