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

Groups > sci.physics > #727487 > unrolled thread

How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-15 02:07 -0800
    Re:How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane? "Libor Stíž" <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@gmailCAPITALS.com.INVALID> - 2019-02-15 11:50 +0100
    Re: How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane? poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-15 04:21 -0800
      Re: How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane? "Libor Stíž" <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@gmailCAPITALS.com.INVALID> - 2019-02-15 14:57 +0100
      Re: How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane? Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-15 08:37 -0600
    Re: How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-16 12:38 +1100
      Re: How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane? Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2019-02-16 10:55 +0100
        Re: How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane? Wye O'Dwyer <fvu@nvmdhtr.vn> - 2019-02-16 15:47 +0000

#727487 — How Do You Convince Einsteinians That Relativity Is Insane?

"The Defeat of Reason [...] After 1925 Bohr and his associates introduced a new and unprecedented lowering of critical standards for scientific theories. This led to a defeat of reason within modern physics and to an anarchist cult of incomprehensible chaos. [...] How do you convince a whole culture that it is deluded?"  http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason 

How do you convince Einsteinians that unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers and therefore the premise from which trapping is derived, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false? 

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html 

"In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox 

How do you convince Einsteinians that the "enough strangeness" (introduced by Einstein in 1918) is one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science? 

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERgwVm9qWKA 

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two."  https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox 

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."  http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbonmPHX0AEdXI3.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#727490

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
> "The Defeat of Reason [...] After 1925 Bohr and his associates introduced a new and unprecedented lowering of critical standards for scientific theories. This led to a defeat of reason within modern physics and to an anarchist cult of incomprehensible chaos. [...] How do you convince a whole culture that it is deluded?" 

There is the only way:
To show that nature out of human experience domain
does not behave out of reason of the classical physics.

Until now, such attempts failed.



 

-- 
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#727495

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:07:33 PM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "The Defeat of Reason [...] After 1925 Bohr and his associates introduced a new and unprecedented lowering of critical standards for scientific theories. This led to a defeat of reason within modern physics and to an anarchist cult of incomprehensible chaos. [...] How do you convince a whole culture that it is deluded?"  http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason 
> 
> How do you convince Einsteinians that unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers and therefore the premise from which trapping is derived, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false? 
> 
> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html 
> 
> "In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox 
> 
> How do you convince Einsteinians that the "enough strangeness" (introduced by Einstein in 1918) is one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science? 
> 
> David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
> 
> Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERgwVm9qWKA 
> 
> "At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two."  https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox 
> 
> John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."  http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbonmPHX0AEdXI3.jpg
> 
> Pentcho Valev

=======================

SR is right 
and I can even explain it in short 

yet

GR with it s curved space 
is bull shit !!
============
Y.Porat
==================

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

#727502

poraty6@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> Valev=======================SR is right and I can even explain it in short yetGR with it s curved space is bull shit !!============Y.Porat==================

You mean, nature is bull shit,
because  it's behaviour fits "bull shit theories" only.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#727504

On 2/15/2019 6:21 AM, poraty6@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:07:33 PM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> "The Defeat of Reason [...] After 1925 Bohr and his associates introduced a new and unprecedented lowering of critical standards for scientific theories. This led to a defeat of reason within modern physics and to an anarchist cult of incomprehensible chaos. [...] How do you convince a whole culture that it is deluded?"  http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason 
>>
>> How do you convince Einsteinians that unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers and therefore the premise from which trapping is derived, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false? 
>>
>> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html 
>>
>> "In a more complicated version of the paradox, we can physically trap the ladder once it is fully inside the garage. This could be done, for instance, by not opening the exit door again after we close it. In the frame of the garage, we assume the exit door is immovable, and so when the ladder hits it, we say that it instantaneously stops. By this time, the entrance door has also closed, and so the ladder is stuck inside the garage. As its relative velocity is now zero, it is not length contracted, and is now longer than the garage; it will have to bend, snap, or explode."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox 
>>
>> How do you convince Einsteinians that the "enough strangeness" (introduced by Einstein in 1918) is one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science? 
>>
>> David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
>>
>> Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERgwVm9qWKA 
>>
>> "At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two."  https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox 
>>
>> John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."  http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
>>
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbonmPHX0AEdXI3.jpg
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
> 
> =======================
> 
> SR is right 
> and I can even explain it in short 
> 
> yet
> 
> GR with it s curved space 
> is bull shit !!
> ============
> Y.Porat
> ==================
> 
> 
> 

the field equations relate mass causeing spacetime curvature.

Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity that describe the
fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being
curved by mass and energy.

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

#727556

On 15/02/2019 9:07 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> 
> How do you convince Einsteinians that unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers and therefore the premise from which trapping is derived, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false?
> 

How do you convince Valev that this is not what SR predicts, when he 
ignores explanations, and refuses to engage in any discussion that might 
lead him to a better understanding?

Why would one even bother any more?

Sylvia.

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

#727591

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:38:31 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:

>On 15/02/2019 9:07 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
>> 
>> How do you convince Einsteinians that unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers and therefore the premise from which trapping is derived, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false?
>> 
>
>How do you convince Valev that this is not what SR predicts, when he 
>ignores explanations, and refuses to engage in any discussion that might 
>lead him to a better understanding?
>
>Why would one even bother any more?
>
>Sylvia.
>

Alone the sheer existence if idiots like Pencho Valev,
bothers.
World could be a wonderful place without them.

w.

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

#727610

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 12:38:31 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>On 15/02/2019 9:07 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>>
>>> How do you convince Einsteinians that unlimitedly long objects cannot
>>> be trapped, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers
>>> and therefore the premise from which trapping is derived, Einstein's
>>> constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false?
>>
>>How do you convince Valev that this is not what SR predicts, when he
>>ignores explanations, and refuses to engage in any discussion that might
>>lead him to a better understanding? Why would one even bother any more?
>>Sylvia.
>
> Alone the sheer existence if idiots like Pencho Valev,
> bothers. World could be a wonderful place without them.

AU contraire. Dr. Pentcho is consistent. Just you two incapable 
understanding a paradox argument. Of which I will not start blaming 
because of it.

A paradox is a paradox, and not a paradox which is not a paradox. You 
guys, homepage designers, are rising stupidity up to a power of 2.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web