Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #456443 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-20 12:56 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 22:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-21 09:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 17:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-20 21:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:08 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-22 10:40 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:01 -0500
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 18:53 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:14 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 08:26 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 19:57 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-23 05:50 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-23 05:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 06:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:32 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 01:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:33 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 02:53 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:00 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 04:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 04:33 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 05:11 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:13 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:04 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 19:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:40 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 17:01 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:17 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:07 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-24 13:47 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 21:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:49 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:05 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 06:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:38 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 10:01 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 11:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-25 09:25 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-26 10:42 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:37 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:59 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-27 09:07 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 22:38 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> - 2018-04-27 20:46 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 14:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-29 14:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 22:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:41 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-30 08:51 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 10:14 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-26 21:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:19 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 20:49 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:30 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:52 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:46 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "e-ps@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:16 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 21:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52dac17f-ec6b-40c2-a175-87ee2dbeb92c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456778 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character > or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in > special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by > anyone who's done high school algebra. And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply assumed it's false, and You followed him obediently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 11:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KCDDC.13123$tw.7916@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #456782 |
On 24/04/2018 05:28, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character
>> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in
>> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by
>> anyone who's done high school algebra.
What you say is true Sylvia, and i would strongly advise you to do just
that, i.e. check Einstein's math eh!
In the 1905 SR paper, Einstein's 2nd equation is:
"velocity = light path / time interval"
which is of course correct eh!
his 3rd equation is, which is for a rod or length rAB, traveling with
velocity v, and with a clocks A and B at either end, recording times tA
and tB, as light passes first A then B is:
" tB - tA = rAB / (c-v) "
To anyone whose done high school algebra it should be obvious that this
equation is wrong. Clearly if it is correct at v=0, it can not possibly
be correct at any other value of v, since tB,tA,rAB and c will not change.
> And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well.
> Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate
> with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply
> assumed it's false, and You followed him
> obediently.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91721610-4bfa-47b3-b35b-1c4045425c63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456795 |
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:25:49 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote: > On 24/04/2018 05:28, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character > >> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in > >> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by > >> anyone who's done high school algebra. > > What you say is true Sylvia, and i would strongly advise you to do just > that, i.e. check Einstein's math eh! > > In the 1905 SR paper, Einstein's 2nd equation is: > > "velocity = light path / time interval" > > which is of course correct eh! > > his 3rd equation is, which is for a rod or length rAB, traveling with > velocity v, and with a clocks A and B at either end, recording times tA > and tB, as light passes first A then B is: > > " tB - tA = rAB / (c-v) " > > To anyone whose done high school algebra it should be obvious that this > equation is wrong. No. The mistake is yours. This paper is a veritable minefield for people who attempt to read it without the necessary prerequisites. The paper just _happens_ to use very little in terms of mathematics and so it attracts lots of amateurs who think they can find "wrong equations" in it. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 13:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbna2e$tsh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456782 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character >> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in >> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by >> anyone who's done high school algebra. > > And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. > Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate > with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply > assumed it's false, and You followed him > obediently. > No he did not assume any such thing. EG holds in a plane, which is by the way the subject of Euclid’s Elements, volume 1. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b82a0e20-65cf-4ba0-aa34-c35c560aaf2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456804 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 15:05:21 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character > >> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in > >> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by > >> anyone who's done high school algebra. > > > > And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. > > Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate > > with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply > > assumed it's false, and You followed him > > obediently. > > > > No he did not assume any such thing. EG holds in a plane, which is by the > way the subject of Euclid’s Elements, volume 1. Of course it doesn't hold in The Shit. And that's because when EG refused to cooperate with the madness of your idiot guru - he simply assumed it's false. And you followed him obediently. Well, no surprise when talking about a brainless fanatic woodworker. Now, can you point ANYONE (not being you) agreeing with your private version of Pythagorean theorem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 15:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbnj1p$1e24$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456806 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 15:05:21 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character >>>> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in >>>> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by >>>> anyone who's done high school algebra. >>> >>> And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. >>> Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate >>> with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply >>> assumed it's false, and You followed him >>> obediently. >>> >> >> No he did not assume any such thing. EG holds in a plane, which is by the >> way the subject of Euclid’s Elements, volume 1. > > Of course it doesn't hold in The Shit. And that's because > when EG refused to cooperate with the madness of your > idiot guru - he simply assumed it's false. > And you followed him obediently. Well, no surprise when > talking about a brainless fanatic woodworker. > Now, can you point ANYONE (not being you) agreeing with > your private version of Pythagorean theorem? > > Yes. Euclid. His citation of the PT was in volume 1 of Elements, which was about PLANE geometry. Now, who do you have (besides you and your “common sense”) that agrees with you? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9301688c-7cb8-41b8-b336-3b6154abff1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456814 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:38:37 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 15:05:21 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> > >>>> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character > >>>> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in > >>>> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by > >>>> anyone who's done high school algebra. > >>> > >>> And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. > >>> Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate > >>> with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply > >>> assumed it's false, and You followed him > >>> obediently. > >>> > >> > >> No he did not assume any such thing. EG holds in a plane, which is by the > >> way the subject of Euclid’s Elements, volume 1. > > > > Of course it doesn't hold in The Shit. And that's because > > when EG refused to cooperate with the madness of your > > idiot guru - he simply assumed it's false. > > And you followed him obediently. Well, no surprise when > > talking about a brainless fanatic woodworker. > > Now, can you point ANYONE (not being you) agreeing with > > your private version of Pythagorean theorem? > > > > > > Yes. Euclid. > His citation of the PT was in volume 1 of Elements, which was about PLANE > geometry. So, if someone would write about PT in a book about ancient Greece, you would conclude that PT is "in ancien Greece revery right triangle...", right, poor halfbrain? And did he write it as "every right triangle..." like me or as "every right triangle on a plane..." like you, poor halfbrain? And if someone writes about PT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 16:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbnlu9$1j95$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456821 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:38:37 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 15:05:21 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character >>>>>> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in >>>>>> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by >>>>>> anyone who's done high school algebra. >>>>> >>>>> And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. >>>>> Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate >>>>> with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply >>>>> assumed it's false, and You followed him >>>>> obediently. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No he did not assume any such thing. EG holds in a plane, which is by the >>>> way the subject of Euclid’s Elements, volume 1. >>> >>> Of course it doesn't hold in The Shit. And that's because >>> when EG refused to cooperate with the madness of your >>> idiot guru - he simply assumed it's false. >>> And you followed him obediently. Well, no surprise when >>> talking about a brainless fanatic woodworker. >>> Now, can you point ANYONE (not being you) agreeing with >>> your private version of Pythagorean theorem? >>> >>> >> >> Yes. Euclid. >> His citation of the PT was in volume 1 of Elements, which was about PLANE >> geometry. > > So, if someone would write about PT in a book > about ancient Greece, you would conclude that PT > is "in ancien Greece revery right triangle...", > right, poor halfbrain? > > > And did he write it as "every right triangle..." > like me or as "every right triangle on a plane..." > like you, poor halfbrain? > And if someone writes about PT > Hey, if you’re too much of a brain-dead buffoon to understand the context of a mathematical proposition, and you would like to blame someone for not making it completely impossible for you to get that context wrong, then perhaps you can blame Euclid. I note with interest that you have not been able to cite anyone that agrees with you and your common sense, and yet you seem to want to claim that most people understand it the way you do. Insane much? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <930d9a2b-d73c-43ef-8823-a74cd2e4b738@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456826 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 18:27:56 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:38:37 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 15:05:21 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character > >>>>>> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in > >>>>>> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by > >>>>>> anyone who's done high school algebra. > >>>>> > >>>>> And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. > >>>>> Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate > >>>>> with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply > >>>>> assumed it's false, and You followed him > >>>>> obediently. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> No he did not assume any such thing. EG holds in a plane, which is by the > >>>> way the subject of Euclid’s Elements, volume 1. > >>> > >>> Of course it doesn't hold in The Shit. And that's because > >>> when EG refused to cooperate with the madness of your > >>> idiot guru - he simply assumed it's false. > >>> And you followed him obediently. Well, no surprise when > >>> talking about a brainless fanatic woodworker. > >>> Now, can you point ANYONE (not being you) agreeing with > >>> your private version of Pythagorean theorem? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Yes. Euclid. > >> His citation of the PT was in volume 1 of Elements, which was about PLANE > >> geometry. > > > > So, if someone would write about PT in a book > > about ancient Greece, you would conclude that PT > > is "in ancien Greece revery right triangle...", > > right, poor halfbrain? > > > > > > And did he write it as "every right triangle..." > > like me or as "every right triangle on a plane..." > > like you, poor halfbrain? > > And if someone writes about PT > > > > Hey, if you’re too much of a brain-dead buffoon to understand the context So, if someone would write about PT in a book about ancient Greece, you, understanding the context, would say that PT is "in ancien Greece revery right triangle...", right, poor halfbrain?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbns4t$1ubt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456837 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 18:27:56 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:38:37 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 15:05:21 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character >>>>>>>> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in >>>>>>>> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by >>>>>>>> anyone who's done high school algebra. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. >>>>>>> Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate >>>>>>> with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply >>>>>>> assumed it's false, and You followed him >>>>>>> obediently. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No he did not assume any such thing. EG holds in a plane, which is by the >>>>>> way the subject of Euclid’s Elements, volume 1. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it doesn't hold in The Shit. And that's because >>>>> when EG refused to cooperate with the madness of your >>>>> idiot guru - he simply assumed it's false. >>>>> And you followed him obediently. Well, no surprise when >>>>> talking about a brainless fanatic woodworker. >>>>> Now, can you point ANYONE (not being you) agreeing with >>>>> your private version of Pythagorean theorem? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. Euclid. >>>> His citation of the PT was in volume 1 of Elements, which was about PLANE >>>> geometry. >>> >>> So, if someone would write about PT in a book >>> about ancient Greece, you would conclude that PT >>> is "in ancien Greece revery right triangle...", >>> right, poor halfbrain? >>> >>> >>> And did he write it as "every right triangle..." >>> like me or as "every right triangle on a plane..." >>> like you, poor halfbrain? >>> And if someone writes about PT >>> >> >> Hey, if you’re too much of a brain-dead buffoon to understand the context > > So, if someone would write about PT in a book > about ancient Greece, you, understanding the context, > would say that PT is "in ancien Greece revery right > triangle...", right, poor halfbrain? > > > STILL no reference to anyone that agrees with you, I see. Well, I guess that closes the brief and rather pointless conversation. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <083a1857-ebb1-4b72-8b27-ed4f310e0c17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456850 |
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 20:13:53 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 18:27:56 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:38:37 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 15:05:21 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 05:48:01 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character > >>>>>>>> or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in > >>>>>>>> special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by > >>>>>>>> anyone who's done high school algebra. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And by basic school Euclidean geometry as well. > >>>>>>> Of course, when when EG refused to cooperate > >>>>>>> with Your relativity - Your idiot guru simply > >>>>>>> assumed it's false, and You followed him > >>>>>>> obediently. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No he did not assume any such thing. EG holds in a plane, which is by the > >>>>>> way the subject of Euclid’s Elements, volume 1. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course it doesn't hold in The Shit. And that's because > >>>>> when EG refused to cooperate with the madness of your > >>>>> idiot guru - he simply assumed it's false. > >>>>> And you followed him obediently. Well, no surprise when > >>>>> talking about a brainless fanatic woodworker. > >>>>> Now, can you point ANYONE (not being you) agreeing with > >>>>> your private version of Pythagorean theorem? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yes. Euclid. > >>>> His citation of the PT was in volume 1 of Elements, which was about PLANE > >>>> geometry. > >>> > >>> So, if someone would write about PT in a book > >>> about ancient Greece, you would conclude that PT > >>> is "in ancien Greece revery right triangle...", > >>> right, poor halfbrain? > >>> > >>> > >>> And did he write it as "every right triangle..." > >>> like me or as "every right triangle on a plane..." > >>> like you, poor halfbrain? > >>> And if someone writes about PT > >>> > >> > >> Hey, if you’re too much of a brain-dead buffoon to understand the context > > > > So, if someone would write about PT in a book > > about ancient Greece, you, understanding the context, > > would say that PT is "in ancien Greece revery right > > triangle...", right, poor halfbrain? > > > > > > > > STILL no reference to anyone that agrees with you, I see. Well, I guess > that closes the brief and rather pointless conversation. Still no reference to ANYONE writing PT your way. Just some mumble about "understanding context", as expected from an idiot woodworker imagining to be a powerful mathematician. Well, I guess that closes the brief and rather pointless conversation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 22:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbo42c$crl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456778 |
Il 24/04/2018 05:47, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 24/04/2018 12:07 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Il 23/04/2018 04:37, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>> On 23/04/2018 6:04 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> Il 22/04/2018 02:40, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thus attempting to show that special relativity is wrong by way of >>>>> thought experiments is a fool's errand, because such attempts are >>>>> necessarily circular. This approach is doomed to failure. It is a >>>>> logical impossibility. It is an ex-parrot. The only way to get >>>>> closer to the truth is through real experiments. >>>>> >>>> >>>> As regards the thought experiments, you convinced me. >>>> But as regards the measurement of the dipole anisotropy, which shows >>>> that the Earth is moving relative to the CMBR reference frame, not >>>> much. >>>> Because this reference frame could be considered as the privileged >>>> reference frame, which Lorentz could not find. >>> >>> If there were a privileged reference frame, one would expect that to >>> show up in experiments, and it doesn't. >>> >> >> look down >> >>>> >>>>> Fortunately, many real experiments have been done, and the results >>>>> are consistent with special relativity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In his books, the physicist Franco Selleri has shown that >>>> experiments that are consistent with SR are also consistent with his >>>> "weak relativity", which in practice is a theory of the aether. >>>> But not only, because the experiment on the Sagnac effect would not >>>> be consistent with SR, but with his theory. >>> >>> Any theory in which the speed of light is the same for all observers >>> must necessarily reduce to the Lorentz Transformation, in the absence >>> of gravity. This is indeed the reason that Lorentz arrived at his >>> transformation, and why the same transformation that Einstein >>> independently found is still called the Lorentz Transformation. >> >> I did not believe that Einstein had independently found the so-called >> Lorentz transformations. >> Because Einstein was not very good in math. >> But also because I don'like Einstein, because he treated his wife >> Mileva Marić, badly. >> I believe that Mileva contributed to the development of SR, so much so >> that in the original documents, there was also her name. >> IMHO Einstein will have been good, but also very cunning. > > I don't see the point of this. Casting aspersions on Einsteins character > or competence does not advance your position at all. What counts in > special relativity is the result, and the math is easily checked by > anyone who's done high school algebra. > O.K. > General relativity is more difficult, but there are plenty of people who > can do the math. > >> >>> Einstein started from a different premise, but the transformation >>> itself is the mathematical model that constitutes the theory. >>> >>> As far as I can see, special relativity has no problem with the >>> Sagnac effect. >>> >> >> In his book "Weak Relativity", Franco Selleri has dedicated the entire >> chapter 9 to show that "no theoretical justification of the >> Sagnac effect has been obtained from the two relativistic theorie" (SR >> and / or GR). >> Here is the link from which you can download the book (free). >> <http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf>. > > Selleri doesn't dispute that special relativity gives the correct result > in the frame of the laboratory, but he claims that it gives a null > result in the rotating frame. That involves a naive application of > special relativity. A person in a rotating frame is not in an inertial > frame, and can tell the plane of rotation, distance to the centre of > rotation and direction of rotation. Their obvious approach to the > calculation is to transform into the non-rotating frame, apply special > relativity, and then transform back into their own rotating frame. This > will clearly not yield a null result. > I will try to deepen your point of view and also that of Selleri. However this problem is not essential for "my position". >>>> >>>> Therefore, even assuming that my demonstration isn't sufficient to >>>> falsify the second postulate of SR, it would be to choose between >>>> two theories both consistent with the result of the experiments. >>>> And it seems to me that a Ptolemaic theory, like the SR, is worse >>>> than a Copernican theory, like that of the aether. >>> >>>> >>>> However, Einstein based his theory on the validity of the second >>>> postulate, but also claimed that the isotropy of the speed of light >>>> "is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the >>>> physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my >>>> own free will" >>>> So Einstein supposed that the speed of light is isotropic in all >>>> RFs, not because it actually can be, but as a stipulation. >>> >>> The motivation for it was the fact that experiments had failed to >>> detect any variation in the speed of light, even in situations where >>> such a variation had been expected and easily within the scope of the >>> experiments to detect. It should be remembered that the >>> Michelson–Morley experiment was intended to measure the speed of the >>> Earth relative to the aether. That it produced a null result was >>> completely unexpected. >>> >> >> As I wrote above, in his book Franco Selleri has shown that the >> results of the MMR experiment are also compatible with its Weak >> Relativity, which contemplates the existence of a privileged reference >> frame. > > As does Lorentz Aether theory, whose results are also compatible, and > with the same outcome - the theory does not allow the determination of > one's velocity relative to the posited privileged reference frame. If a > theory is insensitive to the velocity relative to the privileged frame, > then one can reasonably argue that the privileged frame was just an > artifact of the approach used to get to the result, and has no external > reality. > If I understand correctly, as both Lorentz Aether theory, SR and Selleri weak relativity, have compatible results, I can accept all three theories and then choose the one that seems closest to reality. That is my theory (or hypothesis), which in practice is a variant of that of Lorentz and of that of Selleri. >> >>>> >>>> Therefore I ask you: >>>> If a theory were developed, with the stipulation that the CMBR >>>> reference frame is the privileged reference frame, the only one in >>>> which the speed of light is really isotropic, would not, at least, >>>> have the same validity as the SR? >>> >>> No, it wouldn't. One can pull theories out of the air, but to have >>> any validity they have to match experimental results. Any theory that >>> contains a privileged reference frame[*] must necessarily predict >>> results which different from those of special relativity. Since >>> experiments support special relativity, they must conflict with other >>> theories that predict different outcomes, and thus falsify them. >>> >>> [*] Other than one that is inherently undetectable in the theory, >>> which raises obvious doubts about its existence >> >> See above. >> However I reformulate the question. >> >> If a theory compatible with the results of the MMR experiment were >> developed, with the clause that the frame of reference of the CMBR >> is the privileged reference frame, the only one in that the speed of >> light is really isotropic, it would not be, at least, do they have the >> same validity as SR? > > It needs to be compatible not just with MMR, but with all the other > experiments that support special relativity. For that to be the case, > the theory must be equivalent to the Lorentz Transformation, the posited > privileged frame will not appear in the theory, and its existence will > not be supported by the theory. But Selleri showed that his theory is also compatible with other experiments and observations, namely: Fizeau experiment; Aberration of light; Occultation of Jupiter's satellites; Radar distances of the planets; International Atomic Time. Are there any other experiments? In conclusion I arrive at the same question: In addition to Einstein's special relativity, could I also accept the weak relativity of Selleri? If not, why? Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 09:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fk9so7Fdu7pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456862 |
On 25/04/2018 6:29 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > In conclusion I arrive at the same question: > In addition to Einstein's special relativity, could I also accept the > weak relativity of Selleri? > If not, why? > > Dino Bruniera As I've said before, the theory will be such that the posited preferred frame is undetectable, as it is with Lorentz Aether theory. Belief in something that has no observable consequences is not science, it's religion. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-24 21:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68e12e64-afce-40e9-b3d4-a71fd12cbca0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456873 |
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 01:26:02 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 25/04/2018 6:29 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > > > In conclusion I arrive at the same question: > > In addition to Einstein's special relativity, could I also accept the > > weak relativity of Selleri? > > If not, why? > > > > Dino Bruniera > > As I've said before, the theory will be such that the posited preferred > frame is undetectable, as it is with Lorentz Aether theory. Belief in > something that has no observable consequences is not science, it's religion. Lady, according to Your so called "scientific method" Lorentz's ether is experimentally confirmed. And You say "religion"? > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 21:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbqlh7$bcr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456873 |
Il 25/04/2018 01:25, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 25/04/2018 6:29 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> In conclusion I arrive at the same question: >> In addition to Einstein's special relativity, could I also accept the >> weak relativity of Selleri? >> If not, why? >> >> Dino Bruniera > > As I've said before, the theory will be such that the posited preferred > frame is undetectable, as it is with Lorentz Aether theory. Belief in > something that has no observable consequences is not science, it's > religion. > But do we need more faith, in believing that light waves can manifest themselves in the vacuum or in the aether? However, physicists like Selleri and, above all, like Lorentz, believed in the existence of aether, ie of a preferred frame. So believing in the existence of a preferred frame, is not like believing in the existence of heaven and hell. So it would not be a mortal sin for physics, to hypothesize that the preferred frame exists. And so it would not be a mortal sin for physics, even hypothesize that the CMBR reference frame could be such preferred frame. It's right? Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 10:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fkclkfF2a6eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456946 |
On 26/04/2018 5:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Il 25/04/2018 01:25, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >> On 25/04/2018 6:29 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> >>> In conclusion I arrive at the same question: >>> In addition to Einstein's special relativity, could I also accept the >>> weak relativity of Selleri? >>> If not, why? >>> >>> Dino Bruniera >> >> As I've said before, the theory will be such that the posited >> preferred frame is undetectable, as it is with Lorentz Aether theory. >> Belief in something that has no observable consequences is not >> science, it's religion. >> > > But do we need more faith, in believing that light waves can manifest > themselves in the vacuum or in the aether? > > However, physicists like Selleri and, above all, like Lorentz, believed > in the existence of aether, ie of a preferred frame. > So believing in the existence of a preferred frame, is not like > believing in the existence of heaven and hell. > So it would not be a mortal sin for physics, to hypothesize that the > preferred frame exists. > And so it would not be a mortal sin for physics, even hypothesize that > the CMBR reference frame could be such preferred frame. > > It's right? You seem to want to believe in a preferred frame, even though it has neither theoretical, nor experimental, support. It's not rational. Physics doesn't need a preferred frame. It works perfectly well without. This thread seems to have come a long way from it's original "falsification". Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-25 21:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a016f697-4707-4f92-9c3c-bc3b6e57dddd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #456975 |
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 02:42:58 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > You seem to want to believe in a preferred frame, even though it has > neither theoretical, nor experimental, support. It's not rational. It has both theoretical and experimental suport equal to those of Your beloved SR, "rational" lady.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 12:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pbsbep$ps3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #456975 |
Il 26/04/2018 02:42, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 26/04/2018 5:39 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Il 25/04/2018 01:25, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>> On 25/04/2018 6:29 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>> >>>> In conclusion I arrive at the same question: >>>> In addition to Einstein's special relativity, could I also accept >>>> the weak relativity of Selleri? >>>> If not, why? >>>> >>>> Dino Bruniera >>> >>> As I've said before, the theory will be such that the posited >>> preferred frame is undetectable, as it is with Lorentz Aether theory. >>> Belief in something that has no observable consequences is not >>> science, it's religion. >>> >> >> But do we need more faith, in believing that light waves can manifest >> themselves in the vacuum or in the aether? >> >> However, physicists like Selleri and, above all, like Lorentz, >> believed in the existence of aether, ie of a preferred frame. >> So believing in the existence of a preferred frame, is not like >> believing in the existence of heaven and hell. >> So it would not be a mortal sin for physics, to hypothesize that the >> preferred frame exists. >> And so it would not be a mortal sin for physics, even hypothesize that >> the CMBR reference frame could be such preferred frame. >> >> It's right? > > You seem to want to believe in a preferred frame, even though it has > neither theoretical, nor experimental, support. It's not rational. > > Physics doesn't need a preferred frame. It works perfectly well without. > Now I try to be rational. Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. If the light waves manifest themselves in a medium, their speed will be isotropic with respect to the medium and not with respect to an object that moves relative to the medium. So that medium can be defined as a preferred frame. The LET, which assumes the existence of the preferred frame, is compatible with the observations and experiments, like the SR. Therefore, even if mathematically the preferred frame is not necessary, it really serves to be rational. Where would I not be rational? On the other hand, if I say that the light waves manifests themselves in the vacuum, am I rational? > This thread seems to have come a long way from it's original > "falsification". > A long way, which was very useful to me. Because it will allow me to improve an article that I have published on VIXRA. Instead in my previous thread, Tom Roberts stopped early. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 09:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fkf4e8Fje3oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #456990 |
On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > Now I try to be rational. > Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. Light consists of photons. No medium required. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-27 22:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pc01p6$qbs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #457025 |
Il 27/04/2018 01:07, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: > >> Now I try to be rational. >> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. > > Light consists of photons. No medium required. > > Sylvia What is the photon? A photon is the smallest discrete amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light. From: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/ What is the electromagnetic radiation? In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) refers to the waves (or their quanta, photons) of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space-time, carrying electromagnetic radiant energy.[1] It includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared, (visible) light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation Therefore the photons are composed of electromagnetic waves, and how waves manifest themselves in a medium. Dino Bruniera
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web