Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406189 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-20 13:22 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-23 06:24 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 94 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-20 13:22 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 14:12 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 16:52 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 03:19 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 10:34 -0600
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-01-24 04:20 +1100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 09:32 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:58 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 16:13 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 08:46 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:24 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 16:53 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-21 06:43 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-21 14:12 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 08:37 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-21 08:49 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-21 09:36 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 10:10 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Reid Schaffner <dnfoonio@acdnfni.info> - 2017-01-21 21:23 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 06:45 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 08:24 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-22 17:31 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 09:58 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-23 16:33 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 10:24 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-23 16:36 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-23 09:52 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 01:22 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-23 21:23 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 21:29 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 13:44 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-24 11:52 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-01-22 10:54 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-24 16:09 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-21 21:32 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-21 13:43 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-22 04:25 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 08:16 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-22 17:59 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-01-22 10:33 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 10:44 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-23 06:34 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 22:06 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-24 06:49 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 22:41 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-23 22:45 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-24 23:08 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:35 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-25 06:34 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-26 06:15 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 06:54 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-23 11:57 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-23 12:00 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-23 14:38 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 01:27 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 09:27 -0600
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-23 18:13 -0600
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 01:39 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-23 23:38 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 13:55 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-24 06:34 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-24 23:10 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-24 23:08 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-25 15:11 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-25 07:35 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-26 11:22 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-26 03:30 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-26 17:15 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-27 19:19 -0500
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-28 04:25 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-28 10:53 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-28 03:08 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-28 14:31 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-28 06:55 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-29 03:41 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-28 20:18 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-29 04:03 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 07:21 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 22:44 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 20:25 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 12:32 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-29 12:35 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-30 23:57 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-29 22:16 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-30 23:47 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-31 13:01 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-02-01 06:51 +0100
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-01 09:10 +0000
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-01 01:27 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-01 13:23 +0000
The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-21 16:42 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 11:04 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 11:50 -0800
Re: The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-23 06:24 +0100
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 08:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9787c123-0252-4f1f-8fd4-e18e7cd1a064@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406340 |
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:45:51 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 1:10:34 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 11:36:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 11:38:01 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > The worst mistake in theoretical physics occurred when Einstein used the "train analogy" to explain relativity and different points of view. The analogy viewed a REAL natural phenomenon (time dilation) as an illusion. That was a BIG mistake. > > > > > > > > Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves? > > > > > > > > Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still. > > > > > > > > But, if you do not CARE about what is "real" and your only interest is in creating confusion and "interesting" mathematical puzzles, you can spend the next 100 years arguing that there's no way to tell if the train is moving or if the train station is moving. > > > > > > > > And we're all still paying the price for that BIG mistake. > > > > > > SRT's inertial frame is just anther name for the ether frame. That' why SRT and LET have the same math. Also that's why SRT is incomplete.....it failed to include gravity. A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT includes SRT and LET as subsets. The equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > > There's no reason to accept your assumptions. They run contrary to the facts and evidence. And since the facts and evidence say your assumptions are false, your conclusions must also be false. > > You have no fact or evidence......just unsupported assertions. Are you saying there is no evidence that trains move? Are you saying there is no evidence that trains are BUILT to move on rail? Are you saying that it is totally possible that trains were built to cause the earth to move underneath them? To me, if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them in opposite directions. Do you really believe that is an "unsupported assertion"? Have you ever been to a train station? Have you ever ridden in a train? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno89r3d.4iq.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #406348 |
Ed Lake wrote: ----snip---- > if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, > it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them > in opposite directions. Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you blindside poor kenseto with good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! ----snip---- But as bad as it is, that relatitivty shit isn't the "Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics": that distinction belongs to the invalid conclusion physicists leapt at in 1801 (Young's experimewnt).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 09:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <265fd56a-dec6-4a4b-b43c-1f871e16960a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406362 |
11:31 AMNed Latham Ed Lake wrote: ----snip---- > if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, > it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them > in opposite directions. Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you blindside poor kenseto with good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! ----snip---- But as bad as it is, that relatitivty shit isn't the "Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics": that distinction belongs to the invalid conclusion physicists leapt at in 1801 (Young's experimewnt). Young's Experiment is explained by the volume of space-time being a Heterodyne of Light & Gravity , a Heterodyne of c & G Mass is equivalent to a scalar of entropy https://goo.gl/photos/b5d1sa7T3KpEYNzC7 https://goo.gl/photos/zK163sPuo5zrxv5Q9 https://goo.gl/photos/gzRbjUKejKbqzb6Z9
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno8cc27.5h3.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #406364 |
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, > > > it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them > > > in opposite directions. > > > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you blindside poor kenseto with > > good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! > > > > ----snip---- > > > > But as bad as it is, that relatitivty shit isn't the "Worst Mistake in > > Theoretical Physics": that distinction belongs to the invalid conclusion > > physicists leapt at in 1801 (Young's experimewnt). > > Young's Experiment is explained by the volume of space-time being a > Heterodyne of Light & Gravity Irrelevant. I didn't say anything about this or that "explanation" of the result of Young's experiment; I said that the "Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics" is the invalid conclusion leapt at by every physicist in the world from then right through to the present. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 10:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa689c42-5559-414c-9aee-4551a6352569@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406362 |
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 12:31:31 PM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, > > it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them > > in opposite directions. > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you blindside poor kenseto with > good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! What are you talking about???? Never make that claim. > > ----snip---- > > But as bad as it is, that relatitivty shit isn't the "Worst Mistake in > Theoretical Physics": that distinction belongs to the invalid conclusion > physicists leapt at in 1801 (Young's experimewnt).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 16:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno8cc7o.5h3.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #406369 |
kenseto wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, > > > it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them > > > in opposite directions. > > > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you to blindside poor kenseto with > > good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! > > What are you talking about???? Two trains, simultaneously moving in different directions. > Never make that claim. What claim? Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 09:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6e2d4e3-331d-4ca9-aed1-19b30c064426@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406475 |
On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 11:36:10 AM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, > > > > it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them > > > > in opposite directions. > > > > > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you to blindside poor kenseto with > > > good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! > > > > What are you talking about???? > > Two trains, simultaneously moving in different directions. > > > Never make that claim. > > What claim? > THAT WAS ED'S claim. In IRT directions have no effect on the rate of clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-24 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno8db36.msr.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #406486 |
kenseto wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving > > > > > east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth > > > > > under them in opposite directions. > > > > > > > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you to blindside poor kenseto > > > > with good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! > > > > > > What are you talking about???? > > > > Two trains, simultaneously moving in different directions. > > > > > Never make that claim. > > > > What claim? > > THAT WAS ED'S claim. In IRT directions have no effect on the rate of > clock. He wasn't talking about clock rates; he was talking about motion viewed in different frames of reference. The essential point he made is still there, above. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 21:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5488fcf7-fcc8-47b8-a9d8-17bb8cbd0777@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406558 |
On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 8:22:55 PM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving > > > > > > east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth > > > > > > under them in opposite directions. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you to blindside poor kenseto > > > > > with good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! > > > > > > > > What are you talking about???? > > > > > > Two trains, simultaneously moving in different directions. > > > > > > > Never make that claim. > > > > > > What claim? > > > > THAT WAS ED'S claim. In IRT directions have no effect on the rate of > > clock. > > He wasn't talking about clock rates; he was talking about motion viewed > in different frames of reference. The essential point he made is still > there, above. What Ed said: > Are you saying there is no evidence that trains move? Are you saying there is no evidence that trains are BUILT to move on rail? Are you saying that it is totally possible that trains were built to cause the earth to move underneath them? What I said: ------------------------------------------------------ I have no idea why you attribute your nonsense to me. If you read my theory ,IRT, you will find that between two clocks A and B in relative motion: 1. A does not know if B is doing the moving or he (A) is doing the moving. Therefore he has two equations to predict the rate of B's clock.....one predicts B's clock is running at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and the other predicts that B's clock is running at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. However, only one of these prediction is correct. 2. B does not know if A is doing the moving or he (B) is doing the moving. Therefore he has two equations to predict the rate of B's clock.....one predicts A's clock is running at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and the other predicts that A's clock is running at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. However, only one of these prediction is correct. ______________________________________________________ What Ed said: > To me, if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them in opposite directions. Do you really believe that is an "unsupported assertion"? Have you ever been to a train station? Have you ever ridden in a train? --------------------------------------------------- What I said: Sigh.....relative motion is between to objects. In this case the IRT equation that predicts the train clock runs slower than the ground clock by a factor of 1/gamma is the correct prediction.....IOW, the train clock is doing the moving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 21:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d9976fd7-f8cf-4796-89ca-963b2086780a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406579 |
On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 11:23:20 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 8:22:55 PM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving > > > > > > > east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth > > > > > > > under them in opposite directions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you to blindside poor kenseto > > > > > > with good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! > > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about???? > > > > > > > > Two trains, simultaneously moving in different directions. > > > > > > > > > Never make that claim. > > > > > > > > What claim? > > > > > > THAT WAS ED'S claim. In IRT directions have no effect on the rate of > > > clock. > > > > He wasn't talking about clock rates; he was talking about motion viewed > > in different frames of reference. The essential point he made is still > > there, above. > > What Ed said: > > Are you saying there is no evidence that trains move? Are you saying there is no evidence that trains are BUILT to move on rail? Are you saying that it is totally possible that trains were built to cause the earth to move underneath them? > > What I said: > ------------------------------------------------------ > I have no idea why you attribute your nonsense to me. If you read my theory ,IRT, you will find that between two clocks A and B in relative motion: > 1. A does not know if B is doing the moving or he (A) is doing the moving. Therefore he has two equations to predict the rate of B's clock.....one predicts B's clock is running at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and the other predicts that B's clock is running at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. However, only one of these prediction is correct. > > 2. B does not know if A is doing the moving or he (B) is doing the moving. Therefore he has two equations to predict the rate of B's clock.....one predicts A's clock is running at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and the other predicts that A's clock is running at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. However, only one of these prediction is correct. > ______________________________________________________ > > What Ed said: > > To me, if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them in opposite directions. Do you really believe that is an "unsupported assertion"? Have you ever been to a train station? Have you ever ridden in a train? > --------------------------------------------------- > What I said: > Sigh.....relative motion is between to objects. In this case the IRT equation that predicts the train clock runs slower than the ground clock by a factor of 1/gamma is the correct prediction.....IOW, the train clock is doing the moving. Who Cares What Ed Lake Gibbers ... OMG !!! Ed believes All of Space Time can be Completely Explained with a Gedanken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-24 13:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno8emhn.7jv.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #406579 |
kenseto wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> > Ned Latham wrote: >> > > kenseto wrote: >> > > > Ned Latham wrote: >> > > > > Ed Lake wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > ----snip---- >> > > > > >> > > > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving >> > > > > > east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth >> > > > > > under them in opposite directions. >> > > > > >> > > > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you to blindside poor kenseto >> > > > > with good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! >> > > > >> > > > What are you talking about???? >> > > >> > > Two trains, simultaneously moving in different directions. >> > > >> > > > Never make that claim. >> > > >> > > What claim? >> > >> > THAT WAS ED'S claim. In IRT directions have no effect on the rate of >> > clock. >> >> He wasn't talking about clock rates; he was talking about motion viewed >> in different frames of reference. The essential point he made is still >> there, above. > > What Ed said: Is above. Your insistence on talikng about something else (clock rates) is nothing but a straw man. ----irrelevancies snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-24 11:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8918e73f-0583-4dab-91aa-f5a13da8e57a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406609 |
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:44:28 AM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >> > Ned Latham wrote: > >> > > kenseto wrote: > >> > > > Ned Latham wrote: > >> > > > > Ed Lake wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ----snip---- > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > if one train is moving west while another train is moving > >> > > > > > east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth > >> > > > > > under them in opposite directions. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Oh, Ed, Ed, Ed. That's very unfair of you to blindside poor kenseto > >> > > > > with good sense! Naughty, naughty, naughty! > >> > > > > >> > > > What are you talking about???? > >> > > > >> > > Two trains, simultaneously moving in different directions. > >> > > > >> > > > Never make that claim. > >> > > > >> > > What claim? > >> > > >> > THAT WAS ED'S claim. In IRT directions have no effect on the rate of > >> > clock. > >> > >> He wasn't talking about clock rates; he was talking about motion viewed > >> in different frames of reference. The essential point he made is still > >> there, above. > > > > What Ed said: > > Is above. > Your insistence on talikng about something else (clock rates) is > nothing but a straw man. Hey idiot....why don't you read the whole post. The last part deals with who is doing the moving: What Ed said: > To me, if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them in opposite directions. Do you really believe that is an "unsupported assertion"? Have you ever been to a train station? Have you ever ridden in a train? --------------------------------------------------- What I said: Sigh.....relative motion is between two objects. In this case the IRT equation that predicts the train clock runs slower than the ground clock by a factor of 1/gamma is the correct prediction.....IOW, the train clock is doing the moving. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 10:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2ab131cc-9b5c-4705-b008-a3b448b37a39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406348 |
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:24:19 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:45:51 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 1:10:34 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 11:36:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 11:38:01 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > The worst mistake in theoretical physics occurred when Einstein used the "train analogy" to explain relativity and different points of view. The analogy viewed a REAL natural phenomenon (time dilation) as an illusion. That was a BIG mistake. > > > > > > > > > > Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves? > > > > > > > > > > Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still. > > > > > > > > > > But, if you do not CARE about what is "real" and your only interest is in creating confusion and "interesting" mathematical puzzles, you can spend the next 100 years arguing that there's no way to tell if the train is moving or if the train station is moving. > > > > > > > > > > And we're all still paying the price for that BIG mistake. > > > > > > > > SRT's inertial frame is just anther name for the ether frame. That' why SRT and LET have the same math. Also that's why SRT is incomplete.....it failed to include gravity. A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT includes SRT and LET as subsets. The equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > > > > There's no reason to accept your assumptions. They run contrary to the facts and evidence. And since the facts and evidence say your assumptions are false, your conclusions must also be false. > > > > You have no fact or evidence......just unsupported assertions. > > Are you saying there is no evidence that trains move? Are you saying there is no evidence that trains are BUILT to move on rail? Are you saying that it is totally possible that trains were built to cause the earth to move underneath them? I have no idea why you attribute your nonsense to me. If you read my theory ,IRT, you will find that between two clocks A and B in relative motion: 1. A does not know if B is doing the moving or he (A) is doing the moving. Therefore he has two equations to predict the rate of B's clock.....one predicts B's clock is running at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and the other predicts that B's clock is running at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. However, only one of these prediction is correct. 2. B does not know if A is doing the moving or he (B) is doing the moving. Therefore he has two equations to predict the rate of B's clock.....one predicts A's clock is running at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and the other predicts that A's clock is running at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. However, only one of these prediction is correct. > > To me, if one train is moving west while another train is moving east, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to BOTH be moving the earth under them in opposite directions. Do you really believe that is an "unsupported assertion"? Have you ever been to a train station? Have you ever ridden in a train? Sigh.....relative motion is between to objects. In this case the IRT equation that predicts the train clock runs slower than the ground clock by a factor of 1/gamma is the correct prediction.....IOW, the train clock is doing the moving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-24 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o67u7n$7ca$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #406340 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 1:10:34 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 11:36:19 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: >> > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 11:38:01 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: >> > > And we're all still paying the price for that BIG mistake. >> > SRT's inertial frame is just anther name for the ether frame. That' why >> > SRT and LET have the same math. Also that's why SRT is incomplete..... >> > it failed to include gravity. Stupid Ken, that is why Einstein later created GR. SR is the simpler theory where gravity doesn't exist or is too small to matter. Later on, Einstein figured out how gravity works, and created GR, and SR is now a subset of GR, these days SR is simply GR with zero gravity. >> > A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. Nobody cares about theories that are complete, total failures. >> > IRT includes SRT and LET as subsets. That is just one reason why IRT is a complete, total failure. It is claimed that SR is a subset of IRT, but if that were true, IRT would have to agree with everything SR has to say. But IRT disagrees with SR so IRT contradicts itself, claiming to both agree with and disagree with SR. A genuine subset is how SR is a subset of GR. SR is just GR with zero gravity. If you use GR rather than SR to evaluate situations where gravity is either zero or too small to matter, you'll get the same answer as SR. That's why SR is a subset of GR. GR agrees with everything SR has to say in situations where SR applies (where there is no gravity). >> There's no reason to accept your assumptions. They run contrary to the >> facts and evidence. And since the facts and evidence say your >> assumptions are false, your conclusions must also be false. >You have no fact or evidence......just unsupported assertions. Stupid Ken, it is you who is always making unsupported assertions (what Ed called assumptions here), such as SR being a subset of failed IRT. And Stupid Ken, remember this quote: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman Stupid Ken, why don't you fix IRT? Someday, you'll kick the bucket, and if IRT isn't fixed by then, IRT will go to rot on the pile of failed physics theories, and IRT will quickly be forgotten by everyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-21 21:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eehuqsFtdnjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #406249 |
Am 21.01.2017 17:37, schrieb Ed Lake:
> The worst mistake in theoretical physics occurred when Einstein used the "train analogy" to explain relativity and different points of view. The analogy viewed a REAL natural phenomenon (time dilation) as an illusion. That was a BIG mistake.
>
> Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves?
>
> Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still.
>
Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
rest, since it sits of the surface of planet Earth.
This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around the
centre of the galaxy. Also our home galaxy moves about the local cluster
and that moves, too.
So we could not speak of 'true' rest of anything, since we simply do not
know, were we have something not moving.
To overcome this problem I suggest a method I call 'subjectivism'.
This goes: everybody is at rest, since everybody defines 'at rest' in
the way, that this definition allows him to stay at rest.
So: everybody IS the centre of the universe, while these universes are
slightly different from different perspectives.
Hence the train is at rest and the station moves (by definition of the
passenger in that particular train).
If you sit in the train station you would define otherwise and let the
train move.
But you cannot decide who is right, since actually both definitions are
wrong (because of Earth' rotation and so forth).
But since no sufficient definition of 'at rest' exists, it is only to
fair to allow equality of individual wrongness.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-21 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e4c3807e-147a-4407-a507-e24f48fc9354@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406263 |
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 2:32:31 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.01.2017 17:37, schrieb Ed Lake:
> > The worst mistake in theoretical physics occurred when Einstein used the "train analogy" to explain relativity and different points of view. The analogy viewed a REAL natural phenomenon (time dilation) as an illusion. That was a BIG mistake.
> >
> > Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves?
> >
> > Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still.
> >
> Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
> rest, since it sits of the surface of planet Earth.
>
Any intelligent person would know that, if the question is "Which is moving, the train or the train station?," the answer is "The train."
Yes, in the grander scheme of things, the train station is ALSO moving. But, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION? Was it to determine which was an illusion and which was real, or was the purpose of the question to create an argument where everyone disagrees with everyone else forever?
> This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around the
> centre of the galaxy. Also our home galaxy moves about the local cluster
> and that moves, too.
>
> So we could not speak of 'true' rest of anything, since we simply do not
> know, were we have something not moving.
>
> To overcome this problem I suggest a method I call 'subjectivism'.
>
> This goes: everybody is at rest, since everybody defines 'at rest' in
> the way, that this definition allows him to stay at rest.
>
> So: everybody IS the centre of the universe, while these universes are
> slightly different from different perspectives.
>
> Hence the train is at rest and the station moves (by definition of the
> passenger in that particular train).
>
> If you sit in the train station you would define otherwise and let the
> train move.
>
> But you cannot decide who is right, since actually both definitions are
> wrong (because of Earth' rotation and so forth).
>
> But since no sufficient definition of 'at rest' exists, it is only to
> fair to allow equality of individual wrongness.
>
>
> TH
I guess it all depends upon your goals. If your goal is to argue that the universe makes no sense and there's no way to tell what is real and what is not real, then your methodology will certainly accomplish that.
If your goal is to determine what is real and what is just a misunderstanding in the specific situation of a train moving out of a train station, then you need to understand how things can APPEAR to happen illogically, but when all the facts are known, it is all very logical.
My goal is to understand how the universe works (including illusions).
Your goal is apparently to argue that it is not possible to understand how the universe works because everything can be an illusion.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 04:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eein1vF4970U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #406271 |
Am 21.01.2017 22:43, schrieb Ed Lake:
>>> Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves?
>>>
>>> Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still.
>>>
>> Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
>> rest, since it sits of the surface of planet Earth.
>>
>
> Any intelligent person would know that, if the question is "Which is moving, the train or the train station?," the answer is "The train."
>
> Yes, in the grander scheme of things, the train station is ALSO moving. But, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION? Was it to determine which was an illusion and which was real, or was the purpose of the question to create an argument where everyone disagrees with everyone else forever?
>
>> This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around the
>> centre of the galaxy. Also our home galaxy moves about the local cluster
>> and that moves, too.
>>
>> So we could not speak of 'true' rest of anything, since we simply do not
>> know, were we have something not moving.
>>
>> To overcome this problem I suggest a method I call 'subjectivism'.
>>
>> This goes: everybody is at rest, since everybody defines 'at rest' in
>> the way, that this definition allows him to stay at rest.
>>
>> So: everybody IS the centre of the universe, while these universes are
>> slightly different from different perspectives.
>>
>> Hence the train is at rest and the station moves (by definition of the
>> passenger in that particular train).
>>
>> If you sit in the train station you would define otherwise and let the
>> train move.
>>
>> But you cannot decide who is right, since actually both definitions are
>> wrong (because of Earth' rotation and so forth).
>>
>> But since no sufficient definition of 'at rest' exists, it is only to
>> fair to allow equality of individual wrongness.
> I guess it all depends upon your goals. If your goal is to argue that the universe makes no sense and there's no way to tell what is real and what is not real, then your methodology will certainly accomplish that.
>
> If your goal is to determine what is real and what is just a misunderstanding in the specific situation of a train moving out of a train station, then you need to understand how things can APPEAR to happen illogically, but when all the facts are known, it is all very logical.
>
> My goal is to understand how the universe works (including illusions).
>
> Your goal is apparently to argue that it is not possible to understand how the universe works because everything can be an illusion.
No, I have a similar goal as you have.
And I have also an answer. This is a concept I have developed, that I
call 'structured spacetime'.
Here is the link to my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
The idea is, that any observer (like e.g. you or me) defines his own
context, just by being somewhere.
This context is called 'time domain' and is the realm, where all clocks
tick at the same rate.
For us humans this is the surface of planet Earth. There we live and
could move around.
The region above is called 'space'. This is similar to all of us, since
the direction 'above' is similar, if you stand on the surface of the
planet (what we all do).
But this doesn't say, this would be all that exists. It's just
everything we could see from our point of view.
This space is actually the same, that in relativity is called 'past
light cone'.
If we identify ourselves with the zero-spot and call that 'observer',
the universe is 'relative' (to ourselves).
So 'universe' denotes actually a picture, which we receive from the
past, not something real.
The 'real thing' is mainly invisible, since our vision is restricted to
light and that moves with c and therefore takes time to reach us. We are
also blind to other frequencies than those from a small range of em-waves.
Other frequencies and other types of waves we cannot see.
But, actually, that's no big deal, since we could also estimate, how
such invisible realms might look like, supposed we would be able to go
there or are able to peep into such an invisible universe.
We would expect, that it would be kind of similar to ours, but different
in the details.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 08:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36be70d3-c884-4a25-8ee1-fa9052531478@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406299 |
On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 9:25:55 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.01.2017 22:43, schrieb Ed Lake:
>
> >>> Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves?
> >>>
> >>> Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still.
> >>>
> >> Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
> >> rest, since it sits of the surface of planet Earth.
> >>
> >
> > Any intelligent person would know that, if the question is "Which is moving, the train or the train station?," the answer is "The train."
> >
> > Yes, in the grander scheme of things, the train station is ALSO moving. But, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION? Was it to determine which was an illusion and which was real, or was the purpose of the question to create an argument where everyone disagrees with everyone else forever?
> >
> >> This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around the
> >> centre of the galaxy. Also our home galaxy moves about the local cluster
> >> and that moves, too.
> >>
> >> So we could not speak of 'true' rest of anything, since we simply do not
> >> know, were we have something not moving.
> >>
> >> To overcome this problem I suggest a method I call 'subjectivism'.
> >>
> >> This goes: everybody is at rest, since everybody defines 'at rest' in
> >> the way, that this definition allows him to stay at rest.
> >>
> >> So: everybody IS the centre of the universe, while these universes are
> >> slightly different from different perspectives.
> >>
> >> Hence the train is at rest and the station moves (by definition of the
> >> passenger in that particular train).
> >>
> >> If you sit in the train station you would define otherwise and let the
> >> train move.
> >>
> >> But you cannot decide who is right, since actually both definitions are
> >> wrong (because of Earth' rotation and so forth).
> >>
> >> But since no sufficient definition of 'at rest' exists, it is only to
> >> fair to allow equality of individual wrongness.
>
> > I guess it all depends upon your goals. If your goal is to argue that the universe makes no sense and there's no way to tell what is real and what is not real, then your methodology will certainly accomplish that.
> >
> > If your goal is to determine what is real and what is just a misunderstanding in the specific situation of a train moving out of a train station, then you need to understand how things can APPEAR to happen illogically, but when all the facts are known, it is all very logical.
> >
> > My goal is to understand how the universe works (including illusions).
> >
> > Your goal is apparently to argue that it is not possible to understand how the universe works because everything can be an illusion.
>
>
> No, I have a similar goal as you have.
>
> And I have also an answer. This is a concept I have developed, that I
> call 'structured spacetime'.
You have developed your own theory about the universe. I can't really comment on your theory. I think Einstein's theories are the correct theories. I just think that many people (primarily mathematicians) have misinterpreted Einstein's theories. That's the subject that interests me. Evaluating a totally different theory would take too much time away from what really interests me. Sorry.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 17:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eek6mvFf3ikU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #406345 |
Am 22.01.2017 17:16, schrieb Ed Lake:
>>>>> Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still.
>>>>>
>>>> Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
>>>> rest, since it sits of the surface of planet Earth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any intelligent person would know that, if the question is "Which is moving, the train or the train station?," the answer is "The train."
>>>
>>> Yes, in the grander scheme of things, the train station is ALSO moving. But, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION? Was it to determine which was an illusion and which was real, or was the purpose of the question to create an argument where everyone disagrees with everyone else forever?
>>>
>>>> This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around the
>>>> centre of the galaxy. Also our home galaxy moves about the local cluster
>>>> and that moves, too.
>>>>
>>>> So we could not speak of 'true' rest of anything, since we simply do not
>>>> know, were we have something not moving.
>>>>
>>>> To overcome this problem I suggest a method I call 'subjectivism'.
>>>>
>>>> This goes: everybody is at rest, since everybody defines 'at rest' in
>>>> the way, that this definition allows him to stay at rest.
>>>>
>>>> So: everybody IS the centre of the universe, while these universes are
>>>> slightly different from different perspectives.
>>>>
>>>> Hence the train is at rest and the station moves (by definition of the
>>>> passenger in that particular train).
>>>>
>>>> If you sit in the train station you would define otherwise and let the
>>>> train move.
>>>>
>>>> But you cannot decide who is right, since actually both definitions are
>>>> wrong (because of Earth' rotation and so forth).
>>>>
>>>> But since no sufficient definition of 'at rest' exists, it is only to
>>>> fair to allow equality of individual wrongness.
>>
>>> I guess it all depends upon your goals. If your goal is to argue that the universe makes no sense and there's no way to tell what is real and what is not real, then your methodology will certainly accomplish that.
>>>
>>> If your goal is to determine what is real and what is just a misunderstanding in the specific situation of a train moving out of a train station, then you need to understand how things can APPEAR to happen illogically, but when all the facts are known, it is all very logical.
>>>
>>> My goal is to understand how the universe works (including illusions).
>>>
>>> Your goal is apparently to argue that it is not possible to understand how the universe works because everything can be an illusion.
>>
>>
>> No, I have a similar goal as you have.
>>
>> And I have also an answer. This is a concept I have developed, that I
>> call 'structured spacetime'.
>
> You have developed your own theory about the universe. I can't really comment on your theory. I think Einstein's theories are the correct theories. I just think that many people (primarily mathematicians) have misinterpreted Einstein's theories. That's the subject that interests me. Evaluating a totally different theory would take too much time away from what really interests me. Sorry.
There are actually a lot of people, who had developed own ideas about
similar problems in physics.
I think about my own idea, that it would be the best thing possible. But
most others do the same and like their brainchilds, too.
But it is very difficult to find out, who is actually correct.
This is so, because such 'inventors' are - of course - far away from
the mainstream and have therefore little support. This puts burden on
such people, since they have to defend their ideas themselves.
And similar are the problems for the audience, since nobody would tell
them, what is right or wrong with such unconventional concepts.
The only solution I have found for this problem is to invent on the own.
Then it is possible to compare other inventions with the own and
estimate, which concept looks promising.
But you need something, that you believe in and trust about its
validity, since you have invented it yourselve.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 10:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebde27db-9f6d-4d10-b094-b0db6904d575@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #406353 |
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:59:13 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.01.2017 17:16, schrieb Ed Lake:
>
> >>>>> Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
> >>>> rest, since it sits of the surface of planet Earth.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Any intelligent person would know that, if the question is "Which is moving, the train or the train station?," the answer is "The train."
> >>>
> >>> Yes, in the grander scheme of things, the train station is ALSO moving. But, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION? Was it to determine which was an illusion and which was real, or was the purpose of the question to create an argument where everyone disagrees with everyone else forever?
> >>>
> >>>> This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around the
> >>>> centre of the galaxy. Also our home galaxy moves about the local cluster
> >>>> and that moves, too.
> >>>>
> >>>> So we could not speak of 'true' rest of anything, since we simply do not
> >>>> know, were we have something not moving.
> >>>>
> >>>> To overcome this problem I suggest a method I call 'subjectivism'.
> >>>>
> >>>> This goes: everybody is at rest, since everybody defines 'at rest' in
> >>>> the way, that this definition allows him to stay at rest.
> >>>>
> >>>> So: everybody IS the centre of the universe, while these universes are
> >>>> slightly different from different perspectives.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hence the train is at rest and the station moves (by definition of the
> >>>> passenger in that particular train).
> >>>>
> >>>> If you sit in the train station you would define otherwise and let the
> >>>> train move.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you cannot decide who is right, since actually both definitions are
> >>>> wrong (because of Earth' rotation and so forth).
> >>>>
> >>>> But since no sufficient definition of 'at rest' exists, it is only to
> >>>> fair to allow equality of individual wrongness.
> >>
> >>> I guess it all depends upon your goals. If your goal is to argue that the universe makes no sense and there's no way to tell what is real and what is not real, then your methodology will certainly accomplish that.
> >>>
> >>> If your goal is to determine what is real and what is just a misunderstanding in the specific situation of a train moving out of a train station, then you need to understand how things can APPEAR to happen illogically, but when all the facts are known, it is all very logical.
> >>>
> >>> My goal is to understand how the universe works (including illusions).
> >>>
> >>> Your goal is apparently to argue that it is not possible to understand how the universe works because everything can be an illusion.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, I have a similar goal as you have.
> >>
> >> And I have also an answer. This is a concept I have developed, that I
> >> call 'structured spacetime'.
> >
> > You have developed your own theory about the universe. I can't really comment on your theory. I think Einstein's theories are the correct theories. I just think that many people (primarily mathematicians) have misinterpreted Einstein's theories. That's the subject that interests me. Evaluating a totally different theory would take too much time away from what really interests me. Sorry.
>
> There are actually a lot of people, who had developed own ideas about
> similar problems in physics.
>
Yeah, I know. Sometimes it seems like everyone has their own theory and no two theories agree.
> I think about my own idea, that it would be the best thing possible. But
> most others do the same and like their brainchilds, too.
>
> But it is very difficult to find out, who is actually correct.
>
Only if the theory is "not falsifiable," in which case it probably shouldn't be considered to be a "theory" in the first place.
> This is so, because such 'inventors' are - of course - far away from
> the mainstream and have therefore little support. This puts burden on
> such people, since they have to defend their ideas themselves.
>
> And similar are the problems for the audience, since nobody would tell
> them, what is right or wrong with such unconventional concepts.
>
From my experience, it is not that people won't tell them what is wrong, it is that the theorists will not believe anything that challenges their beliefs.
> The only solution I have found for this problem is to invent on the own.
>
> Then it is possible to compare other inventions with the own and
> estimate, which concept looks promising.
>
> But you need something, that you believe in and trust about its
> validity, since you have invented it yourselve.
>
In the real world, you should write down your idea and try to get it published.
In a fantasy world, you can just believe that you are right and believe that the rest of the world is too stupid or uncaring to listen and accept your beliefs. That is what most True Believers do.
Ed
> TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web