• My views on Special Relativity - for clarification

    From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 27 18:33:36 2023
    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest
    in mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
    and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded with
    knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.

    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.

    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic, and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the statements of SRT.

    GRT is another matter which I will not be looking into, it works, it is not complete, that is for someone else to deal with.

    So what are my concerns?

    1. The 'constancy of speed of light' was derived from a out of bounds interpretation of the Maxwell Equations, which were meant for an Ether frame of refence.

    2.The mutual time dilation effect that results in the Twin Paradox, mutual time dilation, hints at absolute motion, and invisible and unmeasurable physical effects about the moving frame.

    3.The statement that reality is limited by the speed of light, and not only that, but subsequent calculations have to take into account, forensically, the limitation of the speed of light although subsequent measurements, taken at leisure in hindsight,
    do not have to follow this limitation.

    4.The absurdity of the light clock which violates the second postulate.

    My position is not that "Einstein was wrong" or "Relativity is Wrong" I seek no fame in this area, and it is a huge mistake to make these claims that instantly transport the reader into crank territory.


    Mine is simply an essay incorporating the Physics and Mathematics I have learned, and hopefully a guide to those who are encountering the same problems.

    There is no threat, simply a list of 'common misconceptions' from the point of view of the scientific establishment, and perhaps a good exercise to summarily dismiss these, with reasons.

    There are, however, some factual issues that will be brought to the fore, which will be useful.

    There is the outside chance that in writing out my objections I will come to see the light. Nothing is impossible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Thu Apr 27 18:57:59 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Mine is simply an essay incorporating the Physics and Mathematics I have learned, and hopefully a guide to those who are encountering the same problems.


    You are lying, Gehan. You are the same old crank you were when you joined the group. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.

    There is the outside chance that in writing out my objections I will come to see the light. Nothing is impossible.

    The only thing that comes to light is your crackpottery, Gehan. You will never change

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu Apr 27 19:12:18 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:58:00 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Mine is simply an essay incorporating the Physics and Mathematics I have learned, and hopefully a guide to those who are encountering the same problems.

    You are lying, Gehan. You are the same old crank you were when you joined the group. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
    There is the outside chance that in writing out my objections I will come to see the light. Nothing is impossible.
    The only thing that comes to light is your crackpottery, Gehan. You will never change

    I plan to ask God about absolute space and time, and if His knowledge is limited by the speed of light.

    Isaac Asimov (May God Have Mercy on His Soul) once suggested in an essay that Christ's second coming was delayed by the finite speed of light. He brought religion into it, not me.

    I suggest everyone else put out a short statement on their stand, so we can know what assumptions are behind it all.

    I take it you are a 100% supporter of everything Einstein wrote, including his known errors, or what?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Thu Apr 27 19:19:55 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:12:20 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:58:00 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Mine is simply an essay incorporating the Physics and Mathematics I have learned, and hopefully a guide to those who are encountering the same problems.

    You are lying, Gehan. You are the same old crank you were when you joined the group. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
    There is the outside chance that in writing out my objections I will come to see the light. Nothing is impossible.
    The only thing that comes to light is your crackpottery, Gehan. You will never change

    I take it you are a 100% supporter of everything Einstein wrote, including his known errors, or what?

    I am a 100% mocker of cranks like you , Gehan.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 14:18:23 2023
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
    and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
    in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
    with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
    strikes arguments.

    You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett. <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
    It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.

    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
    then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.

    That's what you get in usenet groups.
    Ignore them, don't become another one.
    Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
    who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.

    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
    and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the statements of SRT.

    That's your problem, work at it,

    Jan

    hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
    instead of taking space and time seperately
    and Lorentz-transforming between them.

    A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
    You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download. <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Apr 28 05:53:14 2023
    On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 14:18:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
    and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
    with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.
    You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett. <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194> It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.
    That's what you get in usenet groups.
    Ignore them, don't become another one.
    Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
    who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
    and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the statements of SRT.
    That's your problem, work at it,

    Jan

    hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
    instead of taking space and time seperately
    and Lorentz-transforming between them.

    And - for innocent kiddies - in the meantime
    in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of
    idiots "improper" GPS and TAI keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Apr 28 07:34:42 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26 PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.
    You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett. <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194> It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.

    Yes, that is the one.

    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.
    That's what you get in usenet groups.
    Ignore them, don't become another one.
    Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
    who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.

    I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well. I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
    Even critics are welcome if they are rational.

    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic, and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the statements of SRT.
    That's your problem, work at it,

    Jan


    Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered. In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
    with one another.

    One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the symmetry'. Wikipedia says it is not necessary.
    Two solutions to a problem is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up with a solution?
    The landscape is not very pretty.

    hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
    instead of taking space and time seperately
    and Lorentz-transforming between them.

    A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
    You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download. <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Apr 28 11:23:35 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.
    You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett. <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194> It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.
    That's what you get in usenet groups.
    Ignore them, don't become another one.
    Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
    who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic, and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the statements of SRT.
    That's your problem, work at it,

    Jan

    hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
    instead of taking space and time seperately
    and Lorentz-transforming between them.

    A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
    You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download. <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>

    I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".

    mathpages

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 20:51:02 2023
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
    in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
    Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.
    You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett. <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194> It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.

    Yes, that is the one.

    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
    not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.
    That's what you get in usenet groups.
    Ignore them, don't become another one.
    Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
    who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.

    I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well.

    That is something else altogether. Writing well,
    and reasoning well, is no substitute for understanding.

    I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
    Even critics are welcome if they are rational.

    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic, and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the statements of SRT.
    That's your problem, work at it,

    Jan


    Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered.

    Again, that's your problem.

    In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
    with one another.

    There is no office for the official explanation of relativity.

    One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the
    symmetry'. Wikipedia says it is not necessary. Two solutions to a problem
    is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up
    with a solution?

    There never was a problem to begin with.
    The correct answer is in Einstein 1905,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Apr 28 12:01:20 2023
    On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 20:51:05 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
    mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
    in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
    Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.
    You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett. <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
    It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.

    Yes, that is the one.

    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
    not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.
    That's what you get in usenet groups.
    Ignore them, don't become another one.
    Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
    who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.

    I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well.
    That is something else altogether. Writing well,
    and reasoning well, is no substitute for understanding.
    I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
    Even critics are welcome if they are rational.

    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
    every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic, and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
    statements of SRT.
    That's your problem, work at it,

    Jan


    Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered.
    Again, that's your problem.
    In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
    with one another.
    There is no office for the official explanation of relativity.
    One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the symmetry'. Wikipedia says it is not necessary. Two solutions to a problem is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up with a solution?
    There never was a problem to begin with.
    The correct answer is in Einstein 1905,

    Poor idiot mystician was mumbling inconsistently and
    other poor idiots mysticians have bought it.



    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Apr 28 22:09:44 2023
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    [-]
    hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
    instead of taking space and time seperately
    and Lorentz-transforming between them.

    A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
    You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download. <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>

    I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".

    Yes, Kevin Brown. I've seen the outside of it,
    and the first paragraphs, starting with Kant.
    It seemed to heavy-going for me, with its philosophical leanings.
    And one can't read everything. Perhaps I should have another look.

    Thanks anyway,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Apr 28 19:32:11 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:51:05 PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
    mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
    and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
    in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
    Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.
    You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett. <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
    It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.

    Yes, that is the one.

    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
    then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
    not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.
    That's what you get in usenet groups.
    Ignore them, don't become another one.
    Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
    who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.

    I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well.
    That is something else altogether. Writing well,
    and reasoning well, is no substitute for understanding.
    I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
    Even critics are welcome if they are rational.

    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
    every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
    and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
    statements of SRT.
    That's your problem, work at it,

    Jan


    Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered.
    Again, that's your problem.

    I should say, there is a refusal to answer some of my questions.

    In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
    with one another.
    There is no office for the official explanation of relativity.
    One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the symmetry'. Wikipedia says it is not necessary. Two solutions to a problem is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up with a solution?
    There never was a problem to begin with.
    The correct answer is in Einstein 1905,

    Jan

    If you can say "Einstein was wrong" then that will be that.

    Wikipedia:

    ########
    Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the
    acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason".[6] Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason
    for the aging difference.[7] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[8] However, it has been proven that neither general relativity,[9][10][11][12]
    [13] nor even acceleration, are necessary to explain the effect, as the effect still applies if two astronauts pass each other at the turnaround point and synchronize their clocks at that point.

    ########

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Apr 28 19:35:26 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:23:37 PM UTC+5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    My Statement on Special Relativity

    My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
    mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
    in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

    In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
    Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.
    You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett. <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
    It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
    Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
    not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.
    That's what you get in usenet groups.
    Ignore them, don't become another one.
    Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
    who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
    The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
    every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

    In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic, and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
    statements of SRT.
    That's your problem, work at it,

    Jan

    hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
    instead of taking space and time seperately
    and Lorentz-transforming between them.

    A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
    You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download. <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>
    I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".

    mathpages

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
    "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

    It will break ChatGPT and anything else they throw at it, let's see. Computers do not lie. Garbage in Garbage out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 19:53:02 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
    "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

    Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Apr 28 23:35:00 2023
    On 4/28/2023 9:53 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
    "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

    Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

    Two beams of light traveling in opposite directions on identical but
    opposite trajectories? Each is traveling at c. What is their relative
    velocity?

    In as long as the life of the universe has been, statistically that has
    to have happened more than once.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Apr 28 22:06:45 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
    "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
    Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

    I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of the speed of light' or Special Relativity.

    If I did I would then be doing something I believe is irrational.

    Remember that Einstein also held on to his beliefs regardless, "God does not play dice with the Universe".

    Being a scientist does not mean being subservient to the common view, even the accepted view, if one does not see the sense of it.
    There are other eminent scientists with me on this.

    Least we can do is clear up the contradictory explanations. Event that is difficult. How can the Twin Paradox have more than one solution?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to whodat on Fri Apr 28 22:05:34 2023
    On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 06:35:10 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
    On 4/28/2023 9:53 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
    "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

    Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...
    Two beams of light traveling in opposite directions on identical but opposite trajectories? Each is traveling at c.

    Even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this
    nonsense for long and his GR shit had to
    withdraw from it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 22:47:30 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:06:46 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
    "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
    Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...
    I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of the speed of light' or Special Relativity.

    Your only consolation is that you are already insane. You have always been a hard core crank, Gehan. Live with it! And stop lying that you are taking courses.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 00:43:41 2023
    On 4/29/2023 12:06 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
    "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
    Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

    I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of the speed of light' or Special Relativity.

    If I did I would then be doing something I believe is irrational.

    Remember that Einstein also held on to his beliefs regardless, "God does not play dice with the Universe".

    Being a scientist does not mean being subservient to the common view, even the accepted view, if one does not see the sense of it.
    There are other eminent scientists with me on this.

    Least we can do is clear up the contradictory explanations. Event that is difficult. How can the Twin Paradox have more than one solution?

    So is the universe absolute or statistical?

    My bet is on statistical. Ask the questions stated above in the
    context of a statistical universe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 13:54:36 2023
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:23:37?PM UTC+5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    [-]
    hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
    instead of taking space and time seperately
    and Lorentz-transforming between them.

    A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime Physics.
    You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download. <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>
    I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It
    lost credibility when the author started saying that it was "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

    Who cares about yet another pop-sci one?
    In all walks of human life, if you want to learn something really well
    you should study the masters, not some third-rate imitation.
    That applies for musical instrument playing, grandmaster chess,
    painting, and yes, physics.
    In some fields there are masterclasses for it.

    And yes, for relativity Wheeler undoubteldly was one of the masters, [1]

    Jan

    [1] Wheeler's own masterclass was in Copenhagen,
    with Niels Bohr and all the others.
    There never has been a better one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Apr 29 05:36:42 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:54:39 PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04?AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28?PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
    Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

    I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of the speed of light' or Special Relativity.
    Too bad for your sanity. Was it ever there, to begin with?

    Jan
    (just wondering)

    Catch 22. All we need is a rule on my sanity and rationality, when it comes to Relativity: either I am irrational and insane, or Special
    Relativity is irrational and insane.

    Look at the situation here:

    Einstein proposes a solution to the Twin Paradox.

    Einstein's solution is not necessary. Wikipedia says. It is correct, but not necessary?

    Did Einstein make any mistakes at all?

    Why is this taboo?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 13:16:30 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com asked:

    Did Einstein make any mistakes at all?

    https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-einstein-got-wrong/

    Why is this taboo?

    It isn't. Many scientists have spent their lives trying to prove einstein wrong. AFAIK, all have failed... so far...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 13:59:30 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Catch 22. All we need is a rule on my sanity and rationality

    Doesn;t come from cranks like you, Gehan.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 23:36:32 2023
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:54:39?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04?AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28?PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com:

    I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It
    lost credibility when the author started saying that it was "legal" to
    add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
    Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

    I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of
    the speed of light' or Special Relativity.
    Too bad for your sanity. Was it ever there, to begin with?

    Jan
    (just wondering)

    Catch 22. All we need is a rule on my sanity and rationality, when it
    comes to Relativity: either I am irrational and insane, or Special
    Relativity is irrational and insane.

    OK, that settles that,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Apr 29 19:50:12 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 1:16:32 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com asked:
    Did Einstein make any mistakes at all?
    https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-einstein-got-wrong/

    Why is this taboo?

    It isn't. Many scientists have spent their lives trying to prove einstein wrong. AFAIK, all have failed... so far...

    Paul, establishing Einstein wrong is not the problem here. Quantum theory in any case contradicts with Relativity. I am not interested in proving Einstein wrong, that is in any case an extremely foolish and crank-like position to take which destroys
    reputations instantly. I am not taking the path of Professor Herbert Dingle, who himself admitted he should have handled the situation differently, simply pretending
    to ask for clarifications and being diplomatic. That is a lesson I have learned in these years.

    I am simply pointing out what seem to me - I will grant that - irrationality in some of the claims made by Special Relativity. Actually the second postulate is what I cannot accept, and one cannot say Einstein was wrong for accepting the experimental
    evidence (Fizeau and De Sitter) and trying to harmonize the two. This harmonizing process seems to have some conclusions of its own that seem to be self-contradictory, or rather unwarranted assumptions, akin to saying one cannot travel at the speed of
    sound because the pilot will not be able to hear the sound of his own voice. We know that is not true.

    Even Einstein considered he had made errors. Yet his contributions to science were immense, and I like and admire him.

    "This cosmological constant allowed for a stable universe. But sure enough, astronomers in the 1920s confirmed that the universe was expanding. Einstein later called the cosmological constant the “greatest blunder” of his career"

    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-made-his-share-errors-here-are-three-biggest-ncna855731


    When a system is described in Physics that does not make sense to me, I look further. I have no explanations and no alternate theories and will not come up with one, that is for someone else to do. I am not obligated to come up with another theory.

    One example: DeSitters double star experiments:

    #######
    In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel
    towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia
    ######

    What does this mean? If you look at the velocities of the light emitted from the surface of the star towards Earth and the velocity of the surface of the star towards Earth, you have have to conclude that the light was emitted at c-v relative to the
    surface of the star, when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is approaching, and c+v relative to the surface of the star when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is receding.

    It is exactly as if there is an Aether in which the Earth is stationary. There is no Aether. I have no explanation for this, but
    surely everyone can see the reasoning supporting my conclusion?

    Let's settle this one first.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 00:07:18 2023
    On 4/29/23 9:50 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    One example: DeSitters double star experiments:

    ####### In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this [#] was true,
    a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard
    to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light
    emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel
    towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia ######

    [#] in this incomplete quote, presumably "this" refers
    to the notion that light is emitted with speed c+v from
    a moving source.

    It appears that gehan used an unstated assumption here, that light
    travels with speed c from the double star to earth.

    What does this mean? If you look at the velocities of the light
    emitted from the surface of the star towards Earth and the velocity
    of the surface of the star towards Earth, you have have to conclude
    that the light was emitted at c-v relative to the surface of the
    star, when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is approaching, and c+v relative to the surface of the star when the
    light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is receding.

    No, you don't "have to" conclude any such thing. What you have to do is
    apply RELATIVITY rather than whatever mish-mash you used; in particular,
    apply the Lorentz transform, not the Galilean transform. Do that and you
    will find that the light is emitted at speed c relative to the locally
    inertial frame in which the surface of the star is at rest (independent
    of its position in its orbit).

    [If one is careful, one can apply the Lorentz composition
    of velocities, and obtain the same answer. But based on
    his writings around here I doubt very much that gehan
    can be careful enough....]

    [... further nonsense ignored]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Apr 29 23:07:10 2023
    On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 22:16:32 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com asked:
    Did Einstein make any mistakes at all?
    https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-einstein-got-wrong/

    Why is this taboo?

    It isn't. Many scientists have spent their lives trying to prove einstein wrong. AFAIK, all have failed... so far...

    And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
    your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Apr 29 23:58:31 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:07:30 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/29/23 9:50 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    One example: DeSitters double star experiments:

    ####### In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this [#] was true,
    a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard
    to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light
    emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel
    towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia ######
    [#] in this incomplete quote, presumably "this" refers
    to the notion that light is emitted with speed c+v from
    a moving source.

    It appears that gehan used an unstated assumption here, that light
    travels with speed c from the double star to earth.
    What does this mean? If you look at the velocities of the light
    emitted from the surface of the star towards Earth and the velocity
    of the surface of the star towards Earth, you have have to conclude
    that the light was emitted at c-v relative to the surface of the
    star, when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is approaching, and c+v relative to the surface of the star when the
    light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is receding.
    No, you don't "have to" conclude any such thing. What you have to do is apply RELATIVITY rather than whatever mish-mash you used; in particular, apply the Lorentz transform, not the Galilean transform. Do that and you will find that the light is emitted at speed c relative to the locally inertial frame in which the surface of the star is at rest (independent
    of its position in its orbit).

    [If one is careful, one can apply the Lorentz composition
    of velocities, and obtain the same answer. But based on
    his writings around here I doubt very much that gehan
    can be careful enough....]

    [... further nonsense ignored]

    Tom Roberts

    The Newtonian universe that Eisntein did his reasoning in, and the first postulate he used, says that the law for emission of light from the surface of the star is the same in each reference frame, that is, light is emitted from the surface of the star
    with velocity c relative to its surface, in the frame of reference in which the surface of the star is stationary.

    You want me to use Relativity to check Relativity? That is circular.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From xray4abc@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Mon May 1 19:27:05 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:58:33 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:07:30 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/29/23 9:50 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    One example: DeSitters double star experiments:

    ####### In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this [#] was true,
    a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard
    to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel
    towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia ######
    [#] in this incomplete quote, presumably "this" refers
    to the notion that light is emitted with speed c+v from
    a moving source.

    It appears that gehan used an unstated assumption here, that light
    travels with speed c from the double star to earth.
    What does this mean? If you look at the velocities of the light
    emitted from the surface of the star towards Earth and the velocity
    of the surface of the star towards Earth, you have have to conclude
    that the light was emitted at c-v relative to the surface of the
    star, when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is approaching, and c+v relative to the surface of the star when the
    light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is receding.
    No, you don't "have to" conclude any such thing. What you have to do is apply RELATIVITY rather than whatever mish-mash you used; in particular, apply the Lorentz transform, not the Galilean transform. Do that and you will find that the light is emitted at speed c relative to the locally inertial frame in which the surface of the star is at rest (independent
    of its position in its orbit).

    [If one is careful, one can apply the Lorentz composition
    of velocities, and obtain the same answer. But based on
    his writings around here I doubt very much that gehan
    can be careful enough....]

    [... further nonsense ignored]

    Tom Roberts
    The Newtonian universe that Eisntein did his reasoning in, and the first postulate he used, says that the law for emission of light from the surface of the star is the same in each reference frame, that is, light is emitted from the surface of the star
    with velocity c relative to its surface, in the frame of reference in which the surface of the star is stationary.

    You want me to use Relativity to check Relativity? That is circular.
    Some , if not ALL of the misunderstandings and misconceptions may come from the ERRONEOUS
    idea that the Lorentz transformations are relations between measurements in a given inertial reference frame and those made in another one in movement..relative to the first one.
    NO way! An atomic clock ticks in both in the exact same way.
    A meter stick is the same in both.
    What is not the same is...the perception about the other reference frames. Then...we have to be careful in what we say. Even in a given inertial reference frame, for an example, 2 events considered to be simultaneous...ARE in reality SEEN like that, ONLY IN A LIMITED number of points of space.
    In the absolute majority of that particular space they are NOT SEEN to be simultaneous. That means ....all the discussions
    regarding the issue have a very very narrow meaning........a certain experimental setup, not more!
    Best regards, LL

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Thu May 4 10:57:43 2023
    On April 29, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting in
    a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate
    between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from
    different parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia

    de Sitter's arguments against ether, using binary stars,
    are not so strong as they seem.

    He relies on Doppler analysis, which assumes constant
    light speed. And his projections of non-Kepler orbits,
    for varying light speeds, depend on observations of
    the star orbits. Those estimate position vs. time, for
    phenomena a long time ago, hence depend on constant
    light speed, to infer the time coordinates.

    The strongest support for his arguments is the appeal
    to Occam's razor; rejection of relativity entails the
    construction of ungainly models. Ptolemy vs.
    Copernicus comes to mind -


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu May 4 23:24:35 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On April 29, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting
    in a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate
    between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia

    de Sitter's arguments against ether, using binary stars,
    are not so strong as they seem.

    He relies on Doppler analysis, which assumes constant
    light speed. And his projections of non-Kepler orbits,
    for varying light speeds, depend on observations of
    the star orbits. Those estimate position vs. time, for
    phenomena a long time ago, hence depend on constant
    light speed, to infer the time coordinates.

    The strongest support for his arguments is the appeal
    to Occam's razor; rejection of relativity entails the
    construction of ungainly models. Ptolemy vs.
    Copernicus comes to mind -

    The Sitter's argument becomes unescapable
    in the case that the orbiting star
    carries a clock that we can observe.
    This is just the case for orbiting double pulsars.

    As we now know there is no De Sitter v c effect
    modulating the arrival time of the pulses,
    apart from what relativity predicts,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu May 4 19:48:02 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:57:45 PM UTC+5, RichD wrote:
    On April 29, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate
    between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from
    different parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia
    de Sitter's arguments against ether, using binary stars,
    are not so strong as they seem.

    He relies on Doppler analysis, which assumes constant
    light speed. And his projections of non-Kepler orbits,
    for varying light speeds, depend on observations of
    the star orbits. Those estimate position vs. time, for
    phenomena a long time ago, hence depend on constant
    light speed, to infer the time coordinates.

    The strongest support for his arguments is the appeal
    to Occam's razor; rejection of relativity entails the
    construction of ungainly models. Ptolemy vs.
    Copernicus comes to mind -


    --
    Rich

    I have no access to DeSitter's experiment, only reason and mathematics. It remains to be seen if I can do anything useful with these.
    The explanation and description of the Doppler effect is breathtakingly schizophrenic. If you have not figured it out, good luck.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu May 4 22:44:59 2023
    On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 23:27:03 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On April 29, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia

    de Sitter's arguments against ether, using binary stars,
    are not so strong as they seem.

    He relies on Doppler analysis, which assumes constant
    light speed. And his projections of non-Kepler orbits,
    for varying light speeds, depend on observations of
    the star orbits. Those estimate position vs. time, for
    phenomena a long time ago, hence depend on constant
    light speed, to infer the time coordinates.

    The strongest support for his arguments is the appeal
    to Occam's razor; rejection of relativity entails the
    construction of ungainly models. Ptolemy vs.
    Copernicus comes to mind -
    The Sitter's argument becomes unescapable
    in the case that the orbiting star
    carries a clock that we can observe.

    Or at least imagine. In physics it's the same.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)