Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615859
Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Google Bard AI: What are the real contributions of relativity to modern society?
Date	2023-07-21 17:36 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<u9etpp$3eosk$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(12 earlier) <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> <c2d6b32b-37c8-471f-b782-fa427d32d6d3n@googlegroups.com>
Show all headers | View raw
On 7/21/2023 1:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 2:08:21 PM UTC-7, 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.
>> "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. "
> 
> Math is a language and your math is jibberish. Why would you divide 300,005.5 km/sec by 1+5.5/c? That would not give c.

Sorry you have trouble keeping up. (300,005.5 km/sec)/(1+((5.5 
km/sec)/(300,000 km/sec))). It would have been better to simplify the 
equation before substituting for v.
Thread

csiph-web