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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387483 > unrolled thread

Where are the Einsteinians after all?

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

Contents

  Where are the Einsteinians after all? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-09 02:57 -0700
    Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-09 10:49 -0700
      Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 16:09 -0700
        Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-10 09:32 +0200
      Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-12 01:27 -0700
        Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 08:49 -0700
          Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-13 20:22 +0200
    Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 05:55 -0700
      Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:05 +0200
      Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:04 -0500
        Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 08:53 -0700
          Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 12:44 -0500
          Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 13:25 -0500
            Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:26 -0700
      Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 13:17 -0700
      Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-13 22:34 +0200
        Re: Where are the Einsteinians after all? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 14:19 -0700
      Imbecile Omar Shabsigh is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 07:07 -0700

#387483 — Where are the Einsteinians after all?

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm 
 Lee Smolin: "Where are the Einsteinians? Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."

In 1907 Einstein realized that special relativity was wrong? What happened? John Norton explains:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf 
 John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." 

Does "variable in the presence of a gravitational field" entail "variable in gravitation-free space as well"? Nowadays the brainwashed scientific community is unable to answer this question but in 1907 Einstein knew that the answer was "yes".

Brainwashing is never absolute. Although still unable to pronounce the most tragic phrase "speed of light is variable", scientists almost universally declare that "spacetime does not exist", a statement which is equivalent to "speed of light is variable" (spacetime is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 
 Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563 
 Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 
 What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 
 "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

I have the impression that high-ranking journals and authors have become silent about Einstein's relativity for the last month or so. This may be just wishful thinking but if my impression is correct, the question in the title has the following answer: No more Einsteinians - the speed of light is variable!

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#387491

Nowadays clever Einsteinians are all leaving the sinking ship but the pioneer of the campaign remains John Baez:

https://edge.org/response-detail/11356 
 John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

http://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/i/Bb713bb56/15112108_dBrrH.png

Pentcho Valev

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

#387493

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 10:49:13 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Nowadays clever Einsteinians are all leaving the sinking ship but the pioneer of the campaign remains John Baez:

Again, you don't understand how science progresses.

--
Jan

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

#387504

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:458a3924-c5a4-4342-bec8-e6e45faa0089@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 10:49:13 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Nowadays clever Einsteinians are all leaving the sinking ship but the 
> pioneer of the campaign remains John Baez:

|Again, you don't understand how science progresses.

Again. You can yell and wave your arms, but when asked "how science
progresses" you're changing the subject.

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

#387638

Except for Einsteiniana's zombies, Einsteinians are all disguised Newtonians. The boldest among them openly confess that:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 
 Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116 
 FUNDAMENTAL TIME, Wednesday Jun 29, 2016, Speaker(s): Laurent Freidel, Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo. At 53:29 in this video Joao Magueijo declares allegiance to the Newtonian space and time.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148 
 "Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi." 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 
 "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Einsteinians are disguised Newtonians but this does not mean that they do not accept Einstein's idiotic relative time. Actually they are practitioners of doublethink and oscillate between the truth (Newton's absolute time) and the lie (Einstein's relative time). Here is Lee Smolin worshiping Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and all its consequences, including Einstein's relative time: 

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/apr/17/time-reborn/ 
 QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me. 
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality. 
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here? 
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well. 

Pentcho Valev

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

#387697

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:27:26 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Except for Einsteiniana's zombies, Einsteinians are all disguised Newtonians. 

Nonsense. Not even wrong. Why do you waste your time attacking positions that don't exist?

--
Jan

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

#387704

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:921ee9be-668c-40bb-800e-eae049920e60@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:27:26 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Except for Einsteiniana's zombies, Einsteinians are all disguised 
> Newtonians.

|Nonsense. Not even wrong. Why do you waste your time attacking positions 
that don't exist?

Gobledygook! 

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

#387683

Dear group
I have just posted a research paper on  http://viXra.org/abs/1607.0155 . It is 31 pages.

Here is an abstract:

((This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be restudied then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.))

And remember I was one of the first people to put a gravestone on Einstein's relativity and now this research is the culmination. Goodbye to the legend.

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

#387684

On 07/13/2016 02:55 PM, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> Dear group
> I have just posted a research paper on  http://viXra.org/abs/1607.0155 . It is 31 pages.
>
> Here is an abstract:
>
> ((This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be restudied then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
> Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.))
>
> And remember I was one of the first people to put a gravestone on Einstein's relativity and now this research is the culmination. Goodbye to the legend.
>

Lacedaemonians would say:  "IF..."

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

#387688

On 7/13/2016 7:55 AM, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> Dear group
> I have just posted a research paper on  http://viXra.org/abs/1607.0155 . It is 31 pages.
>
> Here is an abstract:
>
> ((This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and
> his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be
> restudied then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints
> and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general
> relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
> Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.))
>
> And remember I was one of the first people to put a gravestone on Einstein's relativity and now this research
> is the culmination. Goodbye to the legend.
>

I read the first chunk of your paper.
My understanding of your position is basically this:
You believe that we should be exploring the cosmos, visiting other stars 
and galaxies, as some kind of Manifest Destiny of mankind. You believe 
that science is limitless in what it can accomplish, if it puts its mind 
to it, and that includes anything that anyone might now claim to be 
impossible. Faster-than-light travel, time travel, precognition, 
antigravity, machines that do work without any energy input at all -- 
all of these things should be conquered by science, according to you.

Therefore, according to you, any claimed law of physics that prohibits 
any of these ventures is to be considered evil and counter to science, 
or at least science as you understand it. Thus if any physical law 
claims that a perpetual motion machine is impossible, then the law is to 
be considered evil and struck down. If there is a law that prohibits 
faster-than-light travel and the possibility of visiting the cosmos, 
then that physical law is evil, should be struck down, and the 
proponents of the law discredited.

Have I captured your position correctly?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#387762

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:04:29 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/13/2016 7:55 AM, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> > Dear group
> > I have just posted a research paper on  http://viXra.org/abs/1607.0155 . It is 31 pages.
> >
> > Here is an abstract:
> >
> > ((This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and
> > his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be
> > restudied then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints
> > and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general
> > relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
> > Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.))
> >
> > And remember I was one of the first people to put a gravestone on Einstein's relativity and now this research
> > is the culmination. Goodbye to the legend.
> >
> 
> I read the first chunk of your paper.
> My understanding of your position is basically this:
> You believe that we should be exploring the cosmos, visiting other stars 
> and galaxies, as some kind of Manifest Destiny of mankind. You believe 
> that science is limitless in what it can accomplish, if it puts its mind 
> to it, and that includes anything that anyone might now claim to be 
> impossible.
Dear Maker of Fine Toys, Tools and Tables {I like such makers especially if they make them of wood. Cheers} No, I am not talking about any illusions  but about the universe as it is. It is there and by nature the human being is a discoverer. Yes SCIENCE is as limitless as the universe is. Yes I talk about faster than speed of light velocities (BSOL) travel. This is what struck me first as a very unrealistic constraint on the speed of travel put up by Einstein. But he was wrong as I explained further in my research paper, his reason was his refusal to think about things that cannot be seen by the human eye. He put up a postulate and built unproven and unprovable facts on it.
I am not talking about time travel, nor precognition nor any of the things you mentioned. 
Scientific research should be done correctly by meticulously testing, measuring and verifying all facts, then science will be on the correct road to progress. Not as Einstein and his disciples did when they colonized science for a century for the sake of personal profit no matter how it is. Delaying progress.

 Faster-than-light travel, time travel, precognition, 
> antigravity, machines that do work without any energy input at all -- 
> all of these things should be conquered by science, according to you.
> 
> Therefore, according to you, any claimed law of physics that prohibits 
> any of these ventures is to be considered evil and counter to science, 
> or at least science as you understand it. Thus if any physical law 
> claims that a perpetual motion machine is impossible, then the law is to 
> be considered evil and struck down. If there is a law that prohibits 
> faster-than-light travel and the possibility of visiting the cosmos, 
> then that physical law is evil, should be struck down, and the 
> proponents of the law discredited.
> 
No I am not talking about all these  ventures. In my research I talked only briefly about BSOL travel. 
I claim as I said above that all laws of physics, if they pass testing, measurement and verifications are ok by me. 

Besides I did not mention "evil laws"
BSOL travel is possible as I proved in my paper and it will happen within the next 30 - 40 years and alas I shall not see it. Please read the full paper. 
 Have I captured your position correctly?

HAVE YOU CAPTURED MY POSITION CORRECTLY?
Omar
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#387770

On 7/14/2016 10:53 AM, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:04:29 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/13/2016 7:55 AM, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
>>> Dear group
>>> I have just posted a research paper on  http://viXra.org/abs/1607.0155 . It is 31 pages.
>>>
>>> Here is an abstract:
>>>
>>> ((This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and
>>> his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be
>>> restudied then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints
>>> and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general
>>> relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
>>> Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.))
>>>
>>> And remember I was one of the first people to put a gravestone on Einstein's relativity and now this research
>>> is the culmination. Goodbye to the legend.
>>>
>>
>> I read the first chunk of your paper.
>> My understanding of your position is basically this:
>> You believe that we should be exploring the cosmos, visiting other stars
>> and galaxies, as some kind of Manifest Destiny of mankind. You believe
>> that science is limitless in what it can accomplish, if it puts its mind
>> to it, and that includes anything that anyone might now claim to be
>> impossible.
> Dear Maker of Fine Toys, Tools and Tables {I like such makers especially if they make them of wood. Cheers} No,
> I am not talking about any illusions  but about the universe as it is.

Alright, and so the question is, what are the rules that nature behaves by?

> It is there and by nature the human being is a discoverer. Yes SCIENCE is as limitless as the universe is.
> Yes I talk about faster than speed of light velocities (BSOL) travel. This is what struck me first as a very
> unrealistic constraint on the speed of travel put up by Einstein.

You say this constraint is unrealistic, and so my simple question is WHY 
you think nature does not abide by a speed limit? Do you have any reason 
to believe that nature does not exhibit a speed limit, from 
observational data, or do you just hope that there is no such speed limit?

> But he was wrong as I explained further in
> my research paper, his reason was his refusal to think about things that cannot be seen by the human eye. He
> put up a postulate and built unproven and unprovable facts on it.
> I am not talking about time travel, nor precognition nor any of the things you mentioned.

OK, but you see, all of these things may be phenomena that we talk about 
in a fictional way, or even have hopes that there are real occurrences 
of them, but it may well be that they are simply not possible. The 
reason they may not be possible is that they would counter the laws that 
nature operates by.

So the same is true for faster-than-light travel, is it not? The 
prospect of it has to be vetted against whether nature abides by rules 
that allow it.

> Scientific research should be done correctly by meticulously testing, measuring
> and verifying all facts, then science will be on the correct road to progress.
> Not as Einstein and his disciples did when they colonized science for a century
> for the sake of personal profit no matter how it is. Delaying progress.

We may not be on the same page here. I believe that every single one of 
Einstein's claims has been put to meticulous test, with measuring and 
verifying all facts. I don't believe there is a single claim you can 
point to where a test and a retest and a re-retest has not been done.

>
>  Faster-than-light travel, time travel, precognition,
>> antigravity, machines that do work without any energy input at all --
>> all of these things should be conquered by science, according to you.
>>
>> Therefore, according to you, any claimed law of physics that prohibits
>> any of these ventures is to be considered evil and counter to science,
>> or at least science as you understand it. Thus if any physical law
>> claims that a perpetual motion machine is impossible, then the law is to
>> be considered evil and struck down. If there is a law that prohibits
>> faster-than-light travel and the possibility of visiting the cosmos,
>> then that physical law is evil, should be struck down, and the
>> proponents of the law discredited.
>>
> No I am not talking about all these  ventures. In my research I talked only
> briefly about BSOL travel.
> I claim as I said above that all laws of physics, if they pass testing,
> measurement and verifications are ok by me.

Well, it seems pretty verified to me, by experiment, that the speed of 
light cannot be surpassed, despite many many many attempts to show 
otherwise.

>
> Besides I did not mention "evil laws"
> BSOL travel is possible as I proved in my paper and it will happen within the
> next 30 - 40 years and alas I shall not see it. Please read the full paper.

I don't know how you can say it will happen within the next 30-40 years 
if you are not personally working on the demonstration that it is 
possible. Who do you know that is younger than you and is working on the 
demonstration that faster-than-light-travel is possible?

>  Have I captured your position correctly?
>
> HAVE YOU CAPTURED MY POSITION CORRECTLY?
> Omar
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#387771

On 7/14/2016 10:53 AM, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> Dear Maker of Fine Toys, Tools and Tables {I like such makers especially if they make them
> of wood. Cheers} No, I am not talking about any illusions  but about the universe as it is.
> It is there and by nature the human being is a discoverer. Yes SCIENCE is as limitless as
> the universe is.

Just to be clear, I believe that it is the job of physicists to infer 
(this means to guess, and then verify by experiment) what the rules are 
that nature abides by. Nature doesn't tell us these laws, we have to 
figure them out by watching things behave the way they do. After a while 
of watching, we can discern what a possible law of nature might be. But 
at that point it's only a guess, and that's alright. What happens then 
is that scientists take the next step. They say, so IF this guess is 
right, then what we should be able to do is see this OTHER predictable 
implication. That is, they make a testable prediction of the way things 
will behave IF the guessed law is right. It is very hard for those 
things to happen exactly the way predicted, unless the guess was right. 
So the test of the prediction is the way you know the guessed law really 
is a law of nature.

Now, a law of nature is a constraint. It tells you that anything can 
happen AS LONG AS it does not violate a law that nature abides by. 
Nevertheless, a law of nature is very useful, even though it might 
forbid something you had hoped might be possible. The reason it is 
useful is that it allows you to predict outcomes in certain 
circumstances. That is, a law of nature will tell you that if 
circumstances X, Y, and Z apply, then this particular outcome Q will 
always occur. That's extremely useful because if you want to produce an 
outcome Q on demand, then it is simply a matter of creating a device or 
finding an occurrence such that X, Y, and Z apply. This is how practical 
devices, ranging from radio towers to lasers, are built.

But now suppose that one of the laws of nature you have guessed is that 
the speed of travel is limited to c. First, of course, that guess has to 
be thoroughly tested by checking the implications of that guess. In this 
case, the implications would be things like the relationship between 
measured speed and measured momentum of things in (say) and accelerator; 
or the relationship between source speed and Doppler shift of (say) 
radio waves; or the time-dilation of nuclear decay lifetimes. All of 
these things are directly tied to the limit of speed of travel being c. 
If it turns out that all those predictions have come out correct, then 
you know in fact that the speed limit law is a true law of nature. Then 
of course, any aspirations to travel faster than the speed of light 
would be foolish.

As it turns out, of course, all those tests of that guessed law that I 
mentioned have been done, and it turns out that the predictions of the 
law have all been confirmed against experimental observation. Thus we 
know that the law of the speed limit is a true one, otherwise it 
wouldn't have been the case that all those tests got confirmed.




-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#387800

W dniu czwartek, 14 lipca 2016 20:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> 
> Just to be clear, I believe that it is the job of physicists to infer 
> (this means to guess, and then verify by experiment) what the rules are 
> that nature abides by. 

The top of your bunch of idiots don't
share your naive belief. Ask Tom.

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

#387716

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-7, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> Dear group
> I have just posted a research paper on  http://viXra.org/abs/1607.0155 . It is 31 pages.
> 
> Here is an abstract:
> 
> ((This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be restudied then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
> Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.))
> 
> And remember I was one of the first people to put a gravestone on Einstein's relativity and now this research is the culmination. Goodbye to the legend.

You did nothing of the sort. Your ignorance is your bliss. Enjoy.

--
Jan

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

#387718

On 13.07.2016 14:55, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> Dear group
> I have just posted a research paper on  http://viXra.org/abs/1607.0155 . It is 31 pages.
> Here is an abstract:
>
> ((This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be restudied then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
> Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.))

I note that you are criticising Einstein's theory from the book:
  Albert Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory.

This book is a popular book for non scientists,
it is no scientific work. It is full of simplifications which
in some cases are strictly wrong.
It is meaningless to criticise his theories on basis of this book.
 From the preface:
  <<
  The present book is intended, as far as possible,
  to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity
  to those readers who, from a general scientific
  and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory,
  but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of
  theoretical physics.
  >>
And you are surprised because there is no mathematics in it!

Einstein's scientific papers where he introduced his theories are:
(The English translations.)

Albert Einstein: ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf

Albert Einstein: THE FOUNDATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf

But if you really want to learn Einstein's theories, there are
a number of modern books which are much better than Einstein's
original works.

In either case, you must learn Einstein's theories before you
can criticise them. Reading a popular book won't do.


>
> And remember I was one of the first people to put a gravestone on Einstein's relativity and now this research is the culmination. Goodbye to the legend.
>

And the gravestone consists of naive babble,
no mathematics and no experiment! :-D


BTW, here is the 'twin paradox' where we are
"taking the starting and finishing periods into consideration":
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf  (chapter 2.3 and 2.4)

And a correct analysis of the Hafele & Keating experiment:
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

(You didn't even get the name of the experimenters correct)

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#387721

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 1:34:41 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 13.07.2016 14:55, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> > Dear group
> > I have just posted a research paper on  http://viXra.org/abs/1607.0155 . It is 31 pages.
> > Here is an abstract:
> >
> > ((This article discusses the validity of Einstein’s relativity theory. All assumptions of Einstein and his mathematics (where it exists) will be reviewed. Experiments done to show the validity will be restudied then we shall show that special relativity is only theoretically correct under the constraints and conditions made by Einstein but has no practical or scientific value. We shall also show that general relativity is basically wrong and has no scientific foundation and no proof.
> > Therefore, all relativity theory of Einstein’s, can be righteously considered as a science fiction.))
> 
> I note that you are criticising Einstein's theory from the book:
>   Albert Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
> 
> This book is a popular book for non scientists,
> it is no scientific work. It is full of simplifications which
> in some cases are strictly wrong.
> It is meaningless to criticise his theories on basis of this book.

Which reminds me of this book, it's something else:
https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Theory-Relativity-Fourth-Dimension/dp/1589880447
(don't be put off by the cheesy title).

--
Jan

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

#388128 — Imbecile Omar Shabsigh is back

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-7, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> Dear group
> snip self-promotion<

Fuck off, cretin. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web