Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427580 > unrolled thread

What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

Started by	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
First post	2017-08-07 18:12 +1000
Last post	2017-08-20 15:35 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 237 — 18 participants

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

Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →

#428525

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-13 08:39 -0700
Message-ID	<459395c0-08ea-43b0-924d-6b48a6a42f36@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428483

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:47:12 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Newton knew only kinetic energy.  I don't see how that 
> has inertia, it isn't a 'thing'...

The underlying insight of special relativity is that "energy is a thing" (all forms of energy), and this thing has inertia.  Newton thought if you apply a constant force to a particle it will undergo constant acceleration, but this is not true, because as the particle gains kinetic energy KE its inertial mass increases by KE/c^2.  This is why it takes more and more force to accelerate an object, and eventually the speed asymptotically approaches c.  At that point, nearly all the work done on the object increases its energy, but the speed hardly increases at all.  Of course, in terms of the instantaneous rest inertial coordinates of the particle, it is always accelerating at a constant rate. (Note that f = f' in the longitudinal direction.)

> Anyway, in the modern view, inertia of massive objects 
> results from interactions with Higgs bosons.  Remove that 
> field, and your claim that energy has inertia becomes vacuous.

No, that's a common misconception.  The Higgs interaction isn't responsible for (and doesn't explain) inertia, it explains how (some) particles have *rest mass*, rather than being massless particles like photons.  But photons have inertia, and likewise those other particles would have the same inertia whether they have rest mass or not.  Inertia is a property of energy.  Rest mass just happens to represent a lot of bound energy.  The Higgs interaction just makes some particles that would otherwise move along lightlike paths instead move along timelike paths.  The Higgs interaction does not create or explain inertia for those leptons, etc.  Moreover, even most of the "rest mass" we experience in daily life is actually just bound kinetic energy of the fundamental particles, e.g., the bound quarks.

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

#428797

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-15 12:03 +1000
Message-ID	<omtkpg$ck3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428525

On 14/08/17 01:39, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:47:12 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>> Newton knew only kinetic energy.  I don't see how that
>> has inertia, it isn't a 'thing'...
> 
> The underlying insight of special relativity is that "energy is a thing" (all forms of energy), and this thing has inertia.  Newton thought if you apply a constant force to a particle it will undergo constant acceleration, but this is not true, because as the particle gains kinetic energy KE its inertial mass increases by KE/c^2.  

This is pure nonsense. When a force is applied, to an object, it slows 
down in as many frames as it speeds up. So its mass both increases and 
decreases with time according to your stupid nonsensical impossible 
belief system.

This is why it takes more and more force to accelerate an object, and 
eventually the speed asymptotically approaches c.  At that point, nearly 
all the work done on the object increases its energy, but the speed 
hardly increases at all.  Of course, in terms of the instantaneous rest 
inertial coordinates of the particle, it is always accelerating at a 
constant rate. (Note that f = f' in the longitudinal direction.)

Gawd! Why are dingleberries so bloody dumb?

No object has a speed. Every other object has a speed relative to it.

>> Anyway, in the modern view, inertia of massive objects
>> results from interactions with Higgs bosons.  Remove that
>> field, and your claim that energy has inertia becomes vacuous.
> 
> No, that's a common misconception.  The Higgs interaction isn't responsible for (and doesn't explain) inertia, it explains how (some) particles have *rest mass*, rather than being massless particles like photons.  But photons have inertia, and likewise those other particles would have the same inertia whether they have rest mass or not.  Inertia is a property of energy.  
Inertia is defined as 'resistance to change'. I know of no form of 
energy that does not transform automatically and entirely without 
resistance.
--

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

#428815

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-14 22:17 -0700
Message-ID	<9eab92f1-dac0-4414-b99d-5529c37d56a7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428797

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 7:03:34 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> When a force is applied, to an object, it slows down in 
> as many frames as it speeds up. 

Right.

> So its mass both increases and decreases with time...

To be precise, it's inertial (relativistic) mass increases in as many frames as it decreases.

> Gawd! Why are dingleberries so bloody dumb?

That's not a substantive rebuttal.

> No object has a speed. Every other object has a speed relative to it.

Those two sentences are mutually contradictory.  You say no object has a speed, but every other object has a speed (relative to it).  The final phrase (relative to it) doesn't mitigate the self-contradiction.  Perhaps you were trying to say something like "Objects don't have absolute speeds, they just have relative speeds", but unless you can articulate what you mean, it's probably best not to comment.

> Inertia is defined as 'resistance to change'. I know of no form of 
> energy that does not transform automatically and entirely without 
> resistance.

In physics, the word "inertia" isn't a general vague "resistance to change", it refers specifically to resistance to changes in the state of motion.  You DO know of many forms of energy that have inertia (i.e., contribute to inertial mass of objects), because you said "we all know that" when I listed them in the other message.

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

#428970

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-16 19:50 +1000
Message-ID	<on14hv$1djh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428815

On 15/08/17 15:17, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 7:03:34 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> When a force is applied, to an object, it slows down in as many
>> frames as it speeds up.
> 
> Right.
> 
>> So its mass both increases and decreases with time...
> 
> To be precise, it's inertial (relativistic) mass increases in as many
> frames as it decreases.
> 
>> Gawd! Why are dingleberries so bloody dumb?
> 
> That's not a substantive rebuttal.

But it is a good question. It epitomizes why the name Einstein has 
remained as the world's symbol of genius for so long.

>> No object has a speed. Every other object has a speed relative to
>> it.
> 
> Those two sentences are mutually contradictory.  You say no object
> has a speed, but every other object has a speed (relative to it).
> The final phrase (relative to it) doesn't mitigate the
> self-contradiction.  Perhaps you were trying to say something like
> "Objects don't have absolute speeds, they just have relative speeds",
> but unless you can articulate what you mean, it's probably best not
> to comment.

Of course I meant they can have relative speeds. But as I said, an 
object for instance in remote space has no particular speed.


>> Inertia is defined as 'resistance to change'. I know of no form of 
>> energy that does not transform automatically and entirely without 
>> resistance.
> 
> In physics, the word "inertia" isn't a general vague "resistance to
> change", it refers specifically to resistance to changes in the state
> of motion. 

No it doesn't. It applies to many aspects of life.
Resistance to changes in state of motion is called mass.

> You DO know of many forms of energy that have inertia
> (i.e., contribute to inertial mass of objects), because you said "we
> all know that" when I listed them in the other message.

Name one form of energy that somehow resists change. I suppose you will 
say something like 'heat energy in a cold body will resist flowing to a 
hotter one".



--

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

#428996

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-16 07:39 -0700
Message-ID	<11a73817-68f0-4a0a-bd96-35f083e33470@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#428970

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2:50:58 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> Of course I meant they can have relative speeds. But as I said, an 
> object for instance in remote space has no particular speed.

Right, and the same is true for an object anywhere else.  As you have said before, speed is frame dependent.  The point is that kinetic energy depends on speed, so kinetic energy is also frame dependent.  If it wasn't, conservation of energy would be violated (remember the mass oscillating on a spring).

> > In physics, the word "inertia" isn't a general vague "resistance to
> > change", it refers specifically to resistance to changes in the state
> > of motion. 
> 
> No it doesn't. It applies to many aspects of life.

I'm using the word "inertia" as it is used in the physics of mechanics, to refer specifically to resistance to changes in state of motion.

> Resistance to changes in state of motion is called mass.

No, inertia is an attribute of mass, and more fundamentally of energy, also known as relativistic mass.

> Name one form of energy that somehow resists change. 

Again, *every* form of energy resists changes in its state of motion.  I gave you examples previously, such as the fact that if we heat an object by adding a quantity of energy E, the heated object's rest mass increases by E/c^2.  Also, when a block of radium emits radiation with energy E, its rest mass decreases by E/c^2.  Also, some of the inertia (relativistic mass) of a tank of gasoline is due to the chemical binding energy of the molecules.  Also, a rock of rest mass m0, moving at speed v, resists changes in its state of motion as if it had mass m0/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2).  Hence if we put energy E into accelerating the rock, the increase in relativistic mass is E/c^2.  Even a photon, with no rest mass at all, has momentum, and resists changes in its state of motion according to its energy.  (When a photon hits an object it exerts a "kick", and when emitted there is a recoil on the source.)

> I suppose you will say something like 'heat energy in a 
> cold body will resist flowing to a hotter one".

That thermodynamic fact is not directly relevant to the inertia of energy.  It's more relevant to say if you have two identical objects at the same temperature, it will take an equal amount of force to cause them to accelerate at a certain rate, but if you heat one of the objects by putting an amount of energy E into the object, and then equal force to each of the objects, the heated object will accelerate less than the unheated object, because the relativistic mass has been increased by E/c^2.  In other words, the object with more energy has more resistance to changes in its state of motion.

When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the rest masses of the parts is less than the rest mass of the original atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total relativistic mass (i.e., mass-energy) is unchanged, because the parts have HUGE kinetic energies.  In effect, splitting the atom converts some of the binding energy of the original atom into kinetic energy of the parts.  After the released parts have given up their kinetic energy to the surroundings (by obliterating them), they have less combined rest mass than the original total uranium atom.

The point of all this is just that there is nothing logically impossible about energy having inertia.  In fact, it is consistent with everything we know, and explains many otherwise inexplicable things.  Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E cannot logically equal mc^2.

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

#429083

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-17 08:05 +1000
Message-ID	<on2fij$1h78$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#428996

On 17/08/17 00:39, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2:50:58 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> Of course I meant they can have relative speeds. But as I said, an

> No, inertia is an attribute of mass, and more fundamentally of 
> energy, also known as relativistic mass.
> 
>> Name one form of energy that somehow resists change.
> 
> Again, *every* form of energy resists changes in its state of
> motion. I gave you examples previously, such as the fact that if we
> heat an object by adding a quantity of energy E, the heated object's
> rest mass increases by E/c^2.  Also, when a block of radium emits 
> radiation with energy E, its rest mass decreases by E/c^2.  Also, 
> some of the inertia (relativistic mass) of a tank of gasoline is due 
> to the chemical binding energy of the molecules.  Also, a rock of 
> rest mass m0, moving at speed v, resists changes in its state of 
> motion as if it had mass m0/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2).  Hence if we put 
> energy E into accelerating the rock, the increase in relativistic 
> mass is E/c^2.  Even a photon, with no rest mass at all, has 
> momentum, and resists changes in its state of motion according to
> its energy.  (When a photon hits an object it exerts a "kick", and
> when emitted there is a recoil on the source.)

You keep making the same silly mistake. When energy is converted to 
mass, it is the latter that resists acceleration not the energy.


> 
> When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the 
> rest masses of the parts is less than the rest mass of the original 
> atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total 
> relativistic mass (i.e., mass-energy) is unchanged, because the
> parts have HUGE kinetic energies.  In effect, splitting the atom
> converts some of the binding energy of the original atom into kinetic
> energy of the parts.  After the released parts have given up their
> kinetic energy to the surroundings (by obliterating them), they have
> less combined rest mass than the original total uranium atom.

Yes we know that.
Actually, there is no proof that ordinary mass can be converted to 
energy according to E=mc^2. That relationship is only known to apply to 
binding energy. This again raises the question as to what 'mass' really 
is...

> The point of all this is just that there is nothing logically 
> impossible about energy having inertia.  In fact, it is consistent 
> with everything we know, and explains many otherwise inexplicable 
> things.  Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that 
> energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E cannot logically 
> equal mc^2.

I didn't say that. I said energy does not normally resist change...that 
being the crux of the definition of inertia. You are totally confused as 
to what inertia is and believe it is always the same thing as mass.



--

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

#429093

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-16 16:37 -0700
Message-ID	<36f747a1-bdfb-4617-b58a-d7954499180d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429083

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> When energy is converted to mass, it is the latter that 
> resists acceleration not the energy.

You apparently didn't read my post before responding, because it described the inertia of a photon, which has no rest mass at all.  Also, it's a well known misconception among beginning students that "energy is converted to mass".  Energy and mass are equivalent.  Mass is just bound energy, as shown by many of the examples I've given you, e.g., the rest mass of a container of gas increases when the kinetic energy of the gas particles inside the container increases.

> > When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the 
> > rest masses of the parts is less than the rest mass of the original 
> > atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total 
> > relativistic mass (i.e., mass-energy) is unchanged, because the
> > parts have HUGE kinetic energies....
> 
> Yes we know that.

Most people know it, but you don't seem to know it, because your entire belief system rests on the denial of these well-known facts.

> > Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that 
> > energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E cannot 
> > logically equal mc^2.
> 
> I didn't say that. 

The denial of E = mc^2 is the essence of your belief system.  If you ever accepted this well-known fact, your beliefs would all be falsified instantly.

> I said energy does not normally resist change...

Before you said "does not ever", now you say "does not normally".  Baby steps toward enlightenment?

But I've given you many examples illustrating that energy *always* resists changes in its state of motion (whether it is in the form of mass or not), and that mass is bound energy, and that the inertial mass of any object is proportional to its energy content.  You either don't read those examples, or else you say "We know all that" (presumably using the royal "we").  But if you knew it, you would stop denying it, and stop holding beliefs that directly contradict it.

> You are totally confused as to what inertia is...

Please look "inertia on Wikipedia, or any dictionary.  Look at the "physics" definition of the word.

> ... and believe it is always the same thing as mass.

I explained that a photon has inertia, even though a photon has no rest mass.  Now, if you are referring to what is sometimes called relativistic mass, that is indeed always strictly proportional to energy.  It isn't just me telling you this.  Look it up.

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

#429196

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-18 08:07 +1000
Message-ID	<on542j$1c58$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#429093

On 17/08/17 09:37, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> When energy is converted to mass, it is the latter that resists acceleration not the energy.
> 
> You apparently didn't read my post before responding, because it described the inertia of a photon, which has no rest
> mass at all.

A photon has momentum...and it probably has mass...very small mass. There is no reason to think it has inertia. You
don't seem to understand what the word 'inertia' means and continually confuse it with mass.

Also, it's a well known misconception among beginning students that "energy is converted to mass".  Energy and mass are
equivalent.  Mass is just bound energy, as shown by many of the examples I've given you, e.g., the rest mass of a
container of gas increases when the kinetic energy of the gas particles inside the container increases.

There is no proof that the entire mass of something, say a neutron, can be converted to mc^2. I'm not saying it cannot
but the whole concept of mass is so little understood that it would be presumptuous to say that it could.

>>> When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the rest masses of the parts is less than the
>>> rest mass of the original atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total relativistic mass (i.e.,
>>> mass-energy) is unchanged, because the parts have HUGE kinetic energies....
>> 
>> Yes we know that.
> 
> Most people know it, but you don't seem to know it, because your entire belief system rests on the denial of these
> well-known facts.

Idiot, are you just a college student? I have even taught these well-known facts to others.

>>> Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E
>>> cannot logically equal mc^2.
>> 
>> I didn't say that.
> 
> The denial of E = mc^2 is the essence of your belief system.  If you ever accepted this well-known fact, your beliefs
> would all be falsified instantly.

Idiot. E- mc^2. m DOES NOT = mc^2

>> I said energy does not normally resist change...
> 
> Before you said "does not ever", now you say "does not normally".  Baby steps toward enlightenment?
> 
> But I've given you many examples illustrating that energy *always* resists changes in its state of motion (whether it
> is in the form of mass or not), and that mass is bound energy, and that the inertial mass of any object is
> proportional to its energy content.  You either don't read those examples, or else you say "We know all that"
> (presumably using the royal "we").  But if you knew it, you would stop denying it, and stop holding beliefs that
> directly contradict it.
> 
>> You are totally confused as to what inertia is...
> 
> Please look "inertia on Wikipedia, or any dictionary.  Look at the "physics" definition of the word.

I know what inertia means. You don't. You seem to think that inertia only applies to movement, in which case inertia 
equal mass.
Inertia applies to many things. One could say the inertia of the value of common bank shares is greater than that of the 
Luxembourg Submarine Manufacturing Company.

>> ... and believe it is always the same thing as mass.
> 
> I explained that a photon has inertia, even though a photon has no rest mass.  

A photon has momentum....or at least it behaves as though it has. This has nothing to do with the word inertia.

Now, if you are referring to what is
> sometimes called relativistic mass, that is indeed always strictly proportional to energy.  It isn't just me telling
> you this.  Look it up.

Poor fellow, I have taught this stuff to students that were obviously a lot brighter than you.
> 

--

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

#429286

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-18 10:38 -0700
Message-ID	<5caf367b-a2da-4f21-8222-9b1650f6faea@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429196

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 3:07:20 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> A photon has momentum... There is no reason to think it has inertia. 

That is self-contradictory.  Anything that has momentum has inertia.  They both denote resistance to changes in the state of motion.

> There is no proof that the entire mass of something, 
> say a neutron, can be converted to mc^2. I'm not saying 
> it cannot but the whole concept of mass is so little 
> understood that it would be presumptuous to say that 
> it could.

Two points:  First, there was no demonstration 100 years ago that the entire rest mass of a particle could be transformed to pure energy, but particles and their anti-particles are now seen to collide and annihilate each other, yielding pure massless energy.  Second, this is irrelevant to your claim that it is *logically impossible* for all forms of energy to have inertia.  (This is equivalent to the claim that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.)

> Idiot, are you just a college student? I have even taught 
> these well-known facts to others.

I don't think so, because you claim that photons "probably" have mass, but they have no inertia (even though you agree they have momentum, and even though you say mass is inertia, or sometimes not, probably), and you deny that kinetic energy is energy, and that it is frame dependent, etc., and you oscillate on whether E = mc^2, and even on those days when you agree with it, you don't see that it implies the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

> Idiot. E- mc^2. m DOES NOT = mc^2

I can't parse those sentences, but if you are agreeing that E = mc^2, then that's good, we are in agreement.  Now you just need to understand why this implies that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

> I know what inertia means. You don't. You seem to think that 
> inertia only applies to movement, in which case inertia 
> equal mass.

In physics, the word "inertia" means resistance to changes in the state of motion, and it's a property of mass-energy.

> A photon has momentum....or at least it behaves as though 
> it has. This has nothing to do with the word inertia.

Momentum has nothing to do with inertia?

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

#429349

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-19 09:40 +1000
Message-ID	<on7tu0$a2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#429286

On 19/08/17 03:38, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 3:07:20 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> A photon has momentum... There is no reason to think it has inertia.
> 
> That is self-contradictory.  Anything that has momentum has inertia.  They both denote resistance to changes in the state of motion.

Well that is debatable....and it does not prove that energy has inertia. A photon is more than plain energy.

>> There is no proof that the entire mass of something,
>> say a neutron, can be converted to mc^2. I'm not saying
>> it cannot but the whole concept of mass is so little
>> understood that it would be presumptuous to say that
>> it could.
> 
> Two points:  First, there was no demonstration 100 years ago that the entire rest mass of a particle could be transformed to pure energy, but particles and their anti-particles are now seen to collide and annihilate each other, yielding pure massless energy. 

You cannot assume photons and gamma rays do not have mass.

  Second, this is irrelevant to your claim that it is *logically impossible* for all forms of energy to have inertia.

I said I don't know of any and your example, using mass, doesn't prove anything except your lack of understanding of 
basic physics.

  (This is equivalent to the claim that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every 
system of inertial coordinates.)

That is a plain fact according to he definition of a  frame.

>> Idiot, are you just a college student? I have even taught
>> these well-known facts to others.
> 
> I don't think so, because you claim that photons "probably" have mass, but they have no inertia (even though you agree they have momentum, and even though you say mass is inertia, or sometimes not, probably), and you deny that kinetic energy is energy, and that it is frame dependent, etc., and you oscillate on whether E = mc^2, and even on those days when you agree with it, you don't see that it implies the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

For a photon, E = h.c/lambda = mc^2
m = h/(c.lambda)....very small but finite.

>> Idiot. E- mc^2. m DOES NOT = mc^2
> 
> I can't parse those sentences, but if you are agreeing that E = mc^2, then that's good, we are in agreement.  Now you just need to understand why this implies that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

It cannot be and I have shown that it is not. Light speed from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards Earth....and gives an 
impression that the star is varying in brightness.

The idea that OWLS will always be measured as having the value c came from LET. Einstein plagiarized the idea and his SR 
is totally reliant on the existence of an absolute medium.


>> I know what inertia means. You don't. You seem to think that
>> inertia only applies to movement, in which case inertia
>> equal mass.
> 
> In physics, the word "inertia" means resistance to changes in the state of motion, and it's a property of mass-energy.
> 
>> A photon has momentum....or at least it behaves as though
>> it has. This has nothing to do with the word inertia.
> 
> Momentum has nothing to do with inertia?

When discussing inertia in relation to movement, MASS is the relevant factor, not momentum. Momentum is not the source 
of resistance to change. The associated mass involved is.
> 


--

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

#429363

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-18 22:50 -0700
Message-ID	<e2cdb569-fcef-4a54-81ff-a5f3adfa1d8e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429349

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> You cannot assume photons and gamma rays do not have mass.

I don't need not assume it.  You need to prove that it is logically impossible for them not to have rest mass.  You said you could do it, but you haven't done it.

And your overall claim, which you also have not proven, is that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

> That is a plain fact according to he definition of a frame.

Not true.  Please look closely at the statement that you claim to be able to prove is logically impossible.  It does not contain the word "frame", so you definition of that word is irrelevant.  It refers to inertial coordinate systems, which are defined in terms of inertia, and if energy has inertia, it follows by simple grade school algebra that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.  So, you need to prove that it is logically impossible for energy to have inertia, which amounts to provide that E=mc^2 is logically impossible.  You cannot do this.

> > The speed of light is c in terms of every system of 
> > inertial coordinates.
> 
> It cannot be and I have shown that it is not. 

No, you have not proven that it is logically impossible.

> Light speed from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards 
> Earth....and gives an impression that the star is varying
> in brightness.

That is easily ruled out by examining the frequencies and other characteristics, but it is also irrelevant, because you claimed to be able to prove that special relativity is logically impossible, not just that it is empirically false.  

You see, there is an abundance of empirical evidence ruling out your belefs, but you reject all the evidence on the grounds that it has been falsified... but when asked why you can be sure the evidence has been falsified, you say it's because special relativity is logically impossible.  Well, okay, but unfortunately whenever you are challenged to show that it is logically impossible, you revert to saying it is empirically false.  And around the circle you go.

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

#429558

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-21 09:16 +1000
Message-ID	<ond57f$1eo7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#429363

On 19/08/17 15:50, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:40:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> You cannot assume photons and gamma rays do not have mass.
> 
> I don't need not assume it.  You need to prove that it is logically impossible for them not to have rest mass.  You
> said you could do it, but you haven't done it.

Where did I say it was logically impossible?

> And your overall claim, which you also have not proven, is that it's logically impossible for the speed of light to
> be c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c because lengths and times are claimed to be contracted by the same 
factor...depending on absolute speed.  However, since there is no absolute aether, the whole idea is just an amusing but 
quite clever piece of SciFi. Einstein stole the idea from Lorentz and Poincare and established himself as the world's 
best SciFi writer......

>> That is a plain fact according to he definition of a frame.
> 
> Not true.  Please look closely at the statement that you claim to be able to prove is logically impossible.  It does
> not contain the word "frame", so you definition of that word is irrelevant.  It refers to inertial coordinate
> systems, which are defined in terms of inertia, and if energy has inertia, it follows by simple grade school algebra
> that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.  So, you need to prove that it is logically
> impossible for energy to have inertia, which amounts to provide that E=mc^2 is logically impossible.  You cannot do
> this.

What nonsense is this?

>>> The speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.
>> 
>> It cannot be and I have shown that it is not.
> 
> No, you have not proven that it is logically impossible.
> 
>> Light speed from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards Earth....and gives an impression that the star is varying in
>> brightness.
> 
> That is easily ruled out by examining the frequencies and other characteristics, but it is also irrelevant, because
> you claimed to be able to prove that special relativity is logically impossible, not just that it is empirically
> false.

That is true. I have done both.

> You see, there is an abundance of empirical evidence ruling out your belefs, but you reject all the evidence on the
> grounds that it has been falsified... 


None of that 'evidence' exists. The experiments which are claimed to support Einstein are fabricated by the 
conspirators. You only have to read some of them to see how stupid they are.

>  but when asked why you can be sure the evidence has been falsified, you say
> it's because special relativity is logically impossible.  Well, okay, but unfortunately whenever you are challenged
> to show that it is logically impossible, you revert to saying it is empirically false.  And around the circle you
> go.

Idiot! If a thing is logically flawed it will naturally be empirically impossible to prove correct.
Go away and get a brain. You're more clueless than Mickey Moron-y and little gawy combined....


--

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

#429568

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-20 21:17 -0700
Message-ID	<b76eaf88-37cf-4484-b15e-6fe798d57a20@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429558

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> On 19/08/17 15:50, danco wrote:
> > You need to prove that it is logically impossible for 
> > [photons] not to have rest mass.
> 
> Where did I say it was logically impossible?

If it isn't logically impossible, then your whole argument fails.

> According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c because 
> lengths and times are claimed to be contracted by the same 
> factor...depending on absolute speed.  

First, that's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET explanation, because you've omitted the crucial fact of the temporal skew in the Lorentz transformation.  Second, you are disproving your own argument, because LET is a prima facie proof that it's not logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of coordinates related by Lorentz transformations (which are the inertial coordinates).

> However, since there is no absolute aether, the whole idea 
> is just an amusing but quite clever piece of SciFi. 

First, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  Second, the invariance of light speed in terms of every systems of inertial coordinates follows directly from ballistic theory in vacuum, with only the added recognition that all forms of energy have inertia.

> What nonsense is this?

What part of the explanation don't you understand?

> If a thing is logically flawed it will naturally be 
> empirically impossible to prove correct.

Right, but you haven't shown that special relativity is logically flawed.  You pointed to a claimed "paradox" that was shown to be no paradox at all.  Aside from that, you've not advanced any argument at all.  And your belief in the conspiracy to falsify all the data is based solely on your belief that relativity is logically impossible, even though you haven't provided any argument to support that.  So, both your logical and your empirical claims appear to be completely unfounded, based purely on misunderstandings.

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

#429582

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-21 20:15 +1000
Message-ID	<onebsk$14ur$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#429568

On 21/08/17 14:17, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> On 19/08/17 15:50, danco wrote:
>>> You need to prove that it is logically impossible for [photons] not to have rest mass.
>> 
>> Where did I say it was logically impossible?
> 
> If it isn't logically impossible, then your whole argument fails.

Look , I don't know why I am bothering to reply to your posts... maybe I just feel sorry for you.
1) It is impossible for any speed to be frame independent.
2) It is possible to concoct an impossible set of conditions that would make light speed appear to always be measured as c.
3)

>> According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c because lengths and times are claimed to be contracted by the
>> same factor...depending on tabsolute speed.
> 
> First, that's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET explanation, because you've omitted the crucial fact of
> the temporal skew in the Lorentz transformation.  

Nonsense. I said lengths and times are both contracted in the same proportion...

> Second, you are disproving your own argument, because LET is a
> prima facie proof that it's not logically impossible for the speed of light to be c in terms of every system of
> coordinates related by Lorentz transformations (which are the inertial coordinates).

LET is logically impossible because it requires an absolute aether frame, in which lengths and times vary with absolute 
speed. TIME cannot be a function of speed because speed has dimensions L/T.

>> However, since there is no absolute aether, the whole idea is just an amusing but quite clever piece of SciFi.
> 
> First, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  Second, the invariance of light speed in terms of every
> systems of inertial coordinates follows directly from ballistic theory in vacuum, with only the added recognition
> that all forms of energy have inertia.

That is more nonsense. Light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an observer approaching the source 
at v. That is proved quite emphatically by Doppler shift. TWLS is always c assuming the source and mirror are MAR...and 
that proves BaTh is correct.

>> What nonsense is this?
> 
> What part of the explanation don't you understand?
> 
>> If a thing is logically flawed it will naturally be empirically impossible to prove correct.
> 
> Right, but you haven't shown that special relativity is logically flawed.  You pointed to a claimed "paradox" that
> was shown to be no paradox at all.  

The paradox is that according to SR, the moving clocks advance by the same amounts during the opposite transits and also 
by different amounts, depending on where the light sources are located......We are talking about pure numbers. Two 
numbers cannot be the same in one frame and different in another.

> Aside from that, you've not advanced any argument at all. 

It was obviously far too hard for you....I'm not surprised.

> And your belief in the
> conspiracy to falsify all the data is based solely on your belief that relativity is logically impossible, even
> though you haven't provided any argument to support that.  So, both your logical and your empirical claims appear to
> be completely unfounded, based purely on misunderstandings.

Well no doubt you would like that to be true because you obviously worship Einstein...I'm sorry if you world is 
collapsing around you because of my discoveries.
> 

--

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

#429634

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-21 12:17 -0700
Message-ID	<5abdca9b-847c-4d6e-bcaf-ea266d840492@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429582

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 3:15:52 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> 1) It is impossible for any speed to be frame independent.

The assertion of special relativity is that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.  These coordinates are, by definition, coordinates in terms of which inertia is homogeneous, isotropic, and normalized for reciprocity.  Now, if all forms of energy have inertia (which you have conceded is not logically impossible), in the proportion 1/c^2, then applying a constant force to a particle will ultimately increase its speed (expressed in terms of any inertial coordinate system) not to infinity, but to an asymptotic limit of c.  Likewise the speed of propagation of any massless energy must be c.  You have not provided any hint of an explanation for why this is logically impossible.

> 2) It is possible to concoct an impossible set of conditions 
> that would make light speed appear to always be measured as c.

Your sentence states that is it possible to do something impossible.  It sounds like you are conceding that it is logically possible to define relatively moving systems of coordinates, in each of which the speed of light is c.  This is obviously true.  But then, after admitting it's logically possible, you hasten to add that it is logically impossible.  Your position seems terribly conflicted.

>>> According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c 
>>> because lengths and times are claimed to be contracted 
>>> by the same factor...depending on the absolute speed.
> > 
> > That's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET 
> > explanation, because you've omitted the crucial fact of
> > the temporal skew in the Lorentz transformation.  
> 
> Nonsense. I said lengths and times are both contracted in 
> the same proportion...

I know, and that's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET explanation, for the reason given above.  Systems with just re-scaled space and time coordinates would be logically incompatible with the relativity principle, and would contradict experiment as well.  This is your straw man, not LET (or special relativity).

> LET is logically impossible because it requires an 
> absolute aether frame, in which lengths and times vary
> with absolute speed. TIME cannot be a function of speed 
> because speed has dimensions L/T.

The Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski metric (and all the other equations of special relativity) are all manifestly dimensionally correct, so your comment makes no sense.

> Light moves at c relative to its source...

More precisely, a pulse of light moves at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the source is at rest.

> and at c+v relative to an observer approaching the source 

Well, speeds are coordinate dependent, and it's certainly possible to define coordinates in which the speed of the pulse is c+v, but in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the observer is at rest the speed of the pulse is c, not c+v.

> That is proved quite emphatically by Doppler shift. 

The precisely-verified Doppler effect is consistent (even to second order) with special relativity, and not consistent with the class of theories you espouse.  But this is straying from our task, which is for you to explain why special relativity is *logically impossible*, not to explain why you believe all the data supporting it has been falsified.  So far you have failed to come up with any hint of an explanation.

> The paradox is that according to SR, the moving clocks 
> advance by the same amounts during the opposite transits 
> and also by different amounts, depending on where the 
> light sources are located......We are talking about pure 
> numbers. Two numbers cannot be the same in one frame and 
> different in another.

No, we can easily write down the exact times that each clock reads for each emission and reception event, and there is no contradiction.  You are just confused by the fact that two events can be simultaneous in one system of inertial coordinates and not in another.  (Remember, this is the crucial point you omitted from your description of LET above.  Until you actually understand the subject you aren't in a good position to criticize it.)

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

#429651

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Date	2017-08-22 07:46 +1000
Message-ID	<onfkc8$1bql$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#429634

On 22/08/17 05:17, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 3:15:52 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> 1) It is impossible for any speed to be frame independent.
> 
> The assertion of special relativity is that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.
> These coordinates are, by definition, coordinates in terms of which inertia is homogeneous, isotropic, and normalized
> for reciprocity.

Well you got that wrong for obvious reasons.

Now, if all forms of energy have inertia (which you have conceded is not logically impossible), in the proportion 1/c^2,
then applying a constant force to a particle will ultimately increase its speed (expressed in terms of any inertial
coordinate system) not to infinity, but to an asymptotic limit of c.  Likewise the speed of propagation of any massless
energy must be c.  You have not provided any hint of an explanation for why this is logically impossible.

You are violating the principle of relativity and Einstein's first postulate....which is basically correct.

>> 2) It is possible to concoct an impossible set of conditions that would make light speed appear to always be
>> measured as c.
> 
> Your sentence states that is it possible to do something impossible.  It sounds like you are conceding that it is
> logically possible to define relatively moving systems of coordinates, in each of which the speed of light is c.
> This is obviously true.  But then, after admitting it's logically possible, you hasten to add that it is logically
> impossible.  Your position seems terribly conflicted.

Not at all. I would have thought you read a lot of science fiction and realize why it is just that.

>>>> According to LET, OWLS would always be measured as c

>>> That's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET explanation, because you've omitted the crucial fact of the
>>> temporal skew in the Lorentz transformation.
>> 
>> Nonsense. I said lengths and times are both contracted in the same proportion...
> 
> I know, and that's a woefully inaccurate description of the LET explanation, for the reason given above.  Systems
> with just re-scaled space and time coordinates would be logically incompatible with the relativity principle, and
> would contradict experiment as well.  This is your straw man, not LET (or special relativity).

In aether theory, it is impossible to detect one's own absolute speed or detect any of the claimed contractions. (That
stuffs up anyone who claims they don't exist.)

>> LET is logically impossible because it requires an absolute aether frame, in which lengths and times vary with
>> absolute speed. TIME cannot be a function of speed because speed has dimensions L/T.
> 
> The Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski metric (and all the other equations of special relativity) are all
> manifestly dimensionally correct, so your comment makes no sense.

Irrelevant

>> Light moves at c relative to its source...
> 
> More precisely, a pulse of light moves at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the source is at
> rest.

Why complicate what is simple? Does it make you feel intelligent...using three times the number of words to say the same
thing?

>> and at c+v relative to an observer approaching the source
> 
> Well, speeds are coordinate dependent, and it's certainly possible to define coordinates in which the speed of the
> pulse is c+v, but in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the observer is at rest the speed of the pulse is c,
> not c+v.

This is refute by variable star analyses that shows quite clearly that light moves at c+v.

>> That is proved quite emphatically by Doppler shift.
> 
> The precisely-verified Doppler effect is consistent (even to second order) with special relativity, and not
> consistent with the class of theories you espouse.

That is bullshit. To verify SR's Doppler prediction, a frequency would have to be measured. That cannot be done with
light and radio does not provide sufficient accuracy to distinguish between Newton and Einstein.

  But this is straying from our task, which is for you to explain why special relativity is *logically impossible*, not
to explain why you believe all the data supporting it has been falsified.  So far you have failed to come up with any
hint of an explanation.

The second postulate leads to an insoluble paradox that basically requires that 'sameness' is frame dependent.

>> The paradox is that according to SR, the moving clocks advance by the same amounts during the opposite transits and
>> also by different amounts, depending on where the light sources are located......We are talking about pure numbers.
>> Two numbers cannot be the same in one frame and different in another.
> 
> No, we can easily write down the exact times that each clock reads for each emission and reception event, and there
> is no contradiction.  You are just confused by the fact that two events can be simultaneous in one system of inertial
> coordinates and not in another.  

You are confused because you believe simultaneity is related to light and what human eyes perceive.

(Remember, this is the crucial point you omitted from your description of LET above.
> Until you actually understand the subject you aren't in a good position to criticize it.)

HAHAHHHAH! That's a joke! You are the one you is totally indoctrinated and relies on faith alone to support your 
arguments. You should learnt o talk science, not religion.
> 

--

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

#429667

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-21 17:36 -0700
Message-ID	<39c45790-fc2f-4af9-b81d-0dd31be4f19f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429651

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 2:46:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> On 22/08/17 05:17, danco wrote:
> > Inertial coordinates are, by definition, coordinates in terms
> > of which inertia is homogeneous, isotropic, and normalized
> > for reciprocity.
> Well you got that wrong for obvious reasons.

Which of those three attributes do you claim is not a characteristic of inertial coordinate systems?

> You are violating the principle of relativity and 
> Einstein's first postulate...

To the contrary, everything I'm saying is a consequence of the relativity principle.  If you had a rational reason why you think special relativity violates the relativity principle (on which it is based), I assume you would have given it.

> In aether theory, it is impossible to detect one's own 
> absolute speed or detect any of the claimed contractions.

Wait, your position requires you to claim that Lorentz's (doubly-modified) aether theory is logically impossible, because if it wasn't, then special relativity would also not be logically impossible, since the two differ only by a purely metaphysical commitment with no logical implications.

> >> TIME cannot be a function of speed because speed has 
> >> dimensions L/T.
> > The Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski metric (and all 
> > the other equations of special relativity) are all manifestly
> > dimensionally correct, so your comment makes no sense.
> Irrelevant

How can the fact that your comment makes no sense be irrelevant?  I take it that you were unable to think of any rational rebuttal to the refutation of your argument.

> >> Light moves at c relative to its source...
> > More precisely, a pulse of light moves at speed c in terms 
> > of the inertial coordinates in which the source is at rest.
> Why complicate what is simple? ...using three times the number 
> of words to say the same thing?

It doesn't say the same thing.  That's the whole point.  My statement is as concise as possible while still being correct.  Your statement is strictly meaningless, because you haven't given an operational definition of your terms.  It's impossible to understand special relativity (as simple as it is) by thinking on that level.  Only once you begin to speak (and think) precisely in fully defined terms can you hope to understand.  The source and observer are at rest in different systems of inertial coordinates, and those coordinate systems are related in a specific way that involves skewing of the time coordinates in space (because of the inertia of energy).  You've can't capture these facts while speaking on your vague and ambiguous level.

> This is refuted by variable star analyses that shows quite 
> clearly that light moves at c+v.

The analysis of star light does not show that, quite the opposite (as explained to you countless times), but this is irrelevant to your claim that special relativity is logically impossible (as distinct from being empirically refuted).

> > The precisely-verified Doppler effect is consistent (even to 
> > second order) with special relativity, and not consistent with 
> > the class of theories you espouse.
> That is bullshit. To verify SR's Doppler prediction, a frequency 
> would have to be measured. That cannot be done with light and radio
> does not provide sufficient accuracy to distinguish between Newton 
> and Einstein.

Your approach is backwards and very misguided.  The relationship between inertial coordinate systems has been established empirically in a wide variety of ways, as has the Lorentz invariance of all (known) physical phenomena.  There is no empirical ambiguity in the kinematics of inertial coordinate systems.  We then use this knowledge of fundamental kinematics to analyze many things, from sub-atomic to astronomical.  One of the things we examine is the variable light from stars, and we infer the behavior of the stars based on the known fundamental laws of physics.  

But your approach is completely backwards:  You ignore all of known physics (rejecting it as conspiratorially designed to be false and misleading), and the known theoretical and empirical foundations, and instead you try, from the standpoint of complete ignorance, to infer a foundation of physics from one particular phenomenon, namely, the variable stars.  You insist that nothing can be accepted as true if it doesn't come from looking at amplitudes of variable star light.  Well, this is obviously massively under-specified.  We cannot infer the relationship between inertial coordinates from this.  Any number of hypotheses could be proposed to fit this specific aspect of this specific data, but that isn't how physics works.  We develop laws that satisfy ALL the empirical requirements, and of course we cannot simply reject any test results that don't fit our hypothesis by claiming a world-wide conspiracy.

> The second postulate leads to an insoluble paradox that basically 
> requires that 'sameness' is frame dependent.

That's a meaningless statement.

> You are confused because you believe simultaneity is related to 
> light and what human eyes perceive.

Not at all.  Simultaneity is determine by isotropy of inertia.  And since inertia is frame-dependent (because kinetic energy has inertia), simultaneity is also frame-dependent.  This has nothing at all to do with delay times for pulses of light to reach anyone's eye.

You didn't respond to the explanation that we can write down the precise times showing on each clock at each point in your scenario, and there is no contradiction.  Shouldn't this be the focus of your attention?  If it's true, it falsifies your alleged contradiction, so I would think you'd be interested.

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

#429690

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2017-08-22 06:16 -0700
Message-ID	<dca3422d-fa0c-4637-85f5-e061f82fb2d1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429667

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:36:47 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 2:46:53 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> > On 22/08/17 05:17, danco wrote:
> > > Inertial coordinates are, by definition, coordinates in terms
> > > of which inertia is homogeneous, isotropic, and normalized
> > > for reciprocity.
> > Well you got that wrong for obvious reasons.
> 
> Which of those three attributes do you claim is not a characteristic of inertial coordinate systems?
> 
> > You are violating the principle of relativity and 
> > Einstein's first postulate...
> 
> To the contrary, everything I'm saying is a consequence of the relativity principle.  If you had a rational reason why you think special relativity violates the relativity principle (on which it is based), I assume you would have given it.
> 
> > In aether theory, it is impossible to detect one's own 
> > absolute speed or detect any of the claimed contractions.
> 
> Wait, your position requires you to claim that Lorentz's (doubly-modified) aether theory is logically impossible, because if it wasn't, then special relativity would also not be logically impossible, since the two differ only by a purely metaphysical commitment with no logical implications.
> 
> > >> TIME cannot be a function of speed because speed has 
> > >> dimensions L/T.
> > > The Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski metric (and all 
> > > the other equations of special relativity) are all manifestly
> > > dimensionally correct, so your comment makes no sense.
> > Irrelevant
> 
> How can the fact that your comment makes no sense be irrelevant?  I take it that you were unable to think of any rational rebuttal to the refutation of your argument.
> 
> > >> Light moves at c relative to its source...
> > > More precisely, a pulse of light moves at speed c in terms 
> > > of the inertial coordinates in which the source is at rest.
> > Why complicate what is simple? ...using three times the number 
> > of words to say the same thing?
> 
> It doesn't say the same thing.  That's the whole point.  My statement is as concise as possible while still being correct.  Your statement is strictly meaningless, because you haven't given an operational definition of your terms.  It's impossible to understand special relativity (as simple as it is) by thinking on that level.  Only once you begin to speak (and think) precisely in fully defined terms can you hope to understand.  The source and observer are at rest in different systems of inertial coordinates, and those coordinate systems are related in a specific way that involves skewing of the time coordinates in space (because of the inertia of energy).  You've can't capture these facts while speaking on your vague and ambiguous level.
> 
> > This is refuted by variable star analyses that shows quite 
> > clearly that light moves at c+v.
> 
> The analysis of star light does not show that, quite the opposite (as explained to you countless times), but this is irrelevant to your claim that special relativity is logically impossible (as distinct from being empirically refuted).
> 
> > > The precisely-verified Doppler effect is consistent (even to 
> > > second order) with special relativity, and not consistent with 
> > > the class of theories you espouse.
> > That is bullshit. To verify SR's Doppler prediction, a frequency 
> > would have to be measured. That cannot be done with light and radio
> > does not provide sufficient accuracy to distinguish between Newton 
> > and Einstein.
> 
> Your approach is backwards and very misguided.  The relationship between inertial coordinate systems has been established empirically in a wide variety of ways, as has the Lorentz invariance of all (known) physical phenomena.  There is no empirical ambiguity in the kinematics of inertial coordinate systems.  We then use this knowledge of fundamental kinematics to analyze many things, from sub-atomic to astronomical.  One of the things we examine is the variable light from stars, and we infer the behavior of the stars based on the known fundamental laws of physics.  
> 
> But your approach is completely backwards:  You ignore all of known physics (rejecting it as conspiratorially designed to be false and misleading), and the known theoretical and empirical foundations, and instead you try, from the standpoint of complete ignorance, to infer a foundation of physics from one particular phenomenon, namely, the variable stars.  You insist that nothing can be accepted as true if it doesn't come from looking at amplitudes of variable star light.  Well, this is obviously massively under-specified.  We cannot infer the relationship between inertial coordinates from this.  Any number of hypotheses could be proposed to fit this specific aspect of this specific data, but that isn't how physics works.  We develop laws that satisfy ALL the empirical requirements, and of course we cannot simply reject any test results that don't fit our hypothesis by claiming a world-wide conspiracy.
> 
> > The second postulate leads to an insoluble paradox that basically 
> > requires that 'sameness' is frame dependent.
> 
> That's a meaningless statement.
> 
> > You are confused because you believe simultaneity is related to 
> > light and what human eyes perceive.
> 
> Not at all.  Simultaneity is determine by isotropy of inertia.  And since inertia is frame-dependent (because kinetic energy has inertia), simultaneity is also frame-dependent.  This has nothing at all to do with delay times for pulses of light to reach anyone’s eye.

Absolute not......Simultaneity is absolute. It can only be measured by an observer at rest at equal distances from the two events or source. Other observers moving wrt these two events or source can use the LT to determine their simultaneity. For example the two events are at distance L’ from their common mid-point then the time of simultaneity of these two events as determined by this moving observer is calculated as follows:
Delta(t’)=Delta(L’)/c*gamma

RoS is falsely determined as frame dependent because the observer moving wrt these two events assumes that his coordinate system (his frame) is in a state of  rest and that the events were moving in his frame (coordinate system). But he failed to realize that it is he and his coordinate system  are doing the  moving wrt these two events. Once he realize that the assumed RoS disappears.
> 
> You didn’t respond to the explanation that we can write down the precise times sho is moving wing on each clock at each point in your scenario, and there is no contradiction.  Shouldn't this be the focus of your attention?  If it's true, it falsifies your alleged contradiction, so I would think you'd be interested.

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

#429858

From	dancouriann@gmail.com
Date	2017-08-23 13:24 -0700
Message-ID	<03848065-b404-4879-bf50-859af3e37b3a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429690

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:16:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> Absolute not......Simultaneity is absolute. 

Your concerns and questions were addressed in my previous message.  Why no response?  Do you agree with the answers to your questions that I provided?

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

#429928

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2017-08-24 12:38 -0700
Message-ID	<412f2f5f-df58-444d-9f02-051e5d658368@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#429858

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:16:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > Absolute not......Simultaneity is absolute. 
> 
> Your concerns and questions were addressed in my previous message.  Why no response?  Do you agree with the answers to your questions that I provided?

What message is that? I missed it.

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

Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →

csiph-web

What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

Contents

#428525

#428797

#428815

#428970

#428996

#429083

#429093

#429196

#429286

#429349

#429363

#429558

#429568

#429582

#429634

#429651

#429667

#429690

#429858

#429928