On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Many people have already been able to do so.
It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refuteThen why has nobody been able to do so?
relativity.
Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will
"listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my
time.
Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then
"refute" their misconceptions.
What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
listened, and your replies are not substantial.
When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims,
experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
but I have chosen to humor you, for now.
In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an
experiment).
I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.
[Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]
Tom Roberts
This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and
its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.
If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your claim. I will examine it as described below.
Tom Roberts
On 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful
On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Many people have already been able to do so.
It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refuteThen why has nobody been able to do so?
relativity.
Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.
Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then
"refute" their misconceptions.
What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
listened, and your replies are not substantial.
When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
but I have chosen to humor you, for now.
In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).
I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.
[Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]
Tom Roberts
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.
If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your claim. I will examine it as described below.
Tom Roberts
telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's littleOn 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Many people have already been able to do so.
It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refuteThen why has nobody been able to do so?
relativity.
Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.
Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then "refute" their misconceptions.
What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
listened, and your replies are not substantial.
When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
but I have chosen to humor you, for now.
In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).
I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.
[Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerfulTom Roberts
Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?Your challenge was answered in a heartbeat, Tom Roberts. Where did you disappear too. Relativity lives by the gedanken and has now DIED by the gedanken. There exist no empirical experiments for which a myriad of other explanations suffice in addition
Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:06:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:49:27 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.
If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your claim. I will examine it as described below.
Tom Roberts
telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's littleOn 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Many people have already been able to do so.
It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refuteThen why has nobody been able to do so?
relativity.
Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.
Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then "refute" their misconceptions.
What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't >> listened, and your replies are not substantial.
When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this, but I have chosen to humor you, for now.
In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).
I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.
[Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerfulTom Roberts
to, as Mitch might put it, gamma math.Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit around the sun.Your challenge was answered in a heartbeat, Tom Roberts. Where did you disappear too. Relativity lives by the gedanken and has now DIED by the gedanken. There exist no empirical experiments for which a myriad of other explanations suffice in addition
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation... In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocitynecessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...
Invariant spacetime curvature...
Will the earth spiral into the sun?
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:06:42 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation... In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity
Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of thecoordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.
1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.Invariant spacetime curvature...
No, the extrinsic curvature of the trajectory is invariant, but the intrinsic curvature and the metric of the spacetime manifold are COvariant.
Will the earth spiral into the sun?Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic implies
coordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system...
In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity
necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...
Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of the
implies 1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.Will the earth spiral into the sun?
Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic
The outside and inside curvature for this gedanken both are invariant.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:06:58 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:coordinate system. Also, note that the extrinsic curvature of the spacetime trajectory is invariant.
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system...
In his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity
necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit...
Not true, the earth follows a helical geodesic trajectory through spacetime, in accordance with the covariant (pseudo)metric and intrinsic curvature of spacetime, and geodesics are explicitly conserved under any diffeomorphic transformation of the
implies 1=-1 could possibly imagine that describing the putt in terms of a different coordinate system would change the outcome.Will the earth spiral into the sun?
Of course not. If you draw two chalk grids on a putting green, and describe a putt going into the hole in terms of one coordinate system, it will also go into the hole in terms of the other coordinate system. Only someone who thinks arithmetic
The outside and inside curvature for this gedanken both are invariant.
I've set a new record for efficient debunking... it took only a single post to reduce you to spouting intentional gobbledegook as you flee. LOL. Case closed.
This challenge has been open since March, with no takers. It seems that claims "relativity has been refuted" are empty and unsubstantiated. No surprise -- after all, SR is among the best-tested theories we have, and
its local Lorentz invariance has become the cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.
If you think you have a "refutation of relativity", or think you can
show "an internal inconsistency in relativity", please reply with your claim. I will examine it as described below.
Tom Roberts
On 3/2/23 12:52 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 3/1/23 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Many people have already been able to do so.
It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refuteThen why has nobody been able to do so?
relativity.
Then you should be able to point me to at least one of them. I will "listen" (read documents) up to the point it is clearly a waste of my time.
Be aware that it is not possible to "refute" a theory without first understanding it. All cases of such "refutations" that I have
examined in the past make gross errors in what SR says, and then
"refute" their misconceptions.
What they can't overturn is the consensus obliviousness to reason.
It has already been thoroughly refuted, but you relativists haven't
listened, and your replies are not substantial.
When fools and idiots make outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, experts are justified in ignoring them. So far you qualify for this,
but I have chosen to humor you, for now.
In a reply to this thread, point me to what you think is the best "refutation" of SR, and I'll look at it a) up to the point a gross
error is made. or b) up to the point it actually shows an
inconsistency in SR ("refutation" is the wrong word, unless it is an experiment).
I will reply in this newsgroup, describing what I find.
[Yes, I expect (a) within the first few minutes of reading, because
that is what has happened previously whenever I have done this sort
of thing. But I'm open to the possibility of (b).]
Tom Roberts
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to
the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis
of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the
distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in
London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking
relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big
Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of
his own wristwatch's little hand.
He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5
revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the
sun.
From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in
his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only
half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
the sun
Will the earth spiral into the sun? If not, why not?
Note: Newtonian gravity is not assumed in this paradox. Invariant
spacetime curvature is assumed to be the cause of the earth's orbit
around the sun.
Using GR to model the solar system, one immediately knows that the
predicted orbit of the earth is independent of coordinates, and the
distant observer obtains the same trajectory as an earthbound observer.
[I ignore the difficulties the distant observer will face in obtaining accurate measurements.]
On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to
the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis
of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the
distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big
Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of
his own wristwatch's little hand.
This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate
as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic
Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the
effect due to "time dilation".
[I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
not the clock itself.]
He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5
revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the
sun.
This is correct.
From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in
his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only
half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
the sun
Nope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" in
the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keeps earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its
orbit as usual.
On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 18:02:33 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:Well Tom Roberts....these two foreign boys were quite rough on you. But I can detect no error in their criticisms...especially from the Polish gentleman. I am going to show you the deference fellow countrymen should show each other and merely ask you
On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis
of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand.
This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate
as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the effect due to "time dilation".
[I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
not the clock itself.]
He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the
sun.
This is correct.
From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in
his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around
the sun
Nope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" inA lie, as expected from relativistic trash. All your models
the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keeps earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its
orbit as usual.
of Solar System are Euclid based, and thus inconsistent
with GR shitr.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:to STOP THE HANDWAVING AND SHOW YOUR WORK!!!
On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 18:02:33 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of his own wristwatch's little hand.
This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the effect due to "time dilation".
[I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
not the clock itself.]
He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the
sun.
This is correct.
From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in
his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun
Well Tom Roberts....these two foreign boys were quite rough on you. But I can detect no error in their criticisms...especially from the Polish gentleman. I am going to show you the deference fellow countrymen should show each other and merely ask youNope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" in the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keeps earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its orbit as usual.A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. All your models
of Solar System are Euclid based, and thus inconsistent
with GR shitr.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:47:28 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:to STOP THE HANDWAVING AND SHOW YOUR WORK!!!
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:42:42 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 18:02:33 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/1/23 2:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
Consider a distant observer traveling at .867 c ( 𝛾=2 ) relative to
the solar system along the line that is collinear with the sun's axis
of rotation. As the clockwork solar system spins beneath him, the distant observer peers through his powerful telescope at Big Ben in London. In accordance with special relativity, and after taking relativistic doppler into account, the distant observer measures Big Ben's little hand to make one revolution for every two revolutions of
his own wristwatch's little hand.
This is wrong -- "after taking relativistic doppler into account" the observer would measure Big Ben's little hand to rotate at the same rate
as his own wristwatch's little hand. That is, the relativistic Doppler-shift includes the effect due to relative motion and also the effect due to "time dilation".
[I ignore the mistake that Big Ben is the nickname for
the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and
not the clock itself.]
He also observes that Big Ben's little hand still makes 730.5 revolutions for every revolution that the earth makes around the sun.
This is correct.
From these two observations the distant observer concludes that in his inertial frame of reference the earth's orbital velocity is only half the velocity necessary to keep the earth in stable orbit around the sun
Nope, even if we correct the initial claim to leave "time dilation" in the observation. SR does not properly handle the gravitation that keepsA lie, as expected from relativistic trash. All your models
earth in its orbit. For that one must use GR, and the components of the
metric in the distant observer's inertial frame are quite different from
those in the solar system rest frame. A correct calculation using the distant observer's coordinates would model the sun continuing in its orbit as usual.
of Solar System are Euclid based, and thus inconsistent
with GR shitr.
Well Tom Roberts....these two foreign boys were quite rough on you. But I can detect no error in their criticisms...especially from the Polish gentleman. I am going to show you the deference fellow countrymen should show each other and merely ask you
Hear! Hear! (He has no cards to play).
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 315 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 04:18:34 |
Calls: | 7,001 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,427 |
Messages: | 5,460,210 |
Posted today: | 1 |