Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430648 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-01 03:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-09-07 07:32 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 86 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 03:25 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-09-01 13:23 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-01 14:15 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 06:09 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 06:20 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 07:05 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-01 12:40 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-02 12:19 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-02 03:26 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 22:34 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 22:48 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 10:18 +0200
Energy (was: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth)) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 15:52 +0200
Re: Energy (was: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth)) Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-03 13:56 +0000
The problem of crackpots (was: Energy) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-03 17:32 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 18:55 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 19:03 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 08:22 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 23:32 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 04:11 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-05 05:06 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 05:17 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-05 05:26 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Istrátora Metiku <untw@nwpovu.un> - 2017-09-06 12:42 +0000
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:11 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 14:33 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 00:33 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:48 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Istrátora Metiku <untw@nwpovu.un> - 2017-09-06 13:03 +0000
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:46 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 13:04 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 05:05 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 05:25 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 20:40 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 13:15 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-07 05:42 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 21:56 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 21:58 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 07:57 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 23:19 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 03:38 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 04:52 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:08 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 03:58 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 14:22 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 14:03 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 08:26 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 04:12 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 06:42 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 05:35 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-04 21:49 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 19:35 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 07:41 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 03:53 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-05 14:15 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:17 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 12:44 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 05:19 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 15:34 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 08:53 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 18:02 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 21:02 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 11:31 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> - 2017-09-07 15:46 +0000
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 21:44 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 16:01 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 07:11 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 08:57 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 09:01 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 02:25 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 20:49 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 11:42 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-07 01:23 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 02:01 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 12:56 -0500
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 12:44 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 20:36 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-07 12:04 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 12:14 +0000
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-06 20:12 +0200
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) bigal95210@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-05 22:49 -0700
Re: Interstellar Travel and time taken for the trip. (No time dilation for the Earth) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-07 07:32 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 05:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcdc1659-2598-4757-b35c-87a5d049a39d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431305 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:14:46 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> For example, take the relativity of simultaneity as a good starting point.
> There is the thought experiment in which two lightnings strike at the same
> time at equal distances from an observer considered at rest, and an observer
> in the middle of a train that is moving relative to the first observer.
>
> Now, you still *can* understand intuitively and qualitatively that if the
> speed of light is finite and the same for all observers, the flashes are
> simultaneous for the observer at rest, but not simultaneous for the moving
> observer: Because the moving observer is moving towards one flash and away
> from the other; he catches up earlier with the light of the flash that he is
> moving towards than the light of the flash that he is moving away from can
> catch up with him.
>
The lightning strikes, I never could get around this one. Let me ask some questions to clarify the issues here.
1. What is the distance between the stationary (naming convention)observer and the point of the lightning strikes?
>the flashes are
> simultaneous for the observer at rest
OK
2. What is the distance between the moving observer and the point of the lightning strikes?
>
> I wager that, if you find that poor guy, it will never be published then
> because after their review the points of the book, your concerns, will all
> have disappeared in a puff of logic. You have to realize that those
> concerns have been discussed *by ("mainstream") scientists* numerous times
> before, including books.
>
I could document my 'trial of errors' or ' journey into the unknown'. Many scientists still have concerns about Relativity, but it is unfortunate that those scientists are dismissed as crackpots. They are still scientists, though, and for them the issue is not settled. Maybe I am part of that discussion.
I agree that I have to close these and document my explorations so far. Joined this group in 2003/2004.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 15:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3390243.ksRzHcEWS9@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431314 |
gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > 1. What is the distance between the stationary (naming convention)observer > and the point of the lightning strikes? The _points_, rather. We are talking about spatially separated events. If I am to believe that the “Genius” rendition reflects the original, 50 meters in each direction: the flashes are said to be “100 meters [rest distance] apart” and simultaneous for the stationary observer, so the latter must stand in the middle between them. > 2. What is the distance between the moving observer and the point of the > lightning strikes? In that rendition, no statement about that is being made. The moving observer’s location is just defined to be “in the middle of the train”. However, ISTM that one has to conclude that the moving observer also is in the middle between the flashes when the lightnings strike according to the stationary observer; otherwise there could be the situation that the flashes are observed simultaneously by them (but then not by the stationary observer). <http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/genius/videos/time-is-not-absolute/> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d45fffd-76ec-431e-9cb6-b87a26d5f388@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431330 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:04:15 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > 2. What is the distance between the moving observer and the point of the > > lightning strikes? > > In that rendition, no statement about that is being made. The moving > observer’s location is just defined to be “in the middle of the train”. > > However, ISTM that one has to conclude that the moving observer also is in > the middle between the flashes when the lightnings strike according to the > stationary observer; otherwise there could be the situation that the flashes > are observed simultaneously by them (but then not by the stationary > observer). > Ok. So now we have an observer between two lightning strikes, two sources of light, equidistant from two light emitting sources. It is assumed that the lightning strikes illuminate the scene. What is the time it takes for the light from each of the two sources reach the observer who is exactly in the middle between the two light emitting sources? Same as the 'stationary' observer? Also simultaneous?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 18:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1864267.QZQchNZkt5@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431353 |
gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:04:15 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sigh. [psf 10.1] >> > 2. What is the distance between the moving observer and the point of >> > the lightning strikes? >> In that rendition, no statement about that is being made. The moving >> observer’s location is just defined to be “in the middle of the train”. >> >> However, ISTM that one has to conclude that the moving observer also is >> in the middle between the flashes when the lightnings strike according to >> the stationary observer; otherwise there could be the situation that the >> flashes are observed simultaneously by them (but then not by the >> stationary observer). > > Ok. So now we have an observer between two lightning strikes, two sources > of light, equidistant from two light emitting sources. It is assumed that > the lightning strikes illuminate the scene. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You could describe it that way, yes. > What is the time it takes for the light from each of the two sources reach > the observer who is exactly in the middle between the two light emitting > sources? Do your own homework. > Same as the 'stationary' observer? The light travel times as observed by the moving observer (i.e. the time between they leave their middle position to the time that they see the flash) will not only be different from the time that the stationary observer measures (keep in mind that the stationary observer measures only one time as the flashes are defined to be simultaneous for them), but also they will be different from each other, of course. > Also simultaneous? No. AISB. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 21:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c516ed6-1c52-481d-b819-4583e083dc1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431357 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 9:32:57 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > Ok. So now we have an observer between two lightning strikes, two sources > > of light, equidistant from two light emitting sources. It is assumed that > > the lightning strikes illuminate the scene. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You could describe it that way, yes. > > > What is the time it takes for the light from each of the two sources reach > > the observer who is exactly in the middle between the two light emitting > > sources? > > Do your own homework. OK, so > > > Same as the 'stationary' observer? > > The light travel times as observed by the moving observer (i.e. the time > between they leave their middle position to the time that they see the > flash) will not only be different from the time that the stationary observer > measures (keep in mind that the stationary observer measures only one time > as the flashes are defined to be simultaneous for them), but also they will > be different from each other, of course. > Are the light sources moving relative to the moving observer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 11:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2959429.OXCBXdQgiW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431423 |
gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 9:32:57 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: You don’t get it, do you? >> The light travel times as observed by the moving observer (i.e. the time >> between they leave their middle position to the time that they see the >> flash) will not only be different from the time that the stationary >> observer measures (keep in mind that the stationary observer measures >> only one time as the flashes are defined to be simultaneous for them), >> but also they will be different from each other, of course. > > Are the light sources moving relative to the moving observer? Obviously. What is your point? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erika Milling <kak@kiilwgil.lc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oorpkg$1v9j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431444 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> The light travel times as observed by the moving observer (i.e. the >>> time between they leave their middle position to the time that they >>> see the flash) will not only be different from the time that the >>> stationary observer measures (keep in mind that the stationary >>> observer measures only one time as the flashes are defined to be >>> simultaneous for them), but also they will be different from each >>> other, of course. >> >> Are the light sources moving relative to the moving observer? > > Obviously. What is your point? Of course not. Only if the light is pointing into the observer. Everything else pass unobservable, hence irrelevant. You seems autistic, who is to blame??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 21:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b957f039-b015-4ba1-aa1d-4134095cbd38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431444 |
On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 3:01:46 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > >> The light travel times as observed by the moving observer (i.e. the time > >> between they leave their middle position to the time that they see the > >> flash) will not only be different from the time that the stationary > >> observer measures (keep in mind that the stationary observer measures > >> only one time as the flashes are defined to be simultaneous for them), > >> but also they will be different from each other, of course. > > > > Are the light sources moving relative to the moving observer? > > Obviously. What is your point? > Does the diagram on this page depict the above scenario accurately? I think a diagram is needed for clarity. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 16:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <05624ef3-811a-b8b4-7c4a-be84b13638de@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431314 |
gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > Many scientists still have concerns about Relativity, Name them. > but it is unfortunate that those scientists are dismissed as crackpots. Only those who are not employing the scientific method, but still think that their ideas are mature enough to be called “theory”, are dismissed as crackpots. That might be considered cruel by those affected, but is actually good so. Science works by falsification: relentlessly weeding out *inconsistent* ideas and *demonstrably* false models about the world. ISTM the key difference is this: A scientist *wants* his ideas to be *tested*. A crackpot only wants his ideas to be heard; as if having an idea would be a virtue in itself. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24c6adf7-c7c0-40cc-a51d-6f7da40b2344@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431339 |
W dniu środa, 6 września 2017 16:01:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > Science works by falsification: relentlessly weeding out *inconsistent* > ideas and *demonstrably* false models about the world. :) Or, at least, that's how a poor idiot imagines how science works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbb17dca-5eb1-41bf-8005-c5915a92d764@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431339 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:31:29 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > That might be considered cruel by those affected, but is actually good so. > Science works by falsification: relentlessly weeding out *inconsistent* > ideas and *demonstrably* false models about the world. > You do realize that if Einstein had not had the time to correct his error in predicting the bending of starlight around the sun, if the observation had been done earlier, based on the wrong calculation, Einstein would have been labeled as a failure and maybe a crackpot? Also, the experiment which made world headlines and made Einstein famous were based on observations that at best were 30% correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fda1f5cd-712d-4618-9b2e-310e464f1676@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431354 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 9:27:39 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:31:29 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > That might be considered cruel by those affected, but is actually good so. > > Science works by falsification: relentlessly weeding out *inconsistent* > > ideas and *demonstrably* false models about the world. > > > You do realize that if Einstein had not had the time to correct his error in predicting the bending of starlight around the sun, if the observation had been done earlier, based on the wrong calculation, Einstein would have been labeled as a failure and maybe a crackpot? > > Also, the experiment which made world headlines and made Einstein famous were based on observations that at best were 30% correct? Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun However, Einstein noted in 1915 in the process of completing general relativity, that his (and thus Soldner's) 1911 result is only half of the correct value. Einstein became the first to calculate the correct value for light bending.[19] The early accuracy, however, was poor. The results were argued by some[23] to have been plagued by systematic error and possibly confirmation bias, although modern reanalysis of the dataset[24] suggests that Eddington's analysis was accurate.[25][26]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 02:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2228272.nfYaeiFjGx@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431355 |
gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 9:27:39 PM UTC+5:30, > gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:31:29 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas >> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> > That might be considered cruel by those affected, but is actually good >> > so. Science works by falsification: relentlessly weeding out >> > *inconsistent* ideas and *demonstrably* false models about the world. >> > >> You do realize that if Einstein had not had the time to correct his error >> in predicting the bending of starlight around the sun, if the observation >> had been done earlier, based on the wrong calculation, Einstein would >> have been labeled as a failure and maybe a crackpot? >> >> Also, the experiment which made world headlines and made Einstein famous >> were based on observations that at best were 30% correct? > > Reference: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun You need to learn to read. That does not corroborate your claim at all. > However, Einstein noted in 1915 in the process of completing general > relativity, that his (and thus Soldner's) 1911 result is only half of the > correct value. Einstein became the first to calculate the correct value > for light bending.[19] (You did not write this. It is customary to indicate that posted text is a quotation, either by quotation prefixes or quotation marks.) So what? The "experiment" that made “world headlines” was the *observation* of the deflection of light of a distant star by the Sun during a total solar eclipse in *1919*, by which general relativity was well established in the scientific community. Einstein presented the final, correct field equations to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in November *1915*. > The early accuracy, however, was poor. The results were argued by some[23] > to have been plagued by systematic error and possibly confirmation bias, > although modern reanalysis of the dataset[24] suggests that Eddington's > analysis was accurate.[25][26] And this also *refutes* your claim about the observations. AISB. You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 20:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e78fbbf-8e90-44d9-8139-286c18f512e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431412 |
On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 5:55:40 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > So what? The "experiment" that made “world headlines” was the *observation* > of the deflection of light of a distant star by the Sun during a total solar > eclipse in *1919*, by which general relativity was well established in the > scientific community. Einstein presented the final, correct field equations > to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in November *1915*. So what? It all seemed to depend on Einstein discovering his error before it was published, but leave it at that. > > > "The early accuracy, however, was poor. The results were argued by some[23] > > to have been plagued by systematic error and possibly confirmation bias, > > although modern reanalysis of the dataset[24] suggests that Eddington's > > analysis was accurate.[25][26]" - Wikpedia > > And this also *refutes* your claim about the observations. AISB. > > I have seen the view expressed that the analysis was not accurate, however, will accept the above. To be consistent, it means then that it would have been vital for Einstein to realize his error in calculations before the observations of starlight during the solar eclipse were performed. > You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 11:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9128746.5gHOrmlu3J@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #431422 |
gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 5:55:40 AM UTC+5:30, Thomas > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> So what? The "experiment" that made “world headlines” was the >> *observation* of the deflection of light of a distant star by the Sun >> during a total solar eclipse in *1919*, by which general relativity was >> well established in the scientific community. Einstein presented the >> final, correct field equations to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in >> November *1915*. >> […] >> To be consistent, it means then that it would have been vital for >> Einstein to realize his error in calculations You cannot even tell what the error was. >> before the observations of starlight during the solar eclipse were >> performed. He *did*. Can’t you read? Also, you have been told before that Einstein was not the sole author of GR. Also, it was Einstein who proposed the test in the first place. He had even an observatory built in Berlin just for that purpose. *He* challenged astronomers. You see, different to crackpots, *he* *wanted* his theory to be *tested*, to make sure he was not wrong. >> You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. > > Now? Q.E.D. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 01:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96d57aae-45b1-47d7-b32f-c6d38686443f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431412 |
W dniu czwartek, 7 września 2017 02:25:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > So what? The "experiment" that made “world headlines” was the *observation* > of the deflection of light of a distant star by the Sun during a total solar > eclipse in *1919*, by which general relativity was well established in the > scientific community. According to your Shit, light doesn't deflect, however. Its path through space are straight, geodesic lines and its trajectories through spacetime as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 02:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <beb6bf09-6c3a-4d22-ad85-beabf92cbe45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431441 |
What about this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_clock_problem_(clock_paradox)_in_relativity Item 30. 1935. I recall a similar idea proposed in more recent times. 30.Campbell, J.W. CLOCK PROBLEM OF RELATIVITY. Phil.Mag. 19:715-720, Mar.1935. "In the particular case discussed by Eddington, a body B projected from the earth returns to find that he has lived a shorter time than a body A which has remained on the earth undisturbed. The author shows that B may have been disturbed in such a way as to leave the earth and return to find that he had lived a longer time than A who remained on earth. It is shown that time is increased over some disturbed paths and that the explicit effect of disturbances themselves on Time is zero. The special case is considered where B is disturbed so as to follow a cometary orbit with perihelion distance equal to the perihelion distance of the earth and with longitude of perihelion sufficiently different from that of the earth so that the earth would not appreciably perturb B's motion on subsequent near approaches, and at some later approach it is again projected to the earth at a perihelion passage. The effects of the following four factors are considered: (1) sun's gravitational field, (2) earth's gravitational field, (3) the projecting disturbances on B, (4) the disturbances (molecular bombardments by the earth) on A." Sci.Abs. 38A:1994, 1935.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 12:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oopct1$bl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431354 |
On 9/6/17 10:57 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:31:29 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> That might be considered cruel by those affected, but is actually good so. >> Science works by falsification: relentlessly weeding out *inconsistent* >> ideas and *demonstrably* false models about the world. >> > You do realize that if Einstein had not had the time to correct his error in predicting the bending of starlight around the sun, if the observation had been done earlier, based on the wrong calculation, Einstein would have been labeled as a failure and maybe a crackpot? I don't think you know how science works. First of all, the observation is not "based on a calculation". It is a direct measure of angular displacement by watching the azimuth and zenith angles of a star change. The angular displacement is a direct measurement of the bend. There is absolutely zero dependence on any theory for the bend MEASUREMENT. Secondly, if Einstein had not found his error, somebody else would have. Einstein is not solely responsible for all results in relativity -- far from it. When an idea starts to show some interesting merit, then scientist from all over start to work on the same thing, improving and correcting where necessary. > > Also, the experiment which made world headlines and made Einstein famous were based on observations that at best were 30% correct? > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75b92e0d-92dc-4fd1-9a23-e456046cf545@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431364 |
W dniu środa, 6 września 2017 19:56:53 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > First of all, the observation is not "based on a calculation". It is a > direct measure of angular displacement by watching the azimuth and > zenith angles of a star change. The angular displacement is a direct > measurement of the bend. Odd, poor idiot, according to your Shit light don't bend. This bending shows you're keeping using inconsistent with euclidean rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 20:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d53beec-8de9-4c24-8314-7c3d543eb85c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431364 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 11:26:53 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > First of all, the observation is not "based on a calculation". It is a > direct measure of angular displacement by watching the azimuth and > zenith angles of a star change. The angular displacement is a direct > measurement of the bend. There is absolutely zero dependence on any > theory for the bend MEASUREMENT. Agree, it was a measurement and more accurate measurements made during solar eclipses that confirmed the theory. > > Secondly, if Einstein had not found his error, somebody else would have. > Einstein is not solely responsible for all results in relativity -- far > from it. When an idea starts to show some interesting merit, then > scientist from all over start to work on the same thing, improving and > correcting where necessary. > > > If somebody else found the error, they would be famous, not Einstein. It is hard to predict what path science could have taken if its course was affected by random events.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web