A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet is B + P in the frame of the street.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:Never mind the silly "k" stuff Bill. Relativistic junk science.
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet is B + P in the frame of the street.
Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
The bullet and police car.So far four relativists here have denied this asserting they can conjure up c out of thin air. They said so in my isotropy post: Jan, Volney, Sylvia Else and Gary Harnagel.
Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.
THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:Then, aside from k, do you accept my assertion?
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet is B + P in the frame of the street.
Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
The bullet and police car.Gary said, "Suppose you try to explain inventing a v when there isn't one."
Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.
THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car. [The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet
is B + P in the frame of the street.
Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of
the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually
(B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
Then, aside from k, do you accept my assertion?
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:08:04 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:This really aside from the point. You do accept that it is B + P modified by a small factor so in principle you accept the point.
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car. [The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet
is B + P in the frame of the street.
Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of
the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually
(B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
Then, aside from k, do you accept my assertion?First, the symbol "k" didn't appear in the quoted text. Second, no, your assertion is false, because (again) the speed of the bullet in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest is not B+P, it is (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
The bullet and police car.Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B. It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on
Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.
THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:36:43 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:08:04 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet
is B + P in the frame of the street.
Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of
the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually
(B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
Then, aside from k, do you accept my assertion?First, the symbol "k" didn't appear in the quoted text. Second, no, your assertion is false, because (again) the speed of the bullet in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest is not B+P, it is (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
This really aside from the point. You do accept that it is B + P modified by a small factor so in principle you accept the point.
The bullet and police car.Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V. To remove this ambiguity let us define:
Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.
THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
The bullet and police car.If independent of the source velocity mans C + V it would completely agree with the first postulate and give a constant speed of c within any IRF.
Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.
THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
The bullet and police car.
Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.
THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car. [The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet
is B + P in the frame of the street.
Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).Never mind the silly "k" stuff Bill. Relativistic junk science.
The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has
been used very ambiguously...
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has
been used very ambiguously...
There is no ambiguity in special relativity. All massless energy, including electromagnetic radiation, propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the
source. Note that standard systems of inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz
transformations, not Galilean transformations.
Le 11/09/2023 à 01:25, Bill a écrit :
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen
wrote:
The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has
been used very ambiguously...
There is no ambiguity in special relativity. All massless energy, includingLOL.
electromagnetic radiation, propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every
standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the
source. Note that standard systems of inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz
transformations, not Galilean transformations.
You don't take risks.
Looks like a post from a woman.
Just as we say "it's a woman's crime", we say "it's a woman's post".
R.H.
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
The bullet and police car.Either the second postulate means light speed is always C in an IRF, or it means light speed does not share the velocity of the source.
Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.
THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom Roberts
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V" or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V" or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity ofApparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.
In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.
The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the
contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.
This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.
Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".
So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".
Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.
So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory",
otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and
Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.
In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.
So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet >> is B + P in the frame of the street.
Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms
of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually
(B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?
On 9/10/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space. Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.
If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?You contradict yourself twice in one sentence!
If it[light speed] is always C, it must be C.
If it[light speed] does not share the velocity[of the source], it must be C.
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space. Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V. That is why your
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein'sYour "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
Tom Roberts
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity ofApparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.
In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.
The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the
contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.
This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.
Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".
So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".
Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.
So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory",
otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and
Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.
In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.
So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".
This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.
So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)
Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.
It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".
Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?You contradict yourself twice in one sentence!
If it[light speed] is always C, it must be C.
If it[light speed] does not share the velocity[of the source], it must be C.
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
Since we best not assume absolute space,
[remainder snipped as irrelevant]
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?You contradict yourself twice in one sentence!
If it[light speed] is always C, it must be C.To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space. Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.
If it[light speed] does not share the velocity[of the source], it must be C.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity ofApparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.
In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.
The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the
contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.
This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.
Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".
So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".
Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.
So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory",
otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and
Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.
In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.
So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".
This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.
So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)
Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.
It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".
Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
for some.
For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are
just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves
other demands unfilfilled.
So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines,
about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after
reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws", that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.
Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer, than how it's outlaid to be.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity ofApparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.
In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.
The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.
This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.
Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".
So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".
Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.
So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.
In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.
So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".
This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.
So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)
Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.
It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".
Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
for some.
For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic, and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves other demands unfilfilled.
So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines,
about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after
reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws", that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.
Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but, at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer, than how it's outlaid to be.It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".
And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.
They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.
So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".
Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.
So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.
Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").
So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity ofApparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.
In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.
The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.
This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.
Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".
So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".
Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.
So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking", "tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.
In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.
So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".
This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.
So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)
Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.
It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a model grandiose hedge".
Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction, for some.
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic, and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves other demands unfilfilled.
So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines, about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after
reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws",
that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems of the classical mechanics.
Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".
And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.
They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.
So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".
Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.
So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.
Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").
So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
Either way it's considered "least action".
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity ofApparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.
In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.
The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.
This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.
Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".
So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".
Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.
So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction" besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking", "tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.
In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.
So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".
This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.
So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)
Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.
It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a model grandiose hedge".
Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction, for some.
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves other demands unfilfilled.
So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines, about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws",
that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.
Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".
And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.
They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.
So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".
Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.
So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.
Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").
So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
Either way it's considered "least action".v^2, c^2, ....
It's rotational from the moment if dynamical at all.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity ofApparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.
In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.
The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory, including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.
This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.
Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".
So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone", as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed, so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".
Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.
So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction" besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking", "tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.
In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.
So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".
This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.
So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)
Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.
It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a model grandiose hedge".
Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
for some.
For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are
just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves
other demands unfilfilled.
So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv. I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines, about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws",
that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.
Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".
And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.
They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.
So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".
Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.
So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.
Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").
So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
Either way it's considered "least action".v^2, c^2, ....
It's rotational from the moment if dynamical at all.The point is that v and c are differential, so in v^2 and c^2 are also
out their power terms, both that "squared and, it's still in the limit", and, "squared, and, rest outside the limit".
That it's both of them, then it's a minimizing principle that they're the same in the limit.
That is, in v and v^2, where "v relates more to a it's differential and d its distance than it's square",
also that "light speed's is in the geodesy's space terms", that by definition, light in relativity,
also ways goes along the geodesy which is exactly what any space-time "curvature", is, locally.
So, c^2 the ratio, goes out in diffusive terms, that there's both boundaries through the pressure law,
pressure's I suppose most usual, v^2, c^2, and pressure.
So, the terms, result linear, rotations in momentum, axle fixed.
Then, "torque is static", is while the classical law preserves applied momentum,
that momentum is now a spatially wave term, over time its application,
what it involves in terms of mass and velocity, and mass and light's velocity.
Then, it's kept fixed under the terms, that in algebra "these terms say c^2 and v^2,
and those terms say c^2 and v^2, and this is mass and light", that it lives under derivations,
why all a usual eigenmoment, also is same in its pressure terms.
Then, "torque is static, pressure is classical", compared to "torque is classical",
is torque and virtual torque and applied pressure, what results for momentum and push.
So, for the classical and the solution for the ramp, is that the uphill ramp,
is like for classical, for example, and downhill, with ramp, pressure, and tipping,
that pressure usually is the kinetic impulse while also it's the diffusion pressure.
So, superclassical models like fall gravity and impulse pressure make "impulse
pressure's frames are waves".
Then, "impulse pressure", is my new addition, fall gravity and impulse pressure,
helping relate the true centrifugal and centripetal, as usally about centers of pressure,
and centers of rotation. (Or voids.)
The idea to make a stochastic or quantum, the impulse, today is
"there are two paths: the same path is faster, and another path".
The idea is that in time everything goes its path, that decisions in
time come downstream in time.
Then, impulse pressure, is that "all the impulses also live in a pressure space". It's both a space with pressure, and, a space of impulses as pressures.
So, it's usual nothing changes in formula.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.
Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car. What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.
THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.Either the second postulate means light speed is always C in an IRF, or it means light speed does not share the velocity of the source.
If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is
stationary, requiring absolute space.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein'sYour "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
Tom Roberts
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein'sYour "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Tom Roberts
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.
NB: This is NOT how virtually all modern textbooks do it, hence your confusion. The modern approach is logically equivalent and is
faster but it's also IMHO an absolute _pedagogical_ disaster.
Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.No, this is incorrect. You need to understand what this is really
about before critiquing it.
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.
--
Jan
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:51:54 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity ofApparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).
You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.
Tom RobertsOne day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...
So, how is this working out for you, so far?
Any takers?Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.
In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.
The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory, including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.
This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.
Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".
So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed, so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".
Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.
So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction" besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking", "tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.
In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.
So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around, which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's givingIt's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".
This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.
So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)
Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave", for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.
It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".
Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ..., "momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fitsThere are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
with space contraction though, what it is.
for some.
For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are
just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves
other demands unfilfilled.
So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines,
about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws",
that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.
Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".
And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.
They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.
So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".
Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.
So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.
Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").
So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
Either way it's considered "least action".v^2, c^2, ....
It's rotational from the moment if dynamical at all.The point is that v and c are differential, so in v^2 and c^2 are also
out their power terms, both that "squared and, it's still in the limit", and, "squared, and, rest outside the limit".
That it's both of them, then it's a minimizing principle that they're the same in the limit.
That is, in v and v^2, where "v relates more to a it's differential and d its distance than it's square",
also that "light speed's is in the geodesy's space terms", that by definition, light in relativity,
also ways goes along the geodesy which is exactly what any space-time "curvature", is, locally.
So, c^2 the ratio, goes out in diffusive terms, that there's both boundaries through the pressure law,
pressure's I suppose most usual, v^2, c^2, and pressure.
So, the terms, result linear, rotations in momentum, axle fixed.
Then, "torque is static", is while the classical law preserves applied momentum,
that momentum is now a spatially wave term, over time its application, what it involves in terms of mass and velocity, and mass and light's velocity.
Then, it's kept fixed under the terms, that in algebra "these terms say c^2 and v^2,
and those terms say c^2 and v^2, and this is mass and light", that it lives under derivations,
why all a usual eigenmoment, also is same in its pressure terms.
Then, "torque is static, pressure is classical", compared to "torque is classical",
is torque and virtual torque and applied pressure, what results for momentum and push.
So, for the classical and the solution for the ramp, is that the uphill ramp,
is like for classical, for example, and downhill, with ramp, pressure, and tipping,
that pressure usually is the kinetic impulse while also it's the diffusion pressure.
So, superclassical models like fall gravity and impulse pressure make "impulse
pressure's frames are waves".
Then, "impulse pressure", is my new addition, fall gravity and impulse pressure,
helping relate the true centrifugal and centripetal, as usally about centers of pressure,
and centers of rotation. (Or voids.)
The idea to make a stochastic or quantum, the impulse, today is
"there are two paths: the same path is faster, and another path".
The idea is that in time everything goes its path, that decisions in
time come downstream in time.
Then, impulse pressure, is that "all the impulses also live in a pressure space". It's both a space with pressure, and, a space of impulses as pressures.
So, it's usual nothing changes in formula.New Index Additions:
) "It's taboo in school, or nobody bucks .999, but really it's the truth."
) "In fact, not even the formulas change and it's in effect.
Both it has no demonstration and the formulas are the same."
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it isNope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true --
stationary, requiring absolute space.
HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to
write about it.
Tom Roberts
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You accept it on faith. It doesn't take much to understand the subject is pseudoscience.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein'sYour "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Tom Roberts
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.
NB: This is NOT how virtually all modern textbooks do it, hence your confusion. The modern approach is logically equivalent and is
faster but it's also IMHO an absolute _pedagogical_ disaster.
Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.No, this is incorrect. You need to understand what this is really
about before critiquing it.
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.
--
Jan
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it isNope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true --
stationary, requiring absolute space.
HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
Tom RobertsYou can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.
You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.
You accept it on faith. It doesn't take much to understand the subject is pseudoscience.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:19:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
Well, if you don't know at least three definitions of mathematical continuity,Tom RobertsYou can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.
I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to get figured how there's a "rational" quantum
mechanics after a continuum mechanics.
That is to say, what's invariance and conservation law, arises as from "continuity
laws", where there's more than one definition of continuity, then symmetry-breaking
breaks down into various notions of symmetry-flex, and such notions being discussed
as partners and virtual particles, and supersymmetry, seem to sort of require,
that mathematics needs as much renovation as physics. (Mathematics "owes" physics, ....)
Of course you might aver "it's fine the way it is" and that's fine, and I'm not much
of a detractor, but it's all part of "Hilbert's Infinite Living Museum of Mathematics,
now with a science wing".
I'm reading a book. It's from "the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications".
It's "Radar and Sonar". It describes the grating lobes, of a signal, as, "very narrow",
extrema of a Dirichlet function, which of course is parameterized quite large,
and describes that Gabor widths are sometimes infinite.
So, for example, with regards to pulse trains and the relativistic, there really
is something that can be said via, for example, "impulse pressure", "in a world
of arrows: a dart", here for example about this notion of the Dirac impulse on
one side for the impulse and pulse, and the radial basis of bump on the other
side for the volume element of the pressure space, for example a vacuum space,
those laying a neat boundary that's also a continuum function, or invariant, a directional primitive in a relativistic world, with area one on either side,
on the one side a pointer the other a sink.
Physics here of course is "mathematical physics" and about reduces to it. Surely where the mathematics doesn't suffice the empirical only does,
safely that's not necessarily the goal, where "the fundamental", "the foundation",
of course is the goal. So, empirical theory of course can paste together
any assemblage. That said, something like "just add an anti-particle in anti-time",
when otherwise "things broke", is only an ad hoc conceit and its metaphor
is at best tenuous: there is no "negative time" (or, "time invariant has never
been falsified"), blaming mathematics for misconstrued metaphor isn't that big a deal. I.e., Feynman's "negative time" is not apropos, just like neither
is dark matter: it's a placeholder for collective lack-of-sense in the unscientific.
Agreeably they're, agreeable metaphors: they only first fulfill what they refute
then drop out: it's just to be said there's no physical interpretation of them:
that always satisfies.
So, I brought a giant meter-stick from mathematical foundations,
where I'll be estimating additions, called "replete continuity".
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:This is a blinkered approach. You've been hoodwinked by Einstein. Relativists don't have the mental qualifications to discuss physics.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein'sYour "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Tom Roberts
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.
On 9/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.
Just because you don't have what it takes to understand the subjectYou don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.You accept it on faith. It doesn't take much to understand the subject is pseudoscience.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein'sYour "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Tom Roberts
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.
NB: This is NOT how virtually all modern textbooks do it, hence your confusion. The modern approach is logically equivalent and is
faster but it's also IMHO an absolute _pedagogical_ disaster.
Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.No, this is incorrect. You need to understand what this is really
about before critiquing it.
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.
--
Jan
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:31:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:19:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.
Well, if you don't know at least three definitions of mathematical continuity,Tom RobertsYou can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.
I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to get figured how there's a "rational" quantum
mechanics after a continuum mechanics.
That is to say, what's invariance and conservation law, arises as from "continuity
laws", where there's more than one definition of continuity, then symmetry-breaking
breaks down into various notions of symmetry-flex, and such notions being discussed
as partners and virtual particles, and supersymmetry, seem to sort of require,
that mathematics needs as much renovation as physics. (Mathematics "owes" physics, ....)
Of course you might aver "it's fine the way it is" and that's fine, and I'm not much
of a detractor, but it's all part of "Hilbert's Infinite Living Museum of Mathematics,
now with a science wing".
I'm reading a book. It's from "the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications".
It's "Radar and Sonar". It describes the grating lobes, of a signal, as, "very narrow",
extrema of a Dirichlet function, which of course is parameterized quite large,
and describes that Gabor widths are sometimes infinite.
So, for example, with regards to pulse trains and the relativistic, there really
is something that can be said via, for example, "impulse pressure", "in a world
of arrows: a dart", here for example about this notion of the Dirac impulse on
one side for the impulse and pulse, and the radial basis of bump on the other
side for the volume element of the pressure space, for example a vacuum space,
those laying a neat boundary that's also a continuum function, or invariant,
a directional primitive in a relativistic world, with area one on either side,
on the one side a pointer the other a sink.
Physics here of course is "mathematical physics" and about reduces to it. Surely where the mathematics doesn't suffice the empirical only does, safely that's not necessarily the goal, where "the fundamental", "the foundation",
of course is the goal. So, empirical theory of course can paste together any assemblage. That said, something like "just add an anti-particle in anti-time",
when otherwise "things broke", is only an ad hoc conceit and its metaphor is at best tenuous: there is no "negative time" (or, "time invariant has never
been falsified"), blaming mathematics for misconstrued metaphor isn't that big a deal. I.e., Feynman's "negative time" is not apropos, just like neither
is dark matter: it's a placeholder for collective lack-of-sense in the unscientific.
Agreeably they're, agreeable metaphors: they only first fulfill what they refute
then drop out: it's just to be said there's no physical interpretation of them:
that always satisfies.
So, I brought a giant meter-stick from mathematical foundations,A Gabor about Dirichlet and Birkhoff....
where I'll be estimating additions, called "replete continuity".
https://omega.umk.pl/docstore/download/UMKa8fded98b23e49a692e8b552d0fc5a3c/file.pdf
"There's more than one."
"Pseudomoments: combine the notion of moment and metric, ...".
Some theorems of Ramsey get decidable in "square Cantor space".
Some conjectures in number theory get independent, ....
Enjoying a "Dynamical versions of Hardy's Uncertainty Principle: A survey", of Fernandez-Bertolin and E. Malinnikova.
It's like "yeah, everybody knows Fourier these days. Or maybe wavelets."
One or the other to set up functions as either side transforms for convolution,
with wavelets as the sort more modern, while Fourier for the usually linear.
Phys.Rev. A 1973?
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:54:27 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:31:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:19:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to
write about it.
Well, if you don't know at least three definitions of mathematical continuity,Tom RobertsYou can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.
I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to get figured how there's a "rational" quantum
mechanics after a continuum mechanics.
That is to say, what's invariance and conservation law, arises as from "continuity
laws", where there's more than one definition of continuity, then symmetry-breaking
breaks down into various notions of symmetry-flex, and such notions being discussed
as partners and virtual particles, and supersymmetry, seem to sort of require,
that mathematics needs as much renovation as physics. (Mathematics "owes" physics, ....)
Of course you might aver "it's fine the way it is" and that's fine, and I'm not much
of a detractor, but it's all part of "Hilbert's Infinite Living Museum of Mathematics,
now with a science wing".
I'm reading a book. It's from "the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications".
It's "Radar and Sonar". It describes the grating lobes, of a signal, as, "very narrow",
extrema of a Dirichlet function, which of course is parameterized quite large,
and describes that Gabor widths are sometimes infinite.
So, for example, with regards to pulse trains and the relativistic, there really
is something that can be said via, for example, "impulse pressure", "in a world
of arrows: a dart", here for example about this notion of the Dirac impulse on
one side for the impulse and pulse, and the radial basis of bump on the other
side for the volume element of the pressure space, for example a vacuum space,
those laying a neat boundary that's also a continuum function, or invariant,
a directional primitive in a relativistic world, with area one on either side,
on the one side a pointer the other a sink.
Physics here of course is "mathematical physics" and about reduces to it.
Surely where the mathematics doesn't suffice the empirical only does, safely that's not necessarily the goal, where "the fundamental", "the foundation",
of course is the goal. So, empirical theory of course can paste together any assemblage. That said, something like "just add an anti-particle in anti-time",
when otherwise "things broke", is only an ad hoc conceit and its metaphor
is at best tenuous: there is no "negative time" (or, "time invariant has never
been falsified"), blaming mathematics for misconstrued metaphor isn't that
big a deal. I.e., Feynman's "negative time" is not apropos, just like neither
is dark matter: it's a placeholder for collective lack-of-sense in the unscientific.
Agreeably they're, agreeable metaphors: they only first fulfill what they refute
then drop out: it's just to be said there's no physical interpretation of them:
that always satisfies.
So, I brought a giant meter-stick from mathematical foundations,A Gabor about Dirichlet and Birkhoff....
where I'll be estimating additions, called "replete continuity".
https://omega.umk.pl/docstore/download/UMKa8fded98b23e49a692e8b552d0fc5a3c/file.pdf
"There's more than one."
"Pseudomoments: combine the notion of moment and metric, ...".
Some theorems of Ramsey get decidable in "square Cantor space".
Some conjectures in number theory get independent, ....
Enjoying a "Dynamical versions of Hardy's Uncertainty Principle: A survey",
of Fernandez-Bertolin and E. Malinnikova.
It's like "yeah, everybody knows Fourier these days. Or maybe wavelets." One or the other to set up functions as either side transforms for convolution,
with wavelets as the sort more modern, while Fourier for the usually linear.
Phys.Rev. A 1973?Of course there are already such notions of "replete continuity".
Aristotle's - line continuity - Jordan measure - "infinitesimals", "differential",
Eudoxus' - field continuity - standard
Nyquist's - signal continuity - Dirichlet function / Dirichlet problem
The "complete metrizing ultrafilter" usually stands out as one of the other of the line continuity or signal continuity, also.
So, these things existing alongside the "standard", though, are still, "inconsistent multiplicities",
or in brief hypocritical, from the derivations of the fundamental theorems of the standard.
Then, when they're called "non-standard" mostly it's "Jordan measure's called Jordan content
because otherwise it would be standard infinitesimals", and "Dirichlet function is in the everywhere
discontinuous functions though though gets into analytical character".
So, when I say "replete continuity", these at least three definitions of continuity or
line continuity, field continuity, and signal continuity, I expect them all to arise from
the foundations and the formalism and the axiomatics as one sort of overall consistent
formalism. Then, it's as they do, and fundamentally, equipping the rest of mathematics.
These days then often the issues in symmetry-flex or about varying definitions of
completeness under some "overcompleteness" for example, are referred to as "Dirichlet problem", then that things like "quasi-invariant measure theory" and
as well such notions as the "pseudo-differential", arrive at that most treatments
of the nonlinear and quantum in effect, arrive at setups of various "Dirichlet problem".
Then, this automatically equips continuity laws with an overall deconstructive account,
of, mathematically, various "effects" or tendencies and propensities of continuous quantities.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein'sYour "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before
attempting to write about it.
Tom Roberts
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.
This is a blinkered approach. You've been hoodwinked by Einstein. Relativists don't have the mental qualifications to discuss physics.
On 9/16/2023 9:27 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent >> of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein'sYour "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B. >>>>> It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to >>>>> the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before
attempting to write about it.
Tom Roberts
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.
This is a blinkered approach. You've been hoodwinked by Einstein. Relativists don't have the mental qualifications to discuss physics.How is that "blinkered"? Einstein could have postulated the speed of
light was c in all frames, but postulating the speed of light is c in
just one inertial frame was smart, since it is a much smaller postulate. Remember, Einstein was starting from the mystery of why the speed of
light was always measured as the same, c, regardless of the motion of
the emitter. He postulated that a constant speed of light was some
unknown law of nature, and to make it the smallest postulate possible, postulated that the speed of light was c in just one frame. Einstein was clever in doing that.
How is that "blinkered"? Einstein could have postulated the speed of
light was c in all frames, but postulating the speed of light is c in
just one inertial frame was smart, since it is a much smaller postulate.
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 19:54:29 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
How is that "blinkered"? Einstein could have postulated the speed ofSure it would be smart, but your idiot guru was an idiot.
light was c in all frames, but postulating the speed of light is c in
just one inertial frame was smart, since it is a much smaller postulate.
Tell me, stupid Mike - if you assume speed of sound
x in one frame - will you be able to conclude it's x
in any frame? With your logic of "setting to 9 192 631 774
is setting to 9 192 631 770 (i'e. to Newton mode)"
it's quite possible.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 32:06:14 |
Calls: | 6,976 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,408 |
Messages: | 5,449,902 |
Posted today: | 2 |