Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615789
Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?
Date	2023-07-20 17:27 -0500
Message-ID	<khtqn3Fh2pcU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <u9bhtn$2odtu$2@dont-email.me> <41a7a83f-4004-4ce6-bc5d-e9434fd50449n@googlegroups.com> <u9c0i3$2ram7$1@dont-email.me> <fad01597-1731-44cb-a387-f2e753dbcec0n@googlegroups.com> <u9c7o2$2sf3r$1@dont-email.me>
Show all headers | View raw
On 7/20/2023 4:08 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 7/20/2023 4:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> There has always been indisputable evidence proving light speed shares 
>> the velocity of the source and is not independent of it. Then the 
>> other evidence must have some other explanation, such as De Sitter.
>>>> Sorry, the opposite is true. Any measurement accurate enough to measure
>>>> the difference shows that light speed does not share the velocity of 
>>>> the
>>>> source. Even the scientists from Einstein's time noticed that.
>>>>
>>>> If your claim were true we wouldn't even be here, would we.
>>
>>> Your opinion is that Big Science cannot make stupid errors, could it? 
>>> I beg to differ.
>>
>> So where are these "stupid errors"? The data doesn't lie. Light has
>> always been measured as moving at c regardless of the motion of the
>> source. Always.
>>
>> @It is stupid to deny that a change in frequency of light is not a 
>> direct measure of additive velocity. Light has only been interpreted 
>> as moving at c by some and not by other scientists—for example, Ritz. 
>> The data does not show that light always moves at c—quite the opposite.
> 
> Sorry, but the speed of light has repeatedly been measured, and it is 
> always c regardless of the motion of the source. As I said, facts always 
> overrule theory when they conflict.
> 
> 
>>
>>> There are obvious reasons why science does not develop rationally, 
>>> and there is literature that you might like to consult before making 
>>> a rash statement.
>>
>> Scientific observations and experimental evidence aren't "rash
>> statements". Remember, when theory conflicts with reproducible data, the
>> theory is always wrong. Since reproducible data shows that light always
>> moves at c, your "theory" that it moves at c+v is obviously wrong.
>>
>> @Your rash statement: "If your claim were true we wouldn't even be 
>> here, would we."
> 
> Yes, if the speed of light were c+v, scientists would accept that and 
> kooks would have to find something else to kook about.
> 
>> Your theory of relativity is always wrong because it's always 
>> conflicting with the reproducible data
> 
> Such as...? Peer reviewed experiments, nothing from kꚙkbooks, please.
> 
>> of the Doppler effect for starlight.
> 
> The Doppler effect for starlight is in agreement with a constant speed 
> c, regardless of the motion of the source.
> 
>> You keep claiming your interpretations of data are data. Try to 
>> distinguish the difference.
> 
> Huh? If a rock weighs 10 kg, then it weighs 10 Kg. Nobody is going to 
> interpret that as the rock weighing 7 kg. If the speed of light is c, 
> then its speed is c. Period.
>>
>>> Maybe you've heard of Copernicus waiting to publish on his deathbed 
>>> and Galileo's punishment for his heliocentric opinion.
>>
>> They weren't going against the modern scientific method, were they?
>> Galileo, in particular, was going against the Catholic church, against a
>> religious interpretation. Copernicus's problems were with the Catholic
>> church as well.
>>
>> @This shows extreme ignorance of the history of science. Try to 
>> understand that the Catholic Church and Aristotelianism were united as 
>> the official science of the time.
> 
> Sorry, cherrypicking Bible phrases isn't science. Especially not modern 
> science. Science as we now know it didn't truly exist then, in fact 
> Galileo and Copernicus helped to create modern science, by believing in 
> what the data told them, not what the priests told them.
> 
>> Their problem was with the accepted science of Aristotelianism. They 
>> were going against its authority.
> 
> No, they were going against the authority of the church, who told them 
> this is what to believe despite the evidence.
> 
>   The point is the established authority doesn't always operate 
> rationally. Relativity goes against the scientific method.
> 
> Say what? Measure the speed of light and it is always c. Relativity 
> predicts time dilation, scientists look for evidence of time dilation 
> and find it. Repeat for relativity of simultaneity. Repeat for length 
> contraction, much more elusive, but nothing contrary. Build particle 
> accelerators and watch them work. Design and build a GPS system and 
> watch it work.
> 
>> That's what its critics have pointed out all along.
> 
> So the critics have nothing.
>>
>>> These are great historical examples of how irrational, accepted 
>>> science has been frequently.
>>
>> Galileo's bishops weren't scientists!
>>
>> @Neither are relativists! They are bishops.
> 
> Sorry, that's crankspeak, essentially calling the science of relativity 
> a religion, not science.
>>
>>> There is a simple experiment performable with a spectroscope. You can 
>>> use that to directly detect one-way speed of starlight from the 
>>> frequency differences due to the motion of the source and the sink. 
>>> This proves light speed is not independent of the source or observer.
>>
>> Wrong. A spectroscope measures either the frequency or wavelength
>> (diffraction grating) of the light, not its speed. (If you use both
>> types and multiply the derived wavelength by the frequency you'll get c,
>> the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the star)
>>
>> @Obviously, if you factor out the frequency and wavelength, you get c.
> 
> Yes, frequency*wavelength gives c.
>>
>>> For example, the light from Sirius approaches us at C + 5.5 km/sec.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> @Construing frequency changes as wavelength changes is ad hoc 
>> nonsense. That's what you have to rely on to deny that frequency is a 
>> measure of speed. Sirius' radial velocity is 5.5 km/sec. How could 
>> that be so if it is not c + 5.5?
> 
> Well, let's plug that into the frequency combination formula, when 
> Sirius give off light as it approaches us at v=5.5 km/sec.
> w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2). v=5.5 km/sec, u=c.
> 
> w=(c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+c*5.5/c^2) = (c+5.5 km/sec)/(1+5.5/c) = c. Yup, the 
> light from Sirius reaches us at c.
>>
>>> Spectroscopes are quite accurate enough. Please see: Light Velocity 
>>> and Relativity by Arthur Otis c. 1963.
>>
>> I think it was already pointed out to you that Otis was a psychologist
>> and no physicist.
>>
>> @Otis was also a mathematician, and you are flunking his intelligence 
>> test.
> 
> But still not a physicist.

And neither is "Laurence".
Thread

csiph-web