The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both
of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference
of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was
postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] after being motivated by Maxwell's
theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the
luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by
many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Post your proof here.
On 2023-05-06 07:06:12 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both
of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference
of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the
luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by
many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Post your proof here.It is already known that if it does lead to an incosistency then Peano arithmetic (the ordinary theory of arithmetic) is inconsistent. A new
proof is not needed.
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 10:40:01 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-05-06 07:06:12 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the
luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
It's already known that relativistic idiots fabricatePost your proof here.It is already known that if it does lead to an incosistency then Peano arithmetic (the ordinary theory of arithmetic) is inconsistent. A new proof is not needed.
and lie very impudently, but another proof is always
welcome.
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:43:54 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 10:40:01 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-05-06 07:06:12 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference
of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
So, no proof yet! 100 years +It's already known that relativistic idiots fabricatePost your proof here.It is already known that if it does lead to an incosistency then Peano arithmetic (the ordinary theory of arithmetic) is inconsistent. A new proof is not needed.
and lie very impudently, but another proof is always
welcome.
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:43:54 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 10:40:01 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-05-06 07:06:12 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference
of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Post your proof here.
It is already known that if it does lead to an incosistency then Peano arithmetic (the ordinary theory of arithmetic) is inconsistent. A new proof is not needed.
It's already known that relativistic idiots fabricate
and lie very impudently, but another proof is always
welcome.
So, no proof yet! 100 years +
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 5:08:22 AM UTC-6, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:43:54 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 10:40:01 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-05-06 07:06:12 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both
of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference
of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] after being motivated by Maxwell's
theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Post your proof here.
It is already known that if it does lead to an incosistency then Peano arithmetic (the ordinary theory of arithmetic) is inconsistent. A new proof is not needed.
It's already known that relativistic idiots fabricate
and lie very impudently, but another proof is always
welcome.
So, no proof yet! 100 years +Come, Gehan. You can only wait four hours before deciding there is no "proof"? First of all, this is a question of physics, not mathematics. Mathematicians deal with proofs, physicists either confirm or refute by experimental evidence.
And there is considerable experimental evidence:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests
A theory can be internally self-contradictory even before it is put to experimental test. These are logical proofs....
The claims of many anti-relativists as they are called, are that the Special Theory of Relativity leads to contradictory conclusions.
I am assuming that no valid criticism can be made of the assumption that 'light travels at velocity c in all inertial frames of reference' even though these frames of reference are that hold stationary object that are moving relative to each other.
My personal opinion is that this will lead to logical contradictions, however, if no examples can be offered, we can consider this closed.
The problem is that many of the member of this forum seem to think otherwise, in which case a simple, easy to understand proof will settle the issue.
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 5:08:22 AM UTC-6, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:43:54 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 10:40:01 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-05-06 07:06:12 +0000, gehan.am...@gmail.com said:
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both
of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference
of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] after being motivated by Maxwell's
theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Post your proof here.
It is already known that if it does lead to an incosistency then Peano arithmetic (the ordinary theory of arithmetic) is inconsistent. A new proof is not needed.
It's already known that relativistic idiots fabricate
and lie very impudently, but another proof is always
welcome.
So, no proof yet! 100 years +Come, Gehan. You can only wait four hours before deciding there is no "proof"? First of all, this is a question of physics, not mathematics. Mathematicians deal with proofs, physicists either confirm or refute by experimental evidence.
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:43:54 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It's already known that relativistic idiots fabricate
and lie very impudently, but another proof is always
welcome.
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 5:08:22 AM UTC-6, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:)
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:43:54 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 10:40:01 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
I particularly like Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments. One thing not mentioned in the link is communication with spacecraft moving at up to 50 km/sec around
Saturn and beyond. At such distances and speeds, any dependence of the speed of light on the motions between transmitters and receivers would be quite obvious.
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 5:08:22 AM UTC-6, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
And there is considerable experimental evidence:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests
This should be enough to keep you busy for a long time :-)
what a function is?
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
...
A theory can be internally self-contradictory even before it is put to experimental test. These are logical proofs.
The claims of many anti-relativists as they are called, are that the Special Theory of Relativity leads to contradictory conclusions....
I am assuming that no valid criticism can be made of the assumption that 'light travels at velocity c in all inertial frames of reference' even though these frames of reference are that hold stationary object that are moving relative to each other.
My personal opinion is that this will lead to logical contradictions, however, if no examples can be offered, we can consider this closed.
The problem is that many of the member of this forum seem to think otherwise, in which case a simple, easy to understand proof will settle the issue.Opinion of these "members" are pointless.
Relativity is mathematically identical to hyperbolic 4-D geometry
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
what a function is?
A function from a set E to a set F is a subset
F of ExF such as:
(x,y) \in F & (x,y') \in F => y = y'
The most usual definition requires also that :
\forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
Bourbaki though doesn't require this
[...]
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 4:48:20 PM UTC+5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
And there is considerable experimental evidence:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests
This should be enough to keep you busy for a long time :-)
You personally expect me to go through and peer review hundreds of experiments that have been done in conditions I cannot ever hope to
achieve? Or go through their papers and find errors in them?
I think a more practical approach would be to simply tell me I can
never understand Special Relativity so give it up.
On 5/6/23 2:06 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
This challenge is doomed to failure, because the math underlying SR has
been proven to be as internally consistent as is Euclidean geometry
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 17:09:24 UTC+2, Python wrote:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
what a function is?
A function from a set E to a set F is a subset
F of ExF such as:
(x,y) \in F & (x,y') \in F => y = y'
Hey, you're able to learn, after all.
And do you now understand why your concept
of sqrt in 9-ring was stupid?
The most usual definition requires also that :
\forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
Bourbaki though doesn't require this
Interesting. Reference?
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
...
A theory can be internally self-contradictory even before it is put to...
experimental test. These are logical proofs.
The claims of many anti-relativists as they are called, are that the Special >> Theory of Relativity leads to contradictory conclusions.
I am assuming that no valid criticism can be made of the assumption that 'light
travels at velocity c in all inertial frames of reference' even though these frames
of reference are that hold stationary object that are moving relative to each
other.
My personal opinion is that this will lead to logical contradictions, however,
if no examples can be offered, we can consider this closed.
The problem is that many of the member of this forum seem to think otherwise, in
which case a simple, easy to understand proof will settle the issue.
Opinion of these "members" are pointless.
Relativity is mathematically identical to hyperbolic 4-D geometry which
is known (i.e. there is a proof of that) to be para-consistent with
Euclidean Geometry.
Don't hold you breath waiting for a logical contradiction to be
found in SR... There is provably *none*.
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] afterbeing motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Post your proof here.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 17:09:24 UTC+2, Python wrote:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
what a function is?
A function from a set E to a set F is a subset
F of ExF such as:
(x,y) \in F & (x,y') \in F => y = y'
Hey, you're able to learn, after all.Not so fast janitor! You've just approached the
And do you now understand why your concept
of sqrt in 9-ring was stupid?
concept of function. It's far too soon to talk
about multi-valued functions and principal values.
The most usual definition requires also that :
\forall x \in E, \exists y : (x,y) \in F
Bourbaki though doesn't require this
Interesting. Reference?Any Bourbaki's book on set theory or analysis.
El sábado, 6 de mayo de 2023 a las 3:06:14 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 7]
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] after
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Post your proof here.First, there are no inconsistencies due to the speed of light.
Light (electromagnetic radiation) is how we are informed of astronomic events. Therefore, light is a signal carrying the information of the occurrence of remote events.
The maximum speed of propagation of interactions (events) is c. Its existence implies that motions of bodies with greater speed than light are impossible in Nature, since if so, the occurrence of an event would be known before the event occurred.
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer.[Note 6] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[8] afterbeing motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[19] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 7]
-Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Post your proof here.
prove that this invariance of the speed of light leads to logical inconsistencies
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:06:14 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
prove that this invariance of the speed of light leads to logical inconsistencies
For something that is logically consistent, it isn't possible to give a valid proof that it is logically inconsistent.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 28:01:20 |
Calls: | 6,986 |
Files: | 12,416 |
Messages: | 5,451,233 |