It denies relative motion for light.
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
"I am a general surgeon turned truth seeker and philosopher"
Do you think that this fellow is the correct way to learn relativity?
It denies relative motion for light.Just as sound shares the velocity of the medium, by the same token, light should as well making it C + V relative to the Sun.
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
It denies relative motion for light."if you are standing downwind from a sound source, that sound will reach you more quickly than if you were standing the same distance upwind - because the pressure disturbance travels with the bulk of the medium." Just as sound speed in this case is S +
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
Just as sound shares the velocity of the medium, by the same token, light should as well making it C + V relative to the Sun.
It denies relative motion for light.u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
It denies relative motion for light.
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:
Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:physicists who claim differently? These actual physicists have written tons of textbooks and written tons of actual research papers. Why don't you read what the experts have written?
Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:Radwan Kassir is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials whatsoever in relativity. He may be a terrific mechanical engineer but he is lousy at relativity. Why would you seek evidence from a mechanical engineer when there are umpteen actual
Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
Obviously, you don't know $hit about relativity and are apparently quite proud of the fact that your huge brain can figure all of this out without *ever* having read even a single textbook! Amazing! Also, doubly amazing is that you have many cloneshere who think the exact same way as you do! You guys should form a club and have a meeting where you can all rant and rave at mainstream physics! I'm pretty sure that Woz would be glad to host an event in his basement!
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:29:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:
Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e. the diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
because light's speed is constant.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:12:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e. the
diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
because light's speed is constant.
HEARSAY!
It denies relative motion for light.
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
It denies relative motion for light.
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
It denies relative motion for light.Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:29:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:physicists who claim differently? These actual physicists have written tons of textbooks and written tons of actual research papers. Why don't you read what the experts have written?
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:Radwan Kassir is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials whatsoever in relativity. He may be a terrific mechanical engineer but he is lousy at relativity. Why would you seek evidence from a mechanical engineer when there are umpteen actual
Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
here who think the exact same way as you do! You guys should form a club and have a meeting where you can all rant and rave at mainstream physics! I'm pretty sure that Woz would be glad to host an event in his basement!Obviously, you don't know $hit about relativity and are apparently quite proud of the fact that your huge brain can figure all of this out without *ever* having read even a single textbook! Amazing! Also, doubly amazing is that you have many clones
Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e. the diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
because light's speed is constant.
An image from a relativistic approach exists insofar as "behind the wavefront",
then as passing the last look and the look back, as that the look back,
is "reverse angle", so the rear-view would only see if proceeding on the track the image came from, or as what image arrives in space otherwise
as that it would go out of perspective, which would appear as having shrunk, but shrinking while it's observed, vanishing when it's not.
I.e., something approaching directly and also meeting directly, is visible coming and going, while not directly, it's only visible where it was,
as when the image arrives as when it was emitted.
Loosely, ....
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
It denies relative motion for light.
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above, here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
1.5c/ 1 + 0.5/ 9^10
9^10= 3,486,784,401
0.5/ 3,486,784,401 =0.00000000014339859953
1 + 0.00000000014339859953= 1.00000000014339859953
450,000/ 1.00000000014339859953= 449,999.99993547063022075342
ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO ONE/ONE= 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.
IT IS LYING WITH MATHEMATICS.
IT IS RELATIVITY.
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above, here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
It denies relative motion for light.CORRECTION:
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Trying to understand the actual intent would have yielded you my corrected post above.
It denies relative motion for light.
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.You are wasting your time.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
--
Jan
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Trying to understand the actual intent would have yielded you my corrected post above.
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above, here is the details of an example with light:That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:If you were honest you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made an error in working it out. You would have said I was honest and made an error. Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does not
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above, here is the details of an example with light:That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does, as in the example of the MMX given above.
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above, here is the details of an example with light:That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
It denies relative motion for light.CORRECTION:
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
u' + v
u= -------------
1 + (u'v/c^2)
u'= c
v= .5c
u' +v= 1.5c
u'v= .5c
c^2= = 1
.5c/1= 0.5c
1.5c/1.5c
ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.
IT IS LYING WITH MATHEMATICS.
IT IS RELATIVITY.
On 18-Sept-23 1:17 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
It denies relative motion for light.CORRECTION:
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above, here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
u' + v
u= -------------
1 + (u'v/c^2)
u'= c
v= .5c
u' +v= 1.5c
u'v= .5c
c^2= = 1
.5c/1= 0.5c
1.5c/1.5c
ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.So when observer u measures the speed of that light, he gets c.
IT IS LYING WITH MATHEMATICS.
IT IS RELATIVITY.
Now all you have to do is show, by real experiment (not thought
experiment) that that is wrong, and you'll get the Nobel prize.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above, here is the details of an example with light:That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion. u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.
The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does, as in the example of the MMX given above.
So when observer u measures the speed of that light, he gets c.
Now all you have to do is show, by real experiment (not thought
experiment) that that is wrong, and you'll get the Nobel prize.
Sylvia.
Le 18/09/2023 à 06:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :
in vector form, this gives:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above, here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion. u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.
If you were honest
you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
an error in working it out.
You would have said I was honest and made an error.
Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
not represent the physics.
The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the
relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
as in the example of the MMX given above.
But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
about reality
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
Just as sound shares the velocity of the medium, by the same token, light should as well making it C + V relative to the Sun.
It denies relative motion for light.
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
Sciencevstruth.org is a flat-out crank site. From the owner of that site...
"I am a general surgeon turned truth seeker and philosopher"
Do you think that this fellow is the correct way to learn relativity? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I am interested in selling cheap... are you interested?
It denies relative motion for light.
A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.
THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u
5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
JanPB wrote:𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
Again, you are omitting the basic assumptions of the theory.absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us. You fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the weapons you generously donated to them.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:31:03 PM UTC-7, Myron Bestuzhev-Lada wrote:𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark
Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
Relativity denies this.
Again, you are omitting the basic assumptions of the theory.absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us. You fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the weapons you generously donated to them.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbePutin didn't invade Ukraine because of any NATO expansion. Of course he
uses it as a propaganda tool. But his real motivation is the restoration of the Russian empire. Without NATO expansion he would have invaded Ukraine exactly the same and at the same time(*), he'd only have used a different excuse (typically they use "the oppression of the ethnic Russians" card").
(*) The timing had everything to do with Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, or
rather the *manner* of this withdrawal (incompetent, indicating weak leadership) and with West's tepid response to Chechnya and to the
Crimean Anschluss. (History does rhyme.)
--
Jan
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.
If you were honestWhich I am
you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet madeYour equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
an error in working it out.
You would have said I was honest and made an error.But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it doesAh, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
not represent the physics.
The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect theVelocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector, so your
relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
assertion is wrong.
as in the example of the MMX given above.The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
[ … ]
Putin's problem is that now he knows he walked into the same trap Brezhnev did
in 1980. Now he would really like to leave Ukraine but he knows he cannot do it
without a face-saving solution (he'd be killed if he just left without preconditions).
So the war today continues only because Washington wants it to
continue. The next
US president can stop it in 48 hours if that's what he wants.
The current administration
OTOH is completely wedded to the naive idea that this Afghanistan 2.0
can work the
same way Afghanistan 1.0 did with Brezhnev.
--
Jan
On 2023-10-04 09:49:56 +0000, JanPB said:
[ … ]
Putin's problem is that now he knows he walked into the same trap Brezhnev did
in 1980. Now he would really like to leave Ukraine but he knows he cannot do it
without a face-saving solution (he'd be killed if he just left without preconditions).
So the war today continues only because Washington wants it to
continue. The next
US president can stop it in 48 hours if that's what he wants.You must be American to
On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 14:40:19 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.
If you were honest
Which I am
No you aren’t.
And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your pre conceived
BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake...a lie.
you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made an error in working it out.
Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
You would have said I was honest and made an error.
But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.
Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
not represent the physics.
Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.
The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
so your assertion is wrong.
as in the example of the MMX given above.
The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
any observer.
So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors in the application.
The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 14:40:19 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
is even worse.
If you were honest
Which I am
No you aren’t.Says the congenital liar :-))
And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.
But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your pre conceived BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake...a lie.Doing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and over again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax.
you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made an error in working it out.
Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
You would have said I was honest and made an error.
But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with experimental results :-))
Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
not represent the physics.
Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.
The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
so your assertion is wrong.
as in the example of the MMX given above.
The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v forThe MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
any observer.
other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 13:35:53 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
No you aren’t.
Says the congenital liar :-))I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...
So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence
to prove that I lied.
And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.
Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantly
admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did.
Your only option is....is to change the subject.
But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with yourDoing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and
pre conceived BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake
...a lie.
over again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax.
In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?
Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
porkies about Laurence.
you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
an error in working it out.
Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
You would have said I was honest and made an error.
But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.
Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with experimental results :-))
Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travel
at constant speeds isotropically ?
I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
doesn’t rotate on its axis?
Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
not represent the physics.
Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.
So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.
In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”
😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.
The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
so your assertion is wrong.
as in the example of the MMX given above.
The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
any observer.
The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.
I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.
Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames..
its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment.
(Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you could be)
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 13:35:53 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
No you aren’t.
It didn't look like that to me.Says the congenital liar :-))I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...
So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence:-) Are you so demented that you can't remember them?
to prove that I lied.
And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.
Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantlyHe's a liar, just like you are.
admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did.
Your only option is....is to change the subject.You'd better change it quickly then.
But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with yourDoing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and
pre conceived BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake
...a lie.
over again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax.
In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?Look at you! Infantile "oh so are you nyah nyah" stuff. Grow up!
Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
porkies about Laurence.
you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
an error in working it out.
Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
You would have said I was honest and made an error.
But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.
Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with experimental results :-))
Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travelAs I said and now you proved it: you can't parse a sentence correctly. Reread it
at constant speeds isotropically ?
again. Are you stupid or are you a liar?
I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earthApparently, you don't think at all. May we call you "Rock"?
doesn’t rotate on its axis?
Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
not represent the physics.
Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.
So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.
In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”Again you can't parse a sentence correctly, or you're dishonest, or both.
😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it“Your mind is a garden,
can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.
Your thoughts are the seeds.
You can grow flowers
Or you can grow weeds.”
-- Anonymous
The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
so your assertion is wrong.
as in the example of the MMX given above.
The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
any observer.
The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.
I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the sameI never said it did. People incapable of parsing sentences correctly come up with
non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.
such stupid things. Or they're just stupid.
Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.You must be French:
Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames..
its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment. (Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you could be)
“The last time the French asked for ‘more proof’ it came marching
Into Paris under a German flag.” – David Letterman
On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 16:26:55 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...
It didn't look like that to me.
So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence
to prove that I lied.
:-) Are you so demented that you can't remember them?
Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantly
admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did.
He's a liar, just like you are.
In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?
Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
porkies about Laurence.
Look at you! Infantile "oh so are you nyah nyah" stuff. Grow up!
Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travel
at constant speeds isotropically ?
As I said and now you proved it: you can't parse a sentence correctly. Reread it
again. Are you stupid or are you a liar?
Zero evidence. Just evasive subject changing. Not that I expected anything else.
I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
doesn’t rotate on its axis?
Apparently, you don't think at all. May we call you "Rock"?
In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”
Again you can't parse a sentence correctly, or you're dishonest, or both.
😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.
“Your mind is a garden,
Your thoughts are the seeds.
You can grow flowers
Or you can grow weeds.”
-- Anonymous
If I wrote that nonsense, I would remain anonymous too,
It’s you chemically obsessed bio fascists who think that native
flora are just weeds to stamp their Jack boots on.
No wonder we have global warming with you lot in charge.
I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.
I never said it did. People incapable of parsing sentences correctly come up with
such stupid things. Or they're just stupid.
You never said it did! Finally. A relativist admits they haven’t any evidence to
prove that the null result isn’t consistent with light travelling at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
All you need to do now is admit that the sun doesnt rotate around the earth and we can cure you of your delusion that the lab, and the MMX experiment are not rotating around the earth in their imaginary inertial frame.
Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX
does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames.. its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment. (Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm
emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you
could be)
You must be French:
Not only do you suffer from a divine belief that you and
your relativist friends are members of a master race, you have
just shown us that you are definitely a bigot.
“The last time the French asked for ‘more proof’ it came marching Into Paris under a German flag.” – David Letterman
The last time a scientist asked a relativist for ‘any proof’, it never ever arrived at all.
And by the looks of it from your replies the only
thing we can expect in Paris, or anywhere, from a relativist will be a
dense fog of spiritualist miasma.
The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
so your assertion is wrong.
as in the example of the MMX given above.
The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a
presumed ether,
which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
any observer.
The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
wrt each
other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for any observer.
The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest >wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.
Well..its not quite so simple.
Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks. Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed to tick invariantly by the POR.
Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the axioms of SR.
Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to their circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.
Indeed, one consistent alternative is the Lorenzt Ether Theory. However, it is strongly noted that an ether of Lorenz's understanding isn't a requirement or claimed, any Lorentz Invariant background field will do. Lorentz clearly wasn't aware of modern massless quantum fields.
So, The POR states that the rate of clock ticks must be independent of inertial frame. However, directly, measuring clocks ticks of inertial
frames shows they, apparently do change.
SR resolves this apparent conflict by claiming that this is an illusion, such that clocks are actually experiencing more time (different path in "space-time"). That is, time is covereved at a different rate, say 100s/s.
The alternative is simply that clocks do indeed tick slow when moving through a background field, such that the same Lorentz invariance of a velocity unobservable, but actually existing background field.
Why does this matter?
Well... it eliminates the nonsensical block universe consequence of SR
Lee Smolin:
"...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end…”
That is, SR states that the future is deterministic, Quantum Mechanics says it isn't.
It also eliminates magic. The SR worldview states that a true empty universe has physical characteristics. This is also nonsensical. X, T and c are clearly meaningless in such a universe. There are no clocks and rulers in such a universe to verify such a metaphysical claim.
Its clear that this universe is no where empty, thus attributing an invariant SOL to an emergent property of Quantum Fields eliminates this magic.
..and where it is also noted from...
Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
0:31 - "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building
blocks of nature...?"
19:30 - "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something
we call the electron field..its like a fluid that fills ..the entire universe..and the ripples of this electron fluid..the waves of this fluid get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics..and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."
Pretty much an ether in denial.... we are made of the stuff...it always moves with us :-)
Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot
be
c+v for any observer.
The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest >wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is >invariant.
Well..its not quite so simple.
Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed
to
tick invariantly by the POR.
Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.
Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
axioms of SR.
Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of
it.
Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to
their
circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.
They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:4da19488-6f30-4204...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for any observer.
The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.
Well..its not quite so simple.
Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks. Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed to tick invariantly by the POR.
Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.
Sure they are. Its fundamental to the axioms of SR. According to SR, clocks tick at the same rate irrespective of inertial velocity, that is, clock ticks are invariant with respect to inertial velocity.
Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.
Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the axioms of SR.
Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of it.
That's not the point, the statement isn't a claim that the LT is a cause of SR, it is a statement that the axioms of SR may be wrong yet the LT still remains valid.
A cause of the LT might well be a background field.
Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to their
circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.
They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.
Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.
The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious. Unfortunately, its also clear from the literature, that many have missed this.
The POR states that the laws of physics are independent of inertial frame. This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.
The POR requires a definition of time to know that clocks satisfy it. Time is defined by clock tick rates.
The SOL also requires a definition of time, that is it relies on clock tick rates being *assumed* to be independent of inertial frame.
That is, all measurements to confirm the invariance of the SOL, must use clocks. However, its impossible to independently measure the tick rates of clocks, without referring back to the SOL. Thus the SOL and clock tick rates are inherently interlocked. They can both change together, and still achieve the same results.
[Remainder of message deleted because of a basic misunderstandingof time in SR]
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
Not in the world we inhabit,
only in your gedanken delusions.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
Not in the world we inhabit,What do you mean "we", denial-breath?
only in your gedanken delusions.https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/jila-atomic-clocks-measure-einsteins-general-relativity-millimeter-scale
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
Not in the world we inhabit,What do you mean "we", denial-breath?
only in your gedanken delusions.https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/02/jila-atomic-clocks-measure-einsteins-general-relativity-millimeter-scale
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understandingDumbotron,
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understandingDumbotron,
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understanding of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.Dumbotron,
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understandingDumbotron,
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
Prove it.They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not resonate at different frequencies will be..
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understandingDumbotron,
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency. As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.Prove it.They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not resonate at different frequencies will be..
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:Basic QM. Something that you are clearly ignorant of based on the imbecilities you have been posting, LuLu.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understandingDumbotron,
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force” Where’s your evidence they don’t ?This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.Prove it.They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not resonate at different frequencies will be..
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:23:05 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understandingDumbotron,
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
Basic QM. Something that you are clearly ignorant of based on the imbecilities you have been posting, LuLu.You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force” Where’s your evidence they don’t ?This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.Prove it.They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not resonate at different frequencies will be..
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 16:29:50 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:23:05 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:01:46 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
Look up Harmonic Oscillator. This fundamental classical understandingDumbotron,
of all resonant systems shows that since 1660 theoretical physicists
have known that resonating systems respond to an increase in mass or
weight with a lowering of the resonant systems natural frequency.
As observed in caesium clocks at different altitudes.
Basic QM? Since when is a theoretical assumption by QM ...an observation?Basic QM. Something that you are clearly ignorant of based on the imbecilities you have been posting, LuLu.You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.Prove it.They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not resonate at different frequencies will be..
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
On 10/10/23 8:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.[I presume that by "invariant" you intend the usual
meaning in physics: invariant under change of
coordinates.]
Your claim here is far too imprecise to be either true or false; it
depends on what you mean by "time":
If you mean the value displayed by a specific clock at a specific event (point) in spacetime, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (because it is completely independent of coordinates).
If you mean the time coordinate of a given coordinate system, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (a coordinate system is a diffeomorphism from a region of the manifold to a region of R^4 --
using other coordinates does not affect the mapping of the given
coordinate system).
If you mean the elapsed proper time along the path of a specific clock,
On 10/10/23 8:28 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
[I presume that by "invariant" you intend the usual
meaning in physics: invariant under change of
coordinates.]
Your claim here is far too imprecise to be either true or false; it
depends on what you mean by "time":
If you mean the value displayed by a specific clock at a specific event (point) in spacetime, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (because it is completely independent of coordinates).
If you mean the time coordinate of a given coordinate system, that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (a coordinate system is a diffeomorphism from a region of the manifold to a region of R^4 --
using other coordinates does not affect the mapping of the given
coordinate system).
If you mean the elapsed proper time along the path of a specific clock,
that _IS_ invariant under change of coordinates (because it is
completely independent of coordinates).
If you mean how coordinate systems each map their time coordinate to the time displayed on a given clock, that is not invariant under change of coordinates. This is where "time dilation" occurs (and is the only place
it occurs).
Tom Roberts
Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.
Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks. Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed to tick invariantly by the POR.
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.Prove it.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂 >>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
resonate at different frequencies will be..
You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force” Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.Prove it.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂 >>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
resonate at different frequencies will be..
You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force” Where’s your evidence they don’t ?Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on mass/gravitational force?
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.Prove it.Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂 >>>> They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
resonate at different frequencies will be..
You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force” Where’s your evidence they don’t ?Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on mass/gravitational force?
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not >>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force” >>> Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
mass/gravitational force?
I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not >>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on >> mass/gravitational force?
I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
The Force on the atoms which slows
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:00:11 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
The Force on the atoms which slowsForce and potential are two different things, pathetic imbecile
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂 >>They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank.
Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not >>>>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing.
You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on >>>> mass/gravitational force?
I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the
caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence
to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
atomic resonance.
As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
You have none to disprove it.
Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.
Even Albert recognised the connection between
resonant frequency and g potential.
No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
On 10/13/2023 4:00 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank. >>Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not >>>>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing. >>>>>You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on >>>> mass/gravitational force?
I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the >>> caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidenceYou have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
atomic resonance.
the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
As observed in Caesium atoms whose naturalNo, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).
Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claimYou have no evidence whatsoever.
BlarneyYou have none to disprove it.You cannot disprove a negative.
Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r
squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slowsNo, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.
vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based resonance.
Even Albert recognised the connection betweenNo, he knew GR varied with potential differences, not force, so there is
resonant frequency and g potential.
no direct connection.
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
Fact is: Gravity is a force.
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.
Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativistic
warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/13/2023 4:00 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank. >>>>Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not >>>>>>>>> resonate at different frequencies will be..
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing. >>>>>>>You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on >>>>>> mass/gravitational force?
I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the >>>>> caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence
to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
atomic resonance.
the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the
same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).
The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?
Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
You have no evidence whatsoever.
Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.
I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.
It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.
You have none to disprove it.
You cannot disprove a negative.
Blarney
Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r >>>> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r).
Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.
No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and
gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
resonance.
I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.
Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativistic
warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .
Even Albert recognised the connection between
resonant frequency and g potential.
No, he knew GR varied with potential differences, not force, so there is
no direct connection.
Didn’t stop him from using ‘r’ and not r^2 when he was trying to con his
followers into thinking changes in natural resonant frequencies due to external force was actually magic goblins farting in different time dimensions.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka allBut the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
in Pound Rebka.
Fact is: Gravity is a force.:-))
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravityDiameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.
On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/13/2023 4:00 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all >> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank. >>>>Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
resonate at different frequencies will be..
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing. >>>>>>>You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
mass/gravitational force?
I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the >>>>> caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence >>> to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
atomic resonance.
your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka allNo, they don't. You only wish that they do.
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)The Cs atoms in an atomic clock are in freefall.
As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the >> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).
The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?Go show the first postulate as being false and collect your Nobel Prize.
It's like conservation of momentum, conservation of charge and so forth.
If they were shown to be false so much physics just falls apart. The
first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
is on earth or in orbit.
Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
You have no evidence whatsoever.
Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.No, you don't do evidence. You haven't shown *any* evidence in this thread.
I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.You don't have any evidence from them. They are evidence supporting
SR/GR instead.
It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.
You have none to disprove it.
You cannot disprove a negative.
BlarneyYet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
not just "nobody has ever seen one".
Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r >>>> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r). >>>>
Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.
No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and >> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
resonance.
I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravityYet the force is known since Newton to go as inverse r squared.
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.But 1/4 the area, which is what counts.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.The exposed area is.
Yet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
not just "nobody has ever seen one".
On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/13/2023 4:00 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all >> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support
On 10/12/2023 5:24 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 05:48:31 UTC+1, Volney wrote:So you admit that you have no evidence for your "resonance" claims.
On 10/11/2023 11:23 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 15:42:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:13:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:31:26 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:22:53 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:10:01 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>
Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks.
Yes your holiness, I forgot...atoms are not resonant systems 🤣😂
They do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force, crank. >>>>Prove it.
Oh! Let me guess...your proof that atoms resonant frequencies do not
resonate at different frequencies will be..
This is not what I said. You are lying. Again. Keep on frothing. >>>>>>>You said atoms “ do not resonate based on mass or gravitational force”
Where’s your evidence they don’t ?
Where is YOUR evidence that atoms in atomic clocks DO resonate based on
mass/gravitational force?
I don’t think anyone can actually see what’s happening inside the >>>>> caesium atom as it is sitting on the ground or in a satelitte.
No Volney. I’m trying to get you to realise that you have no evidence >>> to prove that external force cannot change natural frequencies of
atomic resonance.
your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka allNo, they don't. You only wish that they do.
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)The Cs atoms in an atomic clock are in freefall.
As observed in Caesium atoms whose natural
resonant frequency slows down when subjected to additional
force due to either acceleration or gravitational force.
No, according to the first postulate, the laws of nature are locally the >> same everywhere. So a Cs clock ticks at one second per second. It is
only the effects of gravitational potential differences from one point
to another which causes a frequency difference (via redshift or blueshift).
The first postulate. Hmm ..what part of the bible was that from again?Go show the first postulate as being false and collect your Nobel Prize. It's like conservation of momentum, conservation of charge and so forth.
If they were shown to be false so much physics just falls apart. The
first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
is on earth or in orbit.
Notice I have endless amounts of evidence to back up my claim
You have no evidence whatsoever.
Oh I forgot...relativists don’t do evidence.No, you don't do evidence. You haven't shown *any* evidence in this thread.
I suppose I better not mention my evidence from Hafael Keating or GPS.You don't have any evidence from them. They are evidence supporting
SR/GR instead.
It might destabilise an already destabilised relativist.
You have none to disprove it.
You cannot disprove a negative.
BlarneyYet it's true. Provide a proof that unicorns don't exist. A real proof,
not just "nobody has ever seen one".
Plus, as I stated, resonance would go proportional to force (inverse r >>>> squared) while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r). >>>>
Only if you ignore basic physics. The Force on the atoms which slows
down its natural resonant frequency is also referred to
as gravitational potential.
No, it is not! Gravitational potential is not a force! Gravitational
acceleration (times the mass) is the force. Gravitational potential and >> gravitational acceleration vary with distance differently. GR effects
vary with potential (1/r relationship). Gravitational acceleration is
what causes force/weight which would cause affects on a mass-based
resonance.
I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravityYet the force is known since Newton to go as inverse r squared.
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.But 1/4 the area, which is what counts.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.The exposed area is.
Grow up, stop fantasising about magic goblins and relativisticThe math and geometry of special relativity is beautiful, fascinating.
warp drives and start leaning basic maths and geometry for a change .
Even Albert recognised the connection between
resonant frequency and g potential.
No, he knew GR varied with potential differences, not force, so there is >> no direct connection.
Didn’t stop him from using ‘r’ and not r^2 when he was trying to con hisWord salad. Albert never connected resonant frequencies to inverse r.
followers into thinking changes in natural resonant frequencies due to external force was actually magic goblins farting in different time dimensions.
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
(What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f. Nothing to do with relativity.
Fact is: Gravity is a force.
:-))
Said Gary as he floated off into space.
If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
towards the earths surface?
Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude? What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing to do with gravitational potential?
Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.
Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
between force and distance from Center.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.
first postulate simply states the laws of physics are the same
everywhere (and everywhen). Meaning, in this case, 1 second to a local observer is 9192631770 Cs atomic transitions, whether the atomic clock
is on earth or in orbit.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:18:24 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
(What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increaseSly Louie ignores the fact that Cs atoms aren't subjected to the force of gravity, only to its potential.
and decrease the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f. Nothing to do with relativity.
Fact is: Gravity is a force.
:-))
Said Gary as he floated off into space.F = Del GM/r, that's a derivative for those challenged mathematically.
If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
towards the earths surface?
Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.It's simple Newtonian calculus, Louie.
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it takeLouie, Louie, Louie! You're the only one pretending it has nothing to do with GM/r. F = Del GM/r, so GM/r DOES have "something" to do with
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude? What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing to do with gravitational potential?
force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r.
Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.Repeating falsehoods don't make them true. There is no force on the Cs
GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
atoms in atomic clocks, either on earth or in space. You slyly choose not
to admit that inconvenient fact.
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.
Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
You can’t change the rules governing the universe.Pot, kettle, black :-))
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationshipNope. Hafele-Keating confirms that it's not force, but potential.
between force and distance from Center.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.No one's making that mistake, Louie. Physicists know that a = F/m.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way toOr does acceleration create force? Deceleration is just negative acceleration. When a moving object is suddenly stopped by running
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.
into a stationary object, the stationary object is subjected to a force.
So force is a way to measure acceleration.
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all >>>> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support >>>> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration >>> (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
to do with gravitational potential?
Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.
Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
between force and distance from Center.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.
On 10/15/2023 8:19 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Escape velocity is a velocity (duh-h-h!), not a force! It is determined
by the amount of potential (GM/r) it has to work against for an object
to escape.
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.
Babble.
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude? What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing to do with gravitational potential?
You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and force
if you write that.
Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.
....
Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
between force and distance from Center.
Assuming the conclusion.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.
Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR varying as potential, not acceleration/force.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:14:09 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.And the frequency shift is directly proportional to height, ergo, 1/r, not 1/r^2.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.
Babble.
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude? What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
to do with gravitational potential?
You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and forceLouie tries to rewrite Newton (who knew perfectly well the difference between F = GMm/r^2 and GM/r). Louie is more than three centuries out
if you write that.
of date.
Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.Louie doesn't know the difference between force and potential, so know he's using weasel-words like "strength."
....
Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².Now he's trying to pretend that GM/r is force :-))
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
between force and distance from Center.
Assuming the conclusion.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of the change in rate of velocity.
Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR varying as potential, not acceleration/force.It's hard to argue physics with someone who flunked high school physics
and doesn't want to learn.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine
Volney wrote:
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.
Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR
varying as potential, not acceleration/force.
well, that's not a potential. A potential may fall when used. The
curvature gradient doesn't. Meanwhile "𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗼
𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀”
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:14:09 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
Assertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.And the frequency shift is directly proportional to height, ergo, 1/r, not 1/r^2.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.
Babble.
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it take
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude? What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
to do with gravitational potential?
You don't know the difference between gravitational potential and forceLouie tries to rewrite Newton (who knew perfectly well the difference between F = GMm/r^2 and GM/r). Louie is more than three centuries out
if you write that.
of date.
Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant
frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.Louie doesn't know the difference between force and potential, so know he's using weasel-words like "strength."
....
Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².Now he's trying to pretend that GM/r is force :-))
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
between force and distance from Center.
Assuming the conclusion.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of the change in rate of velocity.
Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR varying as potential, not acceleration/force.It's hard to argue physics with someone who flunked high school physics
and doesn't want to learn.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine
On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free >> fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support >>>> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
(What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detectorAssertion is not proof. GR explains Pound-Rebka perfectly.
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decreaseBabble.
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...then why does it takeYou don't know the difference between gravitational potential and force
work Energy/ force to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude? What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing to do with gravitational potential?
if you write that.
Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.Nope. Assuming the conclusion at best.
GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.
Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
You can’t change the rules governing the universe.That's the potential. Force goes as GM/r².
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationshipAssuming the conclusion.
between force and distance from Center.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.Force = mass * acceleration but that doesn't have anything to do with GR varying as potential, not acceleration/force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.
On 10/15/2023 8:19 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Escape velocity is a velocity (duh-h-h!), not a force! It is determined
by the amount of potential (GM/r) it has to work against for an object
to escape.
On 10/15/2023 8:19 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 07:05:57 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/14/2023 6:30 PM, Lou wrote:
I’ve heard this boloney above before. Fact is:
Gravity is a force. Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force on
atoms which causes the atoms natural resonant
frequencies to change at different altitudes.
GMm/r isn't even a force! It has units of energy, instead.
GMm/r² is a force, the force of gravity.
Not to mention ...escape velocity. The force needed to counter
the force of gravity is modelled by r. Not r^2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Escape velocity is a velocity (duh-h-h!), not a force! It is determined
by the amount of potential (GM/r) it has to work against for an object
to escape.
GM/r^2 isn’t a force either .
It’s a change in the rate of velocity.
But you need force (gravity)to accelerate something downwards
and you need force to move it up to counter the downward force
of gravity.
And that force is modelled by GM/r
As all good textbooks confirm.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 5:19:02 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
GM/r^2 isn’t a force either .Let's look at units: kilograms, meters, seconds.
The units of velocity are meters/second (m/s).
The units of acceleration are m/s^2.
The units of force (F = ma) are kgm/s^2, called a Newton (N)
The constant G has the units N m^2/kg^2
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
Therefore GMm/r^2 has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg^2/m^2) = N = force.
GM/r has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg/m = N m/kg, which is NOT force.
In fact it's kg m/s^2 m/kg = m^2/s^2.
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 14:26:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 5:19:02 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
GM/r^2 isn’t a force either .
Let's look at units: kilograms, meters, seconds.
The units of velocity are meters/second (m/s).
The units of acceleration are m/s^2.
The units of force (F = ma) are kgm/s^2, called a Newton (N)
The constant G has the units N m^2/kg^2
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
Therefore GMm/r^2 has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg^2/m^2) = N = force.
GM/r has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg/m = N m/kg, which is NOT force.
In fact it's kg m/s^2 m/kg = m^2/s^2.
This is playing at maths to make the same force look
like two completely different types of phenomena.
What is *really* different between the two formula? Nothing, except
squaring r for one and not for the other.
Both have G, both have mass, and both have (G and mass) divided
by distance.
The only difference is that one equation is just 1/r, 1/2R, etc
And the other increases the rate of change in the inverse proportion by squaring r like this 1/r2, 1/2r^2 ,etc
The thing I find amazing about you mathematicians when you do
physics is how you pretend the same 2 things are not related at all.
For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood across
a table, using x energy
You call that force.
Then, using my hand and the same amount of energy I push the same block of wood
up vertically into the air.
You say that has nothing to do with force and say it’s work.!
And try to prove your argument by saying work is calculated
by a completely different set of units of measurement.
But they are both the same, and not different at all.
They are both force applied to mass.
This is playing at maths to make the same force look
like two completely different types of phenomena.
What is *really* different between the two
formula? Nothing, except squaring r for one and not for the other.
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all >>>> the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support >>>> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration >>> (What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detector
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation.
If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside
the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.
Fact is: Gravity is a force.:-))
Said Gary as he floated off into space.
If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
towards the earths surface?
Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...
then why does it take
work Energy/ force
to lift an object from earths surface to an altitude?
What force is this ‘work’ being applied against if gravity has nothing
to do with gravitational potential?
Anyways I have evidence that GM/r correctly models the different resonant frequencies die to differing gravitational strengths at different altitudes.
GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka etc
Notice even going back to late 17th C the force of gravity
at different distances r was predicated on the assumption
that the gravitational “shadow” disc of the planet as seen from
the hypothetical observer decreases inversely proportional
to the observers distance r. Not inverse r squared.
Basic geometry. Try doing an experiment.
Place a ball on a table at distance x from camera lens
Photograph it. Move it back to distance 2x. Photo that
and compare disc sizes of both images.
The 2x disc will be half the size of the x disc.
That distance relationship is not r^2.
Diameter varies as 1/r, but area is what counts, and area varies as 1/r^2.
You can’t change the rules governing the universe.
Because what really counts is distance between M and m.
It’s modelled mathematically as GM/r
And the evidence from Hafael Keating confirms this relationship
between force and distance from Center.
It is a mistake to think that acceleration is force.
Force creates the acceleration. Acceleration is just a way to
measure the effects of the force. Acceleration is just a definition of
the change in rate of velocity.
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:4da19488-6f30-4204...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 1:10:20 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed
cannot
be c+v for any observer.
The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at
rest
wrt each other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.
Well..its not quite so simple.
Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks. Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are
assumed
to tick invariantly by the POR.
Clock ticks are n't "invariant.." They measure "proper" time.
Sure they are. Its fundamental to the axioms of SR. According to SR,
clocks
tick at the same rate irrespective of inertial velocity, that is, clock
ticks are invariant with respect to inertial velocity.
You're conflating "invariance" with "proper."
Clock tick *rates*, never change, according to the POR, thus clock tick
rates are invariant. That's what "invariant" means.
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the axioms of SR.
Of course it doesn't. The LT is a description of reality, not a caise of it.
That's not the point, the statement isn't a claim that the LT is a cause
of
SR, it is a statement that the axioms of SR may be wrong yet the LT still
remains valid.
A cause of the LT might well be a background field.
That is irrelevant. As Mermin said, "Shut up and calculate."
Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to their
circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the
LT.
They are not circular, and they can be confirmed experimentally.
Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.
The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious. Unfortunately, its also clear from the literature, that many have missed this.
The POR states that the laws of physics are independent of inertial
frame.
This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.
And that's where you go flying off into wrongland.
The POR requires a definition of time to know that clocks satisfy it. Time
is defined by clock tick rates.
The SOL also requires a definition of time, that is it relies on clock
tick
rates being *assumed* to be independent of inertial frame.
YOU are the only one assuming that :-))
That is, all measurements to confirm the invariance of the SOL, must use
clocks. However, its impossible to independently measure the tick rates
of
clocks, without referring back to the SOL. Thus the SOL and clock tick
rates
are inherently interlocked. They can both change together, and still
achieve
the same results.
This violates the historical record. You must be a historian.
[Remainder of message deleted because of a basic misunderstanding
of time in SR]
On 10/15/2023 4:18 AM, Lou wrote:
On Sunday, 15 October 2023 at 00:59:23 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
But the Cs atoms in the GPS are not subjected to force. They are in free >> fall. Same with the atomic clocks on earth. Same with the gamma rays
On Saturday, 14 October 2023 at 05:55:30 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
You have that backwards. It is your silly idea that resonances cause all
the changes in natural frequencies via resonances, you have to support >>>> your claim. Plus one cannot prove a negative.
I can support my claim. GPS, Hafael Keating, Pound Rebka all
prove that atomic resonance changes its natural resonant frequencies
When subjected to external force. Be it gravity or horizontal acceleration
(What Relativists term as ‘kinematic’ and ‘gravitational’.)
in Pound Rebka.
In pound Rebka it is the different resonant rates of the atoms in the detectorFlail, flail, flail.
at a different altitude that create the illusion of relativistic dilation. If one placed the absorber from the bottom of the tower and put it beside the emitter instead it wouldn’t need the emitter to be vibrated to increase and decrease
the emitters resonant frequency to match the absorber f.
Nothing to do with relativity.
Fact is: Gravity is a force.:-))
Said Gary as he floated off into space.
If it isn’t a force Gary,...then what is pushing you/pulling you
towards the earths surface?
Oh I know..Albert Einstein’s relativistic glue.
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity.Nope. F = GMm/r^2. Gravitational potential is GM/r.
And GMm/r does correctly model the gravitational force
If gravity has nothing to do with GM/r...
Nobody said that gravity has nothing to do with GM/r. I even called that
the gravitational potential many times.
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 14:26:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 5:19:02 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
GM/r^2 isn’t a force either .
Let's look at units: kilograms, meters, seconds.
The units of velocity are meters/second (m/s).
The units of acceleration are m/s^2.
The units of force (F = ma) are kgm/s^2, called a Newton (N)
The constant G has the units N m^2/kg^2
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
Therefore GMm/r^2 has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg^2/m^2) = N = force.
GM/r has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg/m = N m/kg, which is NOT force.
In fact it's kg m/s^2 m/kg = m^2/s^2.
This is playing at maths to make the same force lookNo, Louie, it's called dimensional analysis, a powerful way to tell who knows what they're talking about and who's just flatulent.
like two completely different types of phenomena.
What is *really* different between the two formula? Nothing, except squaring r for one and not for the other.A BIG difference, flatulent one. Force is the derivative of potential:
F = (d/dr)(GM/r) = -GM/r^2
What'sa matter, Louie, are you as ignorant of calculus as you are of physics?
Both have G, both have mass, and both have (G and mass) dividedDon't be silly, Flatulent Louie, I told you before about the relationship of potential and force, but you're too demented to remember and too ignorant
by distance.
The only difference is that one equation is just 1/r, 1/2R, etc
And the other increases the rate of change in the inverse proportion by squaring r like this 1/r2, 1/2r^2 ,etc
The thing I find amazing about you mathematicians when you do
physics is how you pretend the same 2 things are not related at all.
to understand.
For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood acrossNo, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
a table, using x energy
You call that force.
Then, using my hand and the same amount of energy I push the same block of woodHow many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
up vertically into the air.
You say that has nothing to do with force and say it’s work.!
And try to prove your argument by saying work is calculated
by a completely different set of units of measurement.
But they are both the same, and not different at all.
They are both force applied to mass.
F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
Fingerpainting?
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
Fingerpainting?
Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?
Yesterday Lou wrote:
I would ignore Einsteins “predictions” for the mercury anomalous preccession.
He only knew the amount for mercury and fiddled his formula to match that
observed.
Notice his formula doesn’t do so well for other planets. A fact relativists
like to ignore.
However if one uses a more correct classical formula r 1/(r+3R)^2 based on perehilion
not semi major axis as Albert incorrectly did. Then classical theory predicts more accurately
than GR. {where r is perehilion distance and R is radius of sun}
Mercury:
Perihelion distance r = 4.60011E10 m
Solar radius R = 696340E3 m
If the equation is r/(r+3R)^2 we get
the number 1.9890E-11 1/m
What does this number mean?
How do you get the numbers below?
Is the equation wrong?
In that case, what should it be?
Please explain!
As follows:
Planet. Classical
Merc. 43.24
V. 8.33
E. 4.49
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:ca23d1af-d205-4978...@googlegroups.com...
You're conflating "invariance" with "proper."
You are simply confused.
Clocks exhibit time dilation, thus time is not invariant.
Oh dear....you clearly do not understand SR, clocks or time.
SR holds that there is an entity "space-time" that is measured by different observers with rulers and clocks. "space-time" is an invariant.
That is, in this context there is an entity "time" that is measured by clocks.
In this context, observers travel through "time" at different rates.
The > different rates, say 100 secs/sec is the equivalent of taking different
paths from London to Edinburgh. The clocks simple read off the amount of time they cover. They don't run slow or fast.
That is, because clocks travel though "time" at different rates, according to SR, clocks will be observed to run slow, despite that the clocks do not run slow. This is "time dilation".The only you got wrong is that clocks do NOT "travel through time at
Clocks running slow is a feature of background theories such as the Lorentz Ether Theory, not Special Relativity.
A cause of the LT might well be a background field.
That is irrelevant. As Mermin said, "Shut up and calculate."
Oh dear.... you are a victim of the emperors new clothes syndrome.
It is relevant in that it is impossible for physical processes to occur without physical causes.
It matters when physics has reached a brick wall in constructing a quantum theory of gravity, almost certainly, in part, because of the incompatibility of time in QM and GR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
It's also relevant in that those such as you don't understand that that they are actually describing such background field explanations, yet believe that they are describing SR.
Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.
The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious.
This means that clock tick rates must be independent of inertial frame.
And that's where you go flying off into wrongland.
Again, you simply have no correct understanding of SR.
No observer can tell if he is moving with respect to another inertial observer.
This is fundamental to the POR mate.
This means that no observer's clock can tick any different from another.
Observers take "different paths in space-time". That's why clocks and lengths, apparently, read differently, in SR, not because rules and clocks change how they record events.
Background approaches modify the processes themselves.
You should take the time to actually understand the distinction to understand SR correctly.
Once one understands SR correctly, one can then get a grasp of what issues there are with it, and noted by Lee Smolin.
YOU are the only one assuming that :-))
It's fundamental to the SR interpretation of the LT, that clock ticks are independent of inertial frame. This isn't debatable.
You have a comic book understanding of SR. Seriously.
This violates the historical record. You must be a historian.
In other words "nope, I am unable to describe a method of measuring the SOL AND clock rates independently, from inertial observers so will just blabber"
This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and length.
To verify the SOL for another inertial system, one needs to independently measure both the SOL and the TIME in that inertial system. This is impossible.
The ability to have different definitions of time and the SOL is what allows approaches such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_dynamics
SR uses a consistent set of definitions, however, consistency does not mean correct.
This is why LET exists as valid theory.
[Remainder of message deleted because of a basic misunderstanding
of time in SR]
You are another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You have a pop media concept of SR, yet believe that you have it sussed. Yeah....
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 14:26:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
GM/r has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg/m = N m/kg, which is NOT force.
In fact it's kg m/s^2 m/kg = m^2/s^2.
This is playing at maths to make the same force look
like two completely different types of phenomena.
No, Louie, it's called dimensional analysis, a powerful way to tell who knows what they're talking about and who's just flatulent.
What is *really* different between the two formula? Nothing, except squaring r for one and not for the other.
A BIG difference, flatulent one. Force is the derivative of potential:
F = (d/dr)(GM/r) = -GM/r^2
What'sa matter, Louie, are you as ignorant of calculus as you are of physics?
Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
Force of gravity is GM/r.
r^2 is acceleration duh!
Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.
It’s called match fixing by crooks.
Both have G, both have mass, and both have (G and mass) divided
by distance.
The only difference is that one equation is just 1/r, 1/2R, etc
And the other increases the rate of change in the inverse proportion by squaring r like this 1/r2, 1/2r^2 ,etc
The thing I find amazing about you mathematicians when you do
physics is how you pretend the same 2 things are not related at all.
Don't be silly, Flatulent Louie, I told you before about the relationship of
potential and force, but you're too demented to remember and too ignorant to understand.
For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood across
a table, using x energy
You call that force.
No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
Evasive nonsense.
Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.
How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
I understand that you think that one uses force to push
horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do
relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics? Fingerpainting?
Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?
Fuzzy language. All inertial observers travel through time at the
PROPER rate of 1 second/second. Clocks moving wrt an observer
are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rares.
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:57:39 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:?
Fuzzy language. All inertial observers travel through time at the
PROPER rate of 1 second/second. Clocks moving wrt an observer
are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rares.
A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic idiot.
Anyone can check GPS.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:57:39 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
?Fuzzy language. All inertial observers travel through time at the
PROPER rate of 1 second/second. Clocks moving wrt an observer
are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rares.
A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic idiot.Says the lying ignoramus. Congenital liars like Wozzie are a danger
to society:
"A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with
making truth itself appear like falsehood."
-- William Shenstone
Anyone can check GPS.
Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
this lie ad nauseam.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
Anyone can check GPS.
Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
this lie ad nauseam.
On 10/18/2023 8:39 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
Anyone can check GPS.
Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
this lie ad nauseam.
Yes, anyone can check GPS and see it depends on GR to work correctly, showing Wozzie is lying like mad, stating the opposite of reality.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 14:26:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
GM/r has the units (N m^2/kg^2)kg/m = N m/kg, which is NOT force.
In fact it's kg m/s^2 m/kg = m^2/s^2.
This is playing at maths to make the same force look
like two completely different types of phenomena.
No, Louie, it's called dimensional analysis, a powerful way to tell who knows what they're talking about and who's just flatulent.
What is *really* different between the two formula? Nothing, except squaring r for one and not for the other.
A BIG difference, flatulent one. Force is the derivative of potential:
F = (d/dr)(GM/r) = -GM/r^2
What'sa matter, Louie, are you as ignorant of calculus as you are of physics?
Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.Louie, Louie, Louie, you just flunked your first test in high school physics!
Force of gravity is GM/r.
r^2 is acceleration duh!
Nope, a = GM/r^2. And F = ma, therefore F = GMm/r^2 You just flunked
your second test in high school physics!
Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculateGM/r is NOT force, Loco Louie. You fell into your own trap and proved
the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
it above.
One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.Nope, it's called Loco Louie louses up physics.
It’s called match fixing by crooks.
Both have G, both have mass, and both have (G and mass) divided
by distance.
The only difference is that one equation is just 1/r, 1/2R, etc
And the other increases the rate of change in the inverse proportion by
squaring r like this 1/r2, 1/2r^2 ,etc
The thing I find amazing about you mathematicians when you do
physics is how you pretend the same 2 things are not related at all.
Don't be silly, Flatulent Louie, I told you before about the relationship of
potential and force, but you're too demented to remember and too ignorant
to understand.
For example ( ignoring friction): Using my hand I push a block of wood across
a table, using x energy
You call that force.
No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
Evasive nonsense.Definitely not, Loco Louie. It's in elementary physics texts.
Only a demented relativist would pretend pushingFuzzy thinking, Flatulent Louie. It takes NO force to push a block
block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
across a frictionless table. Pushing a block UP doesn't involve
friction, so your comparison was apples to ants.
No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.No wonder you're reduced to lying to protect your demented ego.
How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
I understand that you think that one uses force to pushWe've been talking BASIC high school physics, Louie. It doesn't
horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do
relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?
address anything about relativity.
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics? Fingerpainting?
Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?
2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
Den 17.10.2023 20:28, skrev Lou:
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 21:09:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics?
Fingerpainting?
Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...Apropos waiting for you to answer a question:
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?
Yesterday Lou wrote:
I would ignore Einsteins “predictions” for the mercury anomalous preccession.
He only knew the amount for mercury and fiddled his formula to match that >> observed.
Notice his formula doesn’t do so well for other planets. A fact relativists
like to ignore.
However if one uses a more correct classical formula r 1/(r+3R)^2 based on perehilion
not semi major axis as Albert incorrectly did. Then classical theory predicts more accurately
than GR. {where r is perehilion distance and R is radius of sun}
My response was:
Mercury:
Perihelion distance r = 4.60011E10 m
Solar radius R = 696340E3 m
If the equation is r/(r+3R)^2 we get
the number 1.9890E-11 1/m
What does this number mean?
How do you get the numbers below?
Is the equation wrong?
In that case, what should it be?
Please explain!
As follows:
Planet. Classical
Merc. 43.24
V. 8.33
E. 4.49
I would very much like to have your revolutionary
classical formula explained.
If the equation is r/(r+3R)^2 we get
the number 1.9890E-11 1/m
What does this number mean?
How do you get the numbers below?
Is the equation wrong?
In that case, what should it be?
Please explain!
As follows:
Planet. Classical
Merc. 43.24
V. 8.33
E. 4.49
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential has nothing
to do with gravity!!! Joker.
Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential is
an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
has nothing to do with gravity?
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes.
Then why
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on the tick
rates of atoms at different altitudes.
Then why cant a classical model use r to model the effects of
gravity on the tick rates of atoms?
On 10/18/2023 1:04 PM, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential has nothing to do with gravity!!! Joker.He never said that, he said gravitational potential is not force, which
it isn't. Obviously, gravitational potential does have something to do
with gravity! It just isn't gravitational force. Units are wrong as is
the distance relationship.
Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential isNo wonder why you are so confused.
an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
has nothing to do with gravity?
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity onBecause that's what comes out of the GR math which Einstein derived.
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes.
Find an error with Einstein's GR work showing no such relationship and
go collect your Nobel.
Then whyBecause Newton said that gravitational force is inversely proportional
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?
with distance squared.
On 10/18/23 12:04 PM, Lou wrote:
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on the tickEinstein didn't really "use r" to model the effects of gravity on the
rates of atoms at different altitudes.
tick rates of clocks.
Rather, he used the metric of spacetime; in a
suitable region with weak gravity and speeds <<< c, the metric can be accurately approximated as depending on the Newtonian gravitational potential \Phi.
Then why cant a classical model use r to model the effects ofHmmmm. By "classical" I presume you mean Newtonian mechanics (or
gravity on the tick rates of atoms?
equivalent, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, etc.) [#].
[#] Physicists use the term "classical" to mean
non-quantum, so SR and GR are classical theories.
Newtonian physics cannot "use r", or anything else, to model varying
tick rates of clocks, because it has time that is "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably
without regard to anything external" [Newton].
Basically YOU have to make up an entirely new "theory" that "uses r" to model tick rates in clocks (or atoms). That's silly, as YOU don't have nearly enough knowledge to do so. Moreover, GR already does a very
accurate job of modeling them.
I responded in the other thread. But here’s a copy of that post:
Planet. Obs.— GR ——Classical
Merc—-43.1——43.5 —-43.24
Venus—8———-8.6——-8.33
Earth— 5———- 3.87—-4.49
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
Force of gravity is GM/r.
Louie, Louie, Louie, you just flunked your first test in high school physics!
r^2 is acceleration duh!
Nope, a = GM/r^2. And F = ma, therefore F = GMm/r^2 You just flunked
your second test in high school physics!
Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
GM/r is NOT force, Loco Louie. You fell into your own trap and proved
it above.
One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.
It’s called match fixing by crooks.
Nope, it's called Loco Louie louses up physics.
No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
Evasive nonsense.
Definitely not, Loco Louie. It's in elementary physics texts.
Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
Fuzzy thinking, Flatulent Louie. It takes NO force to push a block
across a frictionless table. Pushing a block UP doesn't involve
friction, so your comparison was apples to ants.
Evasive nonsense.
You ignored the fact I already above “ignoring friction.”
So answer the question. Ignoring or in addition to the effects
of friction, why does it take force to push a block across a
table but the same force isn’t used to push it up in height?
Cant answer.?
Thought not.
No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.
No wonder you're reduced to lying to protect your demented ego
.
How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
I understand that you think that one uses force to push
horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do
relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?
We've been talking BASIC high school physics, Louie. It doesn't
address anything about relativity.
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of
yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics? Fingerpainting?
Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?
Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential has
nothing to do with gravity!!! Joker.
Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential is
an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
has nothing to do with gravity?
Anyways you still couldnt answer the question. Thought not.
Here it is again.
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes. Then why
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?
On 10/18/2023 8:39 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
Anyone can check GPS.
Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeatingYes, anyone can check GPS and see it depends on GR to work correctly,
this lie ad nauseam.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
On 10/18/2023 8:39 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak lied:
Anyone can check GPS.
Wozzie-boy should have his mouth washed out with soap for repeating
this lie ad nauseam.
Yes, anyone can check GPS and see it depends on GR to work correctly, showing Wozzie is lying like mad, stating the opposite of reality.Indeed. I can't understand people like Wozzie and the trolls.
“How much better would life be if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 17:32:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
“How much better would life be if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?
For sure it would make them unable to lie that GPS clocks
are not real.
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 19:17:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/18/2023 1:04 PM, Lou wrote:
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes.
Because that's what comes out of the GR math which Einstein derived.
Find an error with Einstein's GR work showing no such relationship and
go collect your Nobel.
I’m not trying to find an error in his using r to model tick rates.
I’m trying to get you to admit that there is no reason why a classical model
can’t use r to model tick rates of atoms.
Then why
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?
Because Newton said that gravitational force is inversely proportional
with distance squared.
Did Newton say that Einstein could ignore Newtons r^2 and use gravitational potential r instead to model gravity’s effects on atomic tick rates.
But a classical model
couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?
Newton would slap you silly for trying to use potential where force
belongs. Obviously Newton didn't know of GR, but he would certainly be capable of analyzing Einstein's equations and agree that
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:35:12 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
I responded in the other thread. But here’s a copy of that post:
Planet. Obs.— GR ——ClassicalLooLoo
Merc—-43.1——43.5 —-43.24
Venus—8———-8.6——-8.33
Earth— 5———- 3.87—-4.49
Biswas is a known crank: https://iacs.academia.edu/AbhijitBiswas
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:04:49 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
Force of gravity is GM/r.
Louie, Louie, Louie, you just flunked your first test in high school physics!
r^2 is acceleration duh!
Nope, a = GM/r^2. And F = ma, therefore F = GMm/r^2 You just flunked your second test in high school physics!
Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
GM/r is NOT force, Loco Louie. You fell into your own trap and proved
it above.
One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.
It’s called match fixing by crooks.
Nope, it's called Loco Louie louses up physics.
No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
Evasive nonsense.
Definitely not, Loco Louie. It's in elementary physics texts.
Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
Fuzzy thinking, Flatulent Louie. It takes NO force to push a block across a frictionless table. Pushing a block UP doesn't involve friction, so your comparison was apples to ants.
Evasive nonsense.So why does it take force to push a block across a frictionless table
You ignored the fact I already above “ignoring friction.”
top, Loco Louie? :-))
So answer the question. Ignoring or in addition to the effectsI already answered, but you flunked your physics test anyway.
of friction, why does it take force to push a block across a
table but the same force isn’t used to push it up in height?
Cant answer.?
Thought not.
Of course you don't think. If you did, you wouldn't make all these ridiculous blunders.
No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.
No wonder you're reduced to lying to protect your demented ego
.
How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
I understand that you think that one uses force to push
horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?
We've been talking BASIC high school physics, Louie. It doesn't
address anything about relativity.
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics? Fingerpainting?
Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?
Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential hasLoco Louie doesn't even understand high school physics. Otherwise,
nothing to do with gravity!!! Joker.
he never make such ridiculous assertions.
Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential isIs that your answer on your physics test? You flunked another one.
an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
has nothing to do with gravity?
Anyways you still couldnt answer the question. Thought not.Flatulent Louie, relativity IS a classical theory. Perhaps you're
Here it is again.
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes. Then why
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?
trying to argue Newtonian physics vs. relativity. Newtonian
physics assumes time is absolute, so OF COURSE it predicts no
tine dilation. Learn some physics, Lowbrow Louie
On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 19:17:55 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/18/2023 1:04 PM, Lou wrote:
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes.
Because that's what comes out of the GR math which Einstein derived.
Find an error with Einstein's GR work showing no such relationship and
go collect your Nobel.
I’m not trying to find an error in his using r to model tick rates.No, you are just flailing wildly, without a purpose or goal.
I’m trying to get you to admit that there is no reason why a classical modelA classical model like relativity? At well over 100 years old, quite classical compared to upstart models like QFT.
can’t use r to model tick rates of atoms.
Because it simply doesn't work. Units are wrong, and numbers don't match measurements.Then why
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?
Because Newton said that gravitational force is inversely proportional
with distance squared.
Did Newton say that Einstein could ignore Newtons r^2 and use gravitationalNewton would slap you silly for trying to use potential where force
potential r instead to model gravity’s effects on atomic tick rates.
belongs. Obviously Newton didn't know of GR, but he would certainly be capable of analyzing Einstein's equations and agree that (for weak
gravity & slow speeds), using potential is the correct answer.
But a classical modelBut classical relativity *does* model gravitational time dilation proportional to the potential 1/r. Again, do the math if you don't
couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?
agree. Of course, the tick rates of atoms are always 1 second per second locally.
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 20:34:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:04:49 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
Force of gravity is GM/r.
Louie, Louie, Louie, you just flunked your first test in high school physics!
r^2 is acceleration duh!
Nope, a = GM/r^2. And F = ma, therefore F = GMm/r^2 You just flunked your second test in high school physics!
Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
GM/r is NOT force, Loco Louie. You fell into your own trap and proved it above.
One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition.
It’s called match fixing by crooks.
Nope, it's called Loco Louie louses up physics.
No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
Evasive nonsense.
Definitely not, Loco Louie. It's in elementary physics texts.
Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
Fuzzy thinking, Flatulent Louie. It takes NO force to push a block across a frictionless table. Pushing a block UP doesn't involve friction, so your comparison was apples to ants.
Evasive nonsense.
You ignored the fact I already above “ignoring friction.”
So why does it take force to push a block across a frictionless table
top, Loco Louie? :-))
Answer the question fatty. Why does it take force to push a block
across the table...but not up in the air?
Let me guess...you use ‘work’ not force to push things vertically.
And to do ‘work’ you don’t need to apply any force.
Have you patented this free energy invention of yours?
So answer the question. Ignoring or in addition to the effects
of friction, why does it take force to push a block across a
table but the same force isn’t used to push it up in height?
Cant answer.?
I already answered, but you flunked your physics test anyway.
Thought not.
Of course you don't think. If you did, you wouldn't make all these ridiculous blunders.
No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.
No wonder you're reduced to lying to protect your demented ego
.
How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
I understand that you think that one uses force to push horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?
We've been talking BASIC high school physics, Louie. It doesn't address anything about relativity.
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd
better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics? Fingerpainting?
Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?
Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential has nothing to do with gravity!!! Joker.
Loco Louie doesn't even understand high school physics. Otherwise,
he never make such ridiculous assertions.
Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential is
an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
has nothing to do with gravity?
Is that your answer on your physics test? You flunked another one.
Anyways you still couldnt answer the question. Thought not.
Here it is again.
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes. Then why
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?
Flatulent Louie, relativity IS a classical theory. Perhaps you're
trying to argue Newtonian physics vs. relativity. Newtonian
physics assumes time is absolute, so OF COURSE it predicts no
tine dilation. Learn some physics, Lowbrow Louie
No you didn’t answer. All you could say when asked the question
was to repeat the vacuous mantra “”GM/r DOES have something to do with force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r. “
Or this silly zippo statement “GM/r,...is NOT force. “
Evasive or what.
Because if you think to calculate gravity force for different altitudes
one must use r^2 to calculate atomic tick rates,
Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
Let me guess: Gary’s 1st postulate:
“Different strengths of gravitational force at different
altitudes is calculated using r in relativity. But all other theories
have to use the incorrect calculation using r^2”
(Source: Book of Gary, last chapter in the bible)
Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
thing about physics, which is a description of the real world.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 5:56:55 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 20:34:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:04:49 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 at 22:27:43 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
Not nearly as bad at physics as you are.
Force of gravity is GM/r.
Louie, Louie, Louie, you just flunked your first test in high school physics!
r^2 is acceleration duh!
Nope, a = GM/r^2. And F = ma, therefore F = GMm/r^2 You just flunked your second test in high school physics!
Notice even your Hero Einstein used GM/r to calculate
the effect of the force of gravity on his tick rates
GM/r is NOT force, Loco Louie. You fell into your own trap and proved
it above.
One rule for Albert and the wrong rules for the competition. It’s called match fixing by crooks.
Nope, it's called Loco Louie louses up physics.
No, physics-challenged Louie, energy is force times distance.
Evasive nonsense.
Definitely not, Loco Louie. It's in elementary physics texts.
Only a demented relativist would pretend pushing
block across a table is using force but pushing it up in the air isn’t.
Fuzzy thinking, Flatulent Louie. It takes NO force to push a block across a frictionless table. Pushing a block UP doesn't involve friction, so your comparison was apples to ants.
Evasive nonsense.
You ignored the fact I already above “ignoring friction.”
So why does it take force to push a block across a frictionless table top, Loco Louie? :-))
Answer the question fatty. Why does it take force to push a blockI did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have misrepresented what happens in the real world.
across the table...but not up in the air?
And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
Let me guess...you use ‘work’ not force to push things vertically.F = ma, demented Louie. Uou flunked your third physics test.
And to do ‘work’ you don’t need to apply any force.
Have you patented this free energy invention of yours?I have several patents, but I wouldn't be as stupid as you to
suggest such a ridiculous thing. This happens when you're
incapable of understanding physics.
So answer the question. Ignoring or in addition to the effects
of friction, why does it take force to push a block across a
table but the same force isn’t used to push it up in height?
Cant answer.?
I already answered, but you flunked your physics test anyway.
Thought not.
Of course you don't think. If you did, you wouldn't make all these ridiculous blunders.
No wonder relativity fails every one of its predictions.
No wonder you're reduced to lying to protect your demented ego
.
How many times does a demented fool need to be instructed?
F = dE/dr. Don't understand calculus, either, eh, Louie?
I understand that you think that one uses force to push horizontally. But not vertically. What magical new thingy do relativists call force when applied vertically? Work?
We've been talking BASIC high school physics, Louie. It doesn't address anything about relativity.
You need to take a remedial physic course, Louie, and you'd better learn some math, too.. You are making a prize fool of yourself. What did you take instead of high school physics? Fingerpainting?
Yes Gary. And you still haven’t answered the question...
Why is it OK for Einstein to use r to model the effects of
the force of gravity to model his tick rates.
But not OK for classical?
Still waiting for you to answer this question...or will you
snip my question again?
Louie, Louie, Loco Louie! 1st, relativity IS classical physics.
2nd, YOU are the only fool claiming that tick rates are due to
the force of gravity. Everyone's been telling you over and over
that its gravitational potential, GM/r, which is NOT force.
Cloud cuckoo land for gary. He thinks gravitational potential has nothing to do with gravity!!! Joker.
Loco Louie doesn't even understand high school physics. Otherwise,
he never make such ridiculous assertions.
Let me guess Gary. Gravitational potential is
an effect caused by magic gnomes in the 14th dimension and
has nothing to do with gravity?
Is that your answer on your physics test? You flunked another one.
Anyways you still couldnt answer the question. Thought not.
Here it is again.
If Einstein could use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms at different altitudes. Then why
cant a classical model use r to model the effects of gravity on
the tick rates of atoms?
Flatulent Louie, relativity IS a classical theory. Perhaps you're
trying to argue Newtonian physics vs. relativity. Newtonian
physics assumes time is absolute, so OF COURSE it predicts no
tine dilation. Learn some physics, Lowbrow Louie
No you didn’t answer. All you could say when asked the questionNot evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in that condition are delusional.
was to repeat the vacuous mantra “”GM/r DOES have something to do with force. It's just that the force varies as 1/r^2, not 1/r. “
Or this silly zippo statement “GM/r,...is NOT force. “
Evasive or what.
Because if you think to calculate gravity force for different altitudes one must use r^2 to calculate atomic tick rates,Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r, then GM/r just MUST be force.
Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force ofHe doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
Let me guess: Gary’s 1st postulate:Silly Psychopathic Louie! You're like a donkey kicking against
“Different strengths of gravitational force at different
altitudes is calculated using r in relativity. But all other theories
have to use the incorrect calculation using r^2”
(Source: Book of Gary, last chapter in the bible)
a spiked goad. The donkey gets a damaged foot and you get
more and more insane. I have carefully explained everything you
need to know to answer your question completely, but you
continue to rail and rave instead of settling down and begin
learning. What you are doing is described as arrogant ignorance.
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
deride it, but in the end, there it is.” -- Winston Churchill
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" –Confucius
“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about” – Wayne Dyer
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
“Ignorance and weakness is not an impediment to survival. Arrogance
is.” ― Cixin Liu
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have misrepresented what happens in the real world.
So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
to move the block?
And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
....
Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in that condition are delusional.
....
Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
then GM/r just MUST be force.
Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational
Time dilation”
Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have misrepresented what happens in the real world.
So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you useIt's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.
to move the block?
And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
....
Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in that condition are delusional.
....
Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively
that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
then GM/r just MUST be force.
Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational Time dilation”Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire
Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
physics course.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:58:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have misrepresented what happens in the real world.
So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
to move the block?
It's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.
I flunked the test? You did.
It’s called acceleration. And you use force to accelerate the block.
Not inertia.
Seeing as before you applied the force to the block..it wasn’t moving.
And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
....
Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
that condition are delusional.
....
Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
then GM/r just MUST be force.
Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational Time dilation”
Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire
physics course.
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 04:16:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
But a classical model
couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?
But classical relativity *does* model gravitational time dilation
proportional to the potential 1/r. Again, do the math if you don't
agree. Of course, the tick rates of atoms are always 1 second per second
locally.
I’m glad you finally admitted that it’s OK for relativity to use r to model force of gravity...
but not OK for a classical model to use it.
Otherwise, heaven forbid! Classical theory could also correctly
predict and explain GPS etc.
And by the way area of earths shadow does fall off at r. Not r^2.
You just didn’t do the calculations. Or were unable to seeing as relativists
dont do geometry.
r=100% (earths surface)
2r=33%
3r =21%
4r=16%
5r=13%
Notice not only is it r! But it’s also very close to observations of tick rates
from other sources like gravity probe A and B and GPS
As listed below ( source wiki gravitational time dilation rates for different altitudes)
(Picoseconds gained with r)
r 0
2r 320
3r 440
4r 480
5r 540
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:43:04 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:58:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have misrepresented what happens in the real world.
So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
to move the block?
It's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.
I flunked the test? You did.So now you're reduced to the childish, "Oh yeah, well so are you!" behavior.
It’s called acceleration. And you use force to accelerate the block.You asked what MOVES the block. Motion includes UNIFORM motion.
Not inertia.
What causes a block to move across a frictionless table? I answered correctly. The problem is that you use imprecise language.
Seeing as before you applied the force to the block..it wasn’t moving.Well, you didn't SAY it wasn't moving, so YOU are your own problem in
that you can't pose a proper thought experiment.
No comment, Louie? This is the crux of your misunderstanding.And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
....
Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
that condition are delusional.
....
Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
then GM/r just MUST be force.
Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational Time dilation”
Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire physics course.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
And, Loser Louie, you are adamantly unwilling to learn. You need to lose
one more thing: your vaunting ego.
On 10/19/2023 8:04 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 04:16:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
But a classical model
couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?
But classical relativity *does* model gravitational time dilation
proportional to the potential 1/r. Again, do the math if you don't
agree. Of course, the tick rates of atoms are always 1 second per second >> locally.
I’m glad you finally admitted that it’s OK for relativity to use r to model force of gravity...Relativity does NOT use 1/r to model the force of gravity. It doesn't
even have the correct units (which makes it automatically wrong!)
but not OK for a classical model to use it.Except that Newtonian gravity can't. (be careful of your wording. GR is considered a classical theory nowadays)
Otherwise, heaven forbid! Classical theory could also correctly
predict and explain GPS etc.
There simply isn't anything in
it with that effect. Remember in Newtonian physics time is universal everywhere so there is no equivalent to gravitational time dilation, nor could there be.
And by the way area of earths shadow does fall off at r. Not r^2.Umbra or penumbra?
You just didn’t do the calculations. Or were unable to seeing as relativists
dont do geometry.
r=100% (earths surface)
2r=33%
3r =21%
4r=16%
5r=13%
Notice not only is it r! But it’s also very close to observations of tick ratesAnd your point is...? (no, not the one on top of your head)
from other sources like gravity probe A and B and GPS
As listed below ( source wiki gravitational time dilation rates for different
altitudes)
(Picoseconds gained with r)
r 0
2r 320
3r 440
4r 480
5r 540
The 1/r potential is referenced to infinity, so this is a difference of potentials. With potential from r to 2r being half that from r to
infinity, this could work for 640 picoseconds from r to infinity.
So we can make a new table for differences between r and multiples
assuming 1/r relationship:
r r 0
r 2r 320
r 3r 427
r 4r 480
r 5r 512
I don't know where you got your numbers from but a so-so match with 1/r.
Filthy? Seems like your going overboard again. When I have a discussion
with someone and they act like you do, I try to shake them out of their fiercely held misconceptions. It seems to be impossible with kooks,
but I try in the hopes of finding a kook who believes in reality rather than his fantasies.
Let me guess...Jesus said to his flock...”whenever and wherever youNo, Lying Louie, He upset the moneychangers' tables and drove them
find someone who doesn’t agree with you..Kick their fuckin ass”
out of the Temple with a whip. It's not a simple case of disagreement
with them or you: It's a case of your being adamantly opposed to what
is real.
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 04:25:08 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/19/2023 8:04 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 04:16:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Relativity does NOT use 1/r to model the force of gravity. It doesn't
On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
But a classical model
couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms?
But classical relativity *does* model gravitational time dilation
proportional to the potential 1/r. Again, do the math if you don't
agree. Of course, the tick rates of atoms are always 1 second per second >>>> locally.
I’m glad you finally admitted that it’s OK for relativity to use r to >>> model force of gravity...
even have the correct units (which makes it automatically wrong!)
‘Relativity does not use 1/r to model the force of gravity’ !
You have changed your mind.
Here’s a quote from you earlier in this thread:
“ while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r). “
but not OK for a classical model to use it.
Otherwise, heaven forbid! Classical theory could also correctly
predict and explain GPS etc.
Except that Newtonian gravity can't. (be careful of your wording. GR is
considered a classical theory nowadays)
I don’t consider GR a classical theory.
Classical theory has light only at c relative to source.
Classical theory has no time dilation effects.
Classical theory has light as a wave only.
There simply isn't anything in
it with that effect. Remember in Newtonian physics time is universal
everywhere so there is no equivalent to gravitational time dilation, nor
could there be.
And by the way area of earths shadow does fall off at r. Not r^2.Umbra or penumbra?
I don’t like rules but looking at the two the umbra is closest.
Whether or not the shadow is fuzzy as Wiki umbra suggests is
hard to guess. Does gravity diffract? I haven’t studied that
possibility. Of course with gravity whether or not it’s push or
another model one has to take into account that the edge of the
shadow will be the edge of the sphere. And thus less mass at
the edge of the shadow.
The illustration Wiki supplies is handy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra#/media/File:Kernschatten_und_Halbschatten.svg
Notice if you continue the the two converging ‘umbra’ lines
to the left. Where they meet, outside the image is where the observer
is when calculating the area of the sky covered/subtended by the earth shadow.
As I mentioned earlier the “great” Hafael Keating “evidence” supporting Einsteins theories is actually WAY off from his
relativistic predictions.
Between 10-30% off.!!
So we can make a new table for differences between r and multiples
assuming 1/r relationship:
r r 0
r 2r 320
r 3r 427
r 4r 480
r 5r 512
I don't know where you got your numbers from but a so-so match with 1/r.
<12% error max. Not as bad as Hafael Keatings 30% error for relativity.
My calculations can only be approximate values as I had to calculate
angle subtended by earth shadow on hypothetical observer using pencil
on paper with technical draughting equipment.
And measure off a online wiki graph for rough approx tick rates.
Seeing as no actual observed tick data is available for exact 1-5 r distances. However my point really was ...it is *no where NEAR* 1/ r^2
as you claimed it had to be.
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 04:35:09 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 6:43:04 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:58:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 13:50:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I did, Flatulent Bulimic Louie. It does NOT take any force to push a block
across a frictionless table top (at constant velocity), so you have
misrepresented what happens in the real world.
So Gary thinks it doesn’t take any force to move a block from one side
of the table to the other? Which special super powers do you use
to move the block?
It's called inertia, Lobotomized Louie. You just flunked your 4th physics test.
I flunked the test? You did.
So now you're reduced to the childish, "Oh yeah, well so are you!" behavior.
It’s called acceleration. And you use force to accelerate the block. Not inertia.
You asked what MOVES the block. Motion includes UNIFORM motion.
What causes a block to move across a frictionless table? I answered correctly. The problem is that you use imprecise language.
Seeing as before you applied the force to the block..it wasn’t moving.
Well, you didn't SAY it wasn't moving, so YOU are your own problem in
that you can't pose a proper thought experiment.
Wasn’t it obvious that I meant move a block?
Ask anyone, physicist or otherwise and they will automatically
and correctly assume I meant move it from a stationary position.
And it DOES take a force to hold the block above the table top, contrary
to your vacuous claim which you misrepresented again!
....
Not evasive, Demented Louie. Face it, you don't understand the simplest
thing about physics, which is a description of the real world. People in
that condition are delusional.
....
Incorrect, because you have this delusional belief that "tick rates" just
MUST be dependent on force, when reality demonstrates conclusively that it's not. You also have the delusion that if "tick rates" vary as GM/r,
then GM/r just MUST be force.
No comment, Louie? This is the crux of your misunderstanding.
I’m not the one who was pretending that the force of gravity on tick rates wasn’t modelled by GM/r, when in fact Einstein was modelling the force
of gravity on tick rates using GM/r.
So why should I be expected to explain the contradiction in your own argument?
That’s your responsibility.
Which is also why I asked you to explain why you think lifting an object vertically
does not need any force.
If it doesnt then how does it get lifted vertically without force.?
Then why is it that you think it’s OK for Einstein to calculate the force of
gravity on tick rates using just r!!!
He doesn't, Lunatic Louie. GM/r is potential.
So gravity has nothing to do with einsteins imaginary “gravitational
Time dilation”
Only trolls misrepresent facts the way you do, Leprous Louie.
Why is it called “gravitational” ( time dilation)?
Does gravitational in german mean marvel superhero magic forces?
Your asinine misrepresentations means you just flunked the entire physics course.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
And, Loser Louie, you are adamantly unwilling to learn. You need to lose one more thing: your vaunting ego.
Yes Gary and you have no ego
Is that why your comments contain such filthy insults instead of
rational arguments ?
Let me guess...Jesus said to his flock...”whenever and wherever you
find someone who doesn’t agree with you..Kick their fuckin ass”
On 10/20/2023 8:44 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2023 at 04:25:08 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 10/19/2023 8:04 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 04:16:11 UTC+1, Volney wrote:Relativity does NOT use 1/r to model the force of gravity. It doesn't
On 10/18/2023 2:56 PM, Lou wrote:
But a classical modelBut classical relativity *does* model gravitational time dilation
couldn’t use gravitational potential r to model tick rates of atoms? >>
proportional to the potential 1/r. Again, do the math if you don't
agree. Of course, the tick rates of atoms are always 1 second per second
locally.
I’m glad you finally admitted that it’s OK for relativity to use r to
model force of gravity...
even have the correct units (which makes it automatically wrong!)
‘Relativity does not use 1/r to model the force of gravity’ !No, I haven't. Relativity does not model any inverse r effect as a
You have changed your mind.
force. Newtonian GM/r is NOT a force either. Remember, objects at
different potentials are unaffected by the potential.
Here’s a quote from you earlier in this thread:GR effects, not force. Specifically the effect involved is the redshift/blueshift of a timing signal from different potentials, as Pound-Rebka discovered.
“ while GR effects are proportional to potential (inverse r). “
but not OK for a classical model to use it.
Otherwise, heaven forbid! Classical theory could also correctly
predict and explain GPS etc.
Except that Newtonian gravity can't. (be careful of your wording. GR is >> considered a classical theory nowadays)
I don’t consider GR a classical theory.Nobody cares what you consider. GR is 100+ years old and has no quantum effects, unlike modern theories like QFT.
Classical theory has light only at c relative to source.Again, nobody cares what you believe.
Classical theory has no time dilation effects.
Classical theory has light as a wave only.
There simply isn't anything in
it with that effect. Remember in Newtonian physics time is universal
everywhere so there is no equivalent to gravitational time dilation, nor >> could there be.
And by the way area of earths shadow does fall off at r. Not r^2.Umbra or penumbra?
I don’t like rules but looking at the two the umbra is closest.
Whether or not the shadow is fuzzy as Wiki umbra suggests is
hard to guess. Does gravity diffract? I haven’t studied that possibility. Of course with gravity whether or not it’s push or
another model one has to take into account that the edge of the
shadow will be the edge of the sphere. And thus less mass at
the edge of the shadow.
The illustration Wiki supplies is handy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra#/media/File:Kernschatten_und_Halbschatten.svgAnd the area covered is proportional to the inverse square of the distance.
Notice if you continue the the two converging ‘umbra’ linesArea covered is proportional to the inverse square of the distance,
to the left. Where they meet, outside the image is where the observer
is when calculating the area of the sky covered/subtended by the earth shadow.
until the convergence, where the shading body's image becomes larger
than the source.
SR holds that there is an entity "space-time" that is measured by
different
observers with rulers and clocks. "space-time" is an invariant.
That is, in this context there is an entity "time" that is measured by
clocks.
There is also rulers which measure the space part. You seem to be
ignoring that.
All inertial observers travel through time at the
PROPER rate of 1 second/second.
Clocks moving wrt an observer
are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rates.
They still have the same PROPER time of 1 sec/sec.
That is, because clocks travel though "time" at different rates,
according
to SR, clocks will be observed to run slow, despite that the clocks do
not
run slow. This is "time dilation".
The only you got wrong is that clocks do NOT "travel through time at >different rates."
You're making the mistake that the reading of clocks observed
by an observer in relative motion is somehow unique and absolute.
Another observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't
say the moving
clock is running slow at some specific rate.
Clocks running slow is a feature of background theories such as the
Lorentz
Ether Theory, not Special Relativity.
No, it's what YOU are saying, and it's weirdly distorted.
It matters when physics has reached a brick wall in constructing a
quantum
theory of gravity, almost certainly, in part, because of the
incompatibility
of time in QM and GR.
Another fuzzy assertion.
Although basic QM has absolute time, QFT is based
on SR.
It's also relevant in that those such as you don't understand that that
they
are actually describing such background field explanations, yet believe
that
they are describing SR.
Nope. You use fuzzy language like "background field explanations" with NO >explanation of its meaning. A sure sign of balderdash.
Nope, the two axioms cannot be confirmed independently of each other.
The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious. s
Nope. You are clearly arguing simplistically. The two-way speed of light >can
be measured with one ruler and one clock. That allows idiots to come in
and
claim that maybe the speed is different coming back than going out, but
other
observations refute that. So, the fictitious requirement for two clocks is >just
a "background field explanation."
No observer can tell if he is moving with respect to another inertial
observer.
Of COURSE an observer can tell if he's moving wrt another observer!
What you should say is, "There is no such thing as absolute motion."
You are confusing yourself with more fuzzy language.
This means that no observer's clock can tick any different from another.
And that's PROPER time, but a moving clock is observed to tick at a
slower rate.
Observers take "different paths in space-time". That's why clocks and
lengths, apparently, read differently, in SR, not because rules and
clocks
change how they record events.
you might get less confused about SR.
Background approaches modify the processes themselves.
Only neophytes believe that.
This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and length.
No problem, we have those.
To verify the SOL for another inertial system, one needs to independently
measure both the SOL and the TIME in that inertial system. This is
impossible.
Dead wrong, Kevin. The MMX used the same equipment in different >(approximately) inertial frames to measure the SoL. Admittedly, the >measurements were performed in air and had deleterious effects, but
LLR experiments are consistent with the SoL not being dependent on
the motion of the mirror on the moon.
The ability to have different definitions of time and the SOL is what
allows
approaches such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_dynamics
SR uses a consistent set of definitions, however, consistency does not
mean
correct.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman
And SR has passed every test restricted to its domain of applicability.
This is why LET exists as a valid theory.
It's only valid in a subset of SR's validity, so nobody with common sense >would use it.
If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically
slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different
rates. You can't have it both ways. [...]
Reunited clocks read different, thus its not an optical illusion
type effect, its a real, physical difference. This requires a
physical explanation.
Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time ("space-time") at different rates.
You are making the mistake of not reading what has actually been
written and substitute your own made up meanderings.
[... too much nonsense to be bothered with....]
On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically
slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different
rates. You can't have it both ways. [...]
Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:98587af2-de8d-4a90...@googlegroups.com...
SR holds that there is an entity "space-time" that is measured by different observers with rulers and clocks. "space-time" is an invariant.
That is, in this context there is an entity "time" that is measured by clocks.
There is also rulers which measure the space part. You seem to be
ignoring that.
Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.
Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.
If clocks read differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks,
thus space is not relevant.
Clocks moving wrt an observer are OBSERVED to travel through time at different rates.
Nope. If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never physically read different when reunited.
Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different rates.
You can't have it both ways. Something has to give. There is a real physical effect. An observation, by itself cannot account for all observers agreeing on a final *difference*.
That is, because clocks travel though "time" at different rates, according
to SR, clocks will be observed to run slow, despite that the clocks do not
run slow. This is "time dilation".
The only you got wrong is that clocks do NOT "travel through time at different rates."
Sure they do, according to SR.
Reunited clocks read different, thus its not an optical illusion type effect, its a real, physical difference. This requires a physical explanation.
Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time ("space-time") at different rates. Its the gamma factor dude.
An odometer reads different going from London to Edinburgh either because it takes a different path OR because the odometer calibration changes.
You're making the mistake that the reading of clocks observed
by an observer in relative motion is somehow unique and absolute.
Nope. You are making the mistake of not reading what has actually been written and substitute your own made up meanderings.
You are trying to answer questions posted by others, not me.
I have specifically explained in detail that clocks read differently and not unique, and why they do. In contrast, you are just blabbering.
time") at different rates."
Another observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't say the moving clock is running slow at some specific rate.
Strawman. I never made that claim.
I specifically denied that and gave the only alternative, to wit, clocks travel
through time at different rates, according to SR
It matters when physics has reached a brick wall in constructing a quantum theory of gravity, almost certainly, in part, because of the incompatibility of time in QM and GR.
Another fuzzy assertion.
The incompatibility of time in QM and GR is well known and precise. It is your knowledge of this that is fuzzy.
Although basic QM has absolute time, QFT is based on SR.
Nope. QFT is based on the Lorentz Transform.
The LT does not depend on SR. It is a common misunderstanding that it does.
It's also relevant in that those such as you don't understand that that they are actually describing such background field explanations, yet believe
that they are describing SR.
Nope. You use fuzzy language like "background field explanations" with NO explanation of its meaning. A sure sign of balderdash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"In 2005, Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University), wrote about the nature of space: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed ... The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. ... Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry (i.e., as measured)."[40]"
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/
Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
Time into video 0:31 :
"...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of nature...?"
Time into video 19:30 :
"... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe… and
the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."
Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.
QF are "background fields".
The two postulates of SR are clearly circular. This is obvious. s
Nope. You are clearly arguing simplistically. The two-way speed of light can be measured with one ruler and one clock. That allows idiots to come
in and claim that maybe the speed is different coming back than going out, but other observations refute that. So, the fictitious requirement for two clocks is just a "background field explanation."
Yeah... you just don't understand what you haven't been instructed in or read in a book.
Sure, I understand, that you just haven't thought about the problem, because no one pointed it out to you.
The TWLS is not the issue. We all know about the OWLS and TWLS problem.
The issue is that by definition, ANY speed require a measurement of *both* time and length.
The SOL cannot be ascertained without definitions of time and length.
Alternative definitions of length and time result in the same LT.
The reason that this is possible is precisely because the two axioms SOL and POR, cannot be verified independently of each other.
The POR require the assumption that moving clocks satisfy it, that is, always tick at he same rate. However, determining the SOL in a moving frame requires that time first be known. There are TWO unknowns, both the SOL ant the clock tick rates
Its astounding that so many just can't get this. The reason is that most just regurgitate what they are taught without going hey... there's a problem there.
One is assuming that which one is trying to prove.
No observer can tell if he is moving with respect to another inertial observer.
Of COURSE an observer can tell if he's moving wrt another observer!
What you should say is, "There is no such thing as absolute motion."
You are confusing yourself with more fuzzy language.
Ho hum..... Your trying very hard, vainly, to get brownie points..... its trivially obvious that in the context of this discussion on SR that that statement means
"No observer can tell if he is moving with respect to another inertial observer if the observers are in closed boxes"
Its was a resentment of the Principle of Relativity. Dah....
This means that no observer's clock can tick any different from another.
And that's PROPER time, but a moving clock is observed to tick at a
slower rate.
Sure, a moving clock is only *observed* to tick slow, its not physically real in SR, that is why the rational alternative, that is required to explain why clocks physically read different, is that clocks travel through "time" at different rates.
It has to be one or the other mate.
You are really confused as to what "space-time" actually means in SR, physically.
It means that there is an invariant or absolute object of reality that is fixed in 4 dimensions. Its called the "Block Universe"
Observers take "different paths in space-time". That's why clocks and lengths, apparently, read differently, in SR, not because rules and clocks change how they record events.
you might get less confused about SR.
I have a pretty good handle on SR mate.
In contrast, any idea that isn't in the book you read, you can't understand.
Indeed, here is what is one of the few actually correct accounts of the Twins Paradox that doesn't use acceleration or frame switching.
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
I am also bit of a dab hand at GR, here's my derivation of the Riemann Curvature Tensor....
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/riemann/riemann.xht
Background approaches modify the processes themselves.
Only neophytes believe that.
The alternative to no physical processes being the cause of physical results is magic, only nutjobs believe in magic.
The reality is there is significant active research in deriving space and time from emergent properties of quantum fields.
Unfortunately, "ethers" got such a bad rap that many are too embarrassed to use the name so they are now called "quantum fields"
Others just deny them because they don't understand that they have been renamed, yet want to appear as if they are clever by saying yeah dude... what an idiot.... ethers were disproved years ago..."
They were not. The reality is, they were ignored because in 1905, quantum fields having been discovered.
Einstein:
"The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."
That is, physical hypotheses (mechanisms) are ignored from the outset, Einstein is directly declaring here explicitly, that he not going to offer an explanation, for example, a hypothesis as to why "sources could immediately find a common speed".
He was simply avoiding the issue due to expediency.
This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and length.
No problem, we have those.
Unfortunately, we don't have them independently.
One can only make consistent choices, from many consistent choices.
To verify the SOL for another inertial system, one needs to independently
measure both the SOL and the TIME in that inertial system. This is impossible.
Dead wrong, Kevin. The MMX used the same equipment in different (approximately) inertial frames to measure the SoL. Admittedly, the measurements were performed in air and had deleterious effects, but
LLR experiments are consistent with the SoL not being dependent on
the motion of the mirror on the moon.
Oh dear... None of this has any relevance to the issue. The observer and observed are traveling in the MMX at the *same* speed. dah... There is no relative speed for their to be measuring clocks from different points of view. Indeed, the MMX can be explained simply by assuming photons.
You just don't understand the point.
Describe how a *non* moving observer actually *measures* the *proper* time that a *moving* observer experiences.
How does one actually know what the clock tick rates are of the moving observer, from their point of view, if when the non moving observer measures it, the ticks are actually measured to run slow.?
Suppose the measurements of the moving clock are the actually reality. That moving clocks *physically* run slow.
One has to use the axioms of relativity to *assume* that the moving clock ticks at the same rate.
This is the bit you just don't get. You are so wrapped up in that which isn't in debate. that you don't understand what the problem is.
If one actually measures a moving clock running slow, and we do, the simplest explanation, is that it actually is. Dah.....
If so, then SR is just a convenient fiction.
[Extended diatribe deleted]
And SR has passed every test restricted to its domain of applicability.
Ho hum.... usual Strawman. The validly of the LT is not in debate. SR is. There are no unique tests of SR, there are only tests of the LT.
As has LET, and any other that simply states that there is a physical background that time and space emerged from. Sure, the Lorentz ether is clearly wrong.
The reason why the SR *interpretation* of the LT is not tenable, is here:
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html
Hint: in a true empty universe, there are no rulers and clocks, thus its impossible for any physical property such as an invariant *physical* SOL to exist. SR requires it does.
This is why LET exists as a valid theory.
It's only valid in a subset of SR's validity, so nobody with common sense
would use it.
LET is always valid where SR is valid. Its the same equations mate.
See above from the Nobel Laureate Robert B. Laughlin as to how pretty much all physicists actually think about reality.
No one with common sense believes that the speed of light exists in a truly empty universe. There are no clocks and rulers in such a universe. Pretty much every one has missed that particular elephant in the room.
Fortunately, we know that the universe is no where empty. Its called the quantum vacuum.
Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
attempt to apply them to tachyons.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.
Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
attempt to apply them to tachyons.
You must be referring to your failed attempts.
A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
"one should never mix together the descriptions of one phenomenon
yielded by different observers, otherwise--even in ordinary physics--
one would immediately meet contradictions" -
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who attempt to apply them to tachyons.
You must be referring to your failed attempts.
a published peer-reviewed paper
Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed attempt" :-))
A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review,
it publishes any crap (like your crap paper) for a fee.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Oh dear.... "in this context" is a direct reference to the fact that referring to "space-time" is a needless and an irrelevant complication.
Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who attempt to apply them to tachyons.
You must be referring to your failed attempts.a published peer-reviewed paper
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied again:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who attempt to apply them to tachyons.
You must not like to hear the truth. Unfortunately for you, google keeps a record:You must be referring to your failed attempts.
a published peer-reviewed paper
Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed attempt" :-))
A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review,You are twice a liar, don't_know. HRP publishes over 30 journals but only three of them were tagged as "predatory" and UJPA was NOT among them.
They didn't charge me anything
(probably because they thought it was so good they didn't want to miss
the chance of publishing a seminal work :-)
The problem is that you're not a "casual" observer. You're an extremely biased one
with the manners of a Hamas Palestinian.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied again:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who attempt to apply them to tachyons.
You must be referring to your failed attempts.
a published peer-reviewed paper
You must not like to hear the truth. Unfortunately for you, google keeps a record:
Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed
attempt" :-))
A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review,
You are twice a liar, don't_know. HRP publishes over 30 journals but only three of them were tagged as "predatory" and UJPA was NOT among them.
Actually, it IS. Crap paper by crank author published in crap journal.
They didn't charge me anything (probably because they thought it was so good they didn't want to miss the chance of publishing a seminal work :-)
"Seminal" as in utterly crank. As in your utterly crank Minkowski diagrams.
The problem is that you're not a "casual" observer. You're an extremely biased one
with the manners of a Hamas Palestinian.
I am simply pointing out that your paper is crank crap and that you have basic
mistakes in your Minkowski diagrams.
You will go to your grave denying that and that makes you so entertaining. <shrug>
Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.
Multiple times.
Being a hardened crank, you wait for a while, hoping that people have forgotten. We haven't.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:57:02 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:15:16 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-6, Dono. lied again:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:21:01 AM UTC-6, Dono. lied:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:50:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. Minkowski diagrams have been a bane to many who
attempt to apply them to tachyons.
You must be referring to your failed attempts.
a published peer-reviewed paper
You must not like to hear the truth. Unfortunately for you, google keeps a record:
Only a despicable troll calls a published peer-reviewed paper a "failed
attempt" :-))
A troll who doesn't understand PEMDAS and who believes nature heeds "definitions" proclaimed by humans.
The ragpiece listed as a PREDATORY journal doesn't do any peer review,
You are twice a liar, don't_know. HRP publishes over 30 journals but only
three of them were tagged as "predatory" and UJPA was NOT among them.
Actually, it IS. Crap paper by crank author published in crap journal.rather than pointing out no valid errors in the paper.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Dono. cowers:
Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.You're a liar, don't_know. All your delusional assertions were proven
Multiple times.
wrong. C'mon, don't_know, get honest and let's start. Identify ONE
problem with DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
Being a hardened crank, you wait for a while, hoping that people have forgotten. We haven't.I didn't start this, don't_know, YOU did. You just can't help lying, can you!
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Dono. cowers:You need to look at this forum. All your nose-rubbing is just here.
Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.You're a liar, don't_know.
Multiple times.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:55:03 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Dono. cowers:
Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.
Multiple times.
You're a liar, don't_know.
You need to look at this forum.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:55:03 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Dono. cowers:
Your nose was rubbed into the errors in your crap paper.
Multiple times.
You're a liar, don't_know.
You need to look at this forum.I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
You need to look at this forum.
I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
.....BTW, I was not the only one rubbing your nose in your shit , there were several of us.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-6, Dono. emoted:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
You need to look at this forum.
I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
Dono can't put his finger on ONE error in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:43:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:?
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-6, Dono. emoted:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
You need to look at this forum.
I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
Dono can't put his finger on ONE error in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
Meh,
Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants" as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
a crank, you are a crook as well.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:43:25 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-6, Dono. emoted:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:50:26 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:44:23 AM UTC-6, Dono. equivocated:
You need to look at this forum.
I have. All your assertions were proven wrong.
?Dono can't put his finger on ONE error in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
Meh,
Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
a crank, you are a crook as well.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
a crank, you are a crook as well.
Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
Crooked Crank
Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II".
The causality violation still exists, the "response" is received before the "call",
[Delusional naked emperor's misrepresentations deleted]
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:50:47 PM UTC-6, Dono. misrepresented:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
a crank, you are a crook as well.
Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
Crooked CrankDono, you demonstrate yourself to be a rank liar who doesn't read
the text and misrepresents the argument.
“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.” – Mark Twain
Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II".Obviously, Figure 4 is NOT "identical" to
Figure 2
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:47:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:50:47 PM UTC-6, Dono. misrepresented:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
a crank, you are a crook as well.
Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
Crooked Crank
Dono, you demonstrate yourself to be a rank liar who doesn't read
the text and misrepresents the argument.
“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain
Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II".
Obviously, Figure 4 is NOT "identical" to Figure 2
Crooked crank
Actually, it IS.
As you have done in the past, you , in true crank fashion, deny the
sleigh of hands that you are trying.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:33:17 PM UTC-6, Dono. maligned:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:47:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:50:47 PM UTC-6, Dono. misrepresented:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:45:07 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:30:20 PM UTC-6, Dono. fooled himself:
Right from the very beginning, look at your Fig 2. Adding two "participants"
as you call them doesn't change anything, A still receives the answer before
he sent the initial message. Clear case of causality violation. You are not only
a crank, you are a crook as well.
Figures 1 and 2 show the CONVENTIONAL viewpoint,
Crooked Crank
Dono, you demonstrate yourself to be a rank liar who doesn't read
the text and misrepresents the argument.
“A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.”
– Mark Twain
Fig2 is identical to figs 4,5 in your pompous "Method II".
Obviously, Figure 4 is NOT "identical" to Figure 2
Crooked crank
Actually, it IS.I just showed that they were different,
(10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
frames in the middle of solving the problem.
Figures 4 and 5 in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of simultaneity.
THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation.
The moral is to
stay in ONE frame and solve the problem.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:12:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:physicists who claim differently? These actual physicists have written tons of textbooks and written tons of actual research papers. Why don't you read what the experts have written?
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:29:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:Radwan Kassir is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials whatsoever in relativity. He may be a terrific mechanical engineer but he is lousy at relativity. Why would you seek evidence from a mechanical engineer when there are umpteen actual
Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
here who think the exact same way as you do! You guys should form a club and have a meeting where you can all rant and rave at mainstream physics! I'm pretty sure that Woz would be glad to host an event in his basement!Obviously, you don't know $hit about relativity and are apparently quite proud of the fact that your huge brain can figure all of this out without *ever* having read even a single textbook! Amazing! Also, doubly amazing is that you have many clones
Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e. the
diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
because light's speed is constant.
An image from a relativistic approach exists insofar as "behind the wavefront",
then as passing the last look and the look back, as that the look back,
is "reverse angle", so the rear-view would only see if proceeding on the track the image came from, or as what image arrives in space otherwise
as that it would go out of perspective, which would appear as having shrunk,
but shrinking while it's observed, vanishing when it's not.
I.e., something approaching directly and also meeting directly, is visible coming and going, while not directly, it's only visible where it was,
as when the image arrives as when it was emitted.
Loosely, ....When watching, it's motion and in motion.
First, when talking about an irrational claim, is to make the case,
that "irrational", is about the "rational". Here, "rational" is two
things: it's both the completion of the reasoning, and, the completion
of never being irrational, the rational. So, "relativity's most irrational", claim, would have to be so minimally irrational or directly rational,
as what's never exercised irrational, is "irrational roots in relativity, are space and time units, their roots and rational roots and irrational roots".
This is that "linear keeps in rational roots, irrational roots are also called non-linearities".
Then, insofar as an irrational claim, then is for "what claim of Relativity actually
is reasonably or reasonatingly irrational, claim that if irrational at all goes with it,
other claims".
I.e., relativity has an "ideal" "claim of irrationality", a guarantee of the guarantee's of its reasonings, that "if irrational at all falls down all roots",
changing "confusion about everything to do with science, or here relativity, where I can't axiomatize integrable my integrand, that I do, what the guarantees of non-confusion, mean in the applied, and finally to the direct action, usually relativity's first effect, effects in light.
Then "look" is to effect perspective, and "watch" is to effect perspective, that image is reflectively being present in the perspective, that "motion" and "motion in real-time", is that at any instant, the light diffuses, including shine.
Clearly it's galilean as a "to light speed impulse", explaining for example chrome effects,
reflections and that in effect mirrors, where the light is reflected, participate with
the other observable incident rays at that location, going out, as reflections of sources
make for that "under the eclipse the leaves of the tree have fringes in their shadow",
that that moment of the focus, is that "look" is an effect of focus, that each location
has only one "look" at a time, and is watching what it's looking at, or looking.
I.e. "it's galilean to an infinite speed impulse, including a light speed impulse",
making "thus effectively there are no mirrors between any two points in space".
Then under "irrational roots" there finding either side "overcomplete" that not
having that, property of mutual completion, it's called "Dirichlet" and "irrational roots"
where "Dirichlet is rationals 1 irrationals 0" that "a Dirichlet function is about any
function that density properties in completion are the same everywhere, but it's
exactly two complementary domains only denseness properties and one 1 the other 0".
Or, "relativity's most irrational claim" is then "for Einstein either SR or GR, here it
is that special relativity's most irrational claim, is that light that went one meter,
did not also go less than one meter with any object in the same 1 meter or it
over 1 second".
Then, "restoring relativity's most irrational claim to a contrivance of overcompleteness,
a usual property guaranteeing what we have adds up, that light's speed is a constant
and invariant, that then it's glow and shine, the optical and geometric".
Light is always incident from all angles.
The scale of the resolution of an image, here is what it means science has achieved "20 orders
of magnitude resolution" and all the way to atomic scale "25 orders of magnitude resolution",
the entire body of observability, in the micro is micro-optical and micro-geometric, and in
the macro is macro-optical and macro-geometric, and in the meso- is optical and geometric.
So, here I have even put the needle in "I won't even hear nonsense about relativity at all",
"it's harder to actually of course validate special relativity experimentally", i.e. that point
being that of course as far as I can tell, every experience I've ever had is explained quite
well, my interpretation of having "researched special relativity" and "resolved relativity
in foundations, physics", the point being that by being academic and making an apologetics
first, then as it goes along I just point to the entire apologetics, mathematical foundations,
coming up to physical foundations, of bringing that along and bringing one along, an
entire canon and an apologetics that for "Relativity: the entire discussion and Einstein's
theories thereon, with all respects to theories real physics", that making arguments in
relativity always explaining "the light wasn't there", it's that special relativity is given
the terms in the units, and dimensionless, about why "according to SI's units its these
necessary formalisms in the Special Relativity all what may apply", is that then for
example "wherever it falls out or even loosens in contraction, SR has no irrational
claim in it, only any mistaken derivations after SR and other units, then also and
especially: that SR's reflection and imaging optical and geometric the light-like,
is built as continuity laws when not invariances, any invariance that is undercomplete".
Then this is that "any conservation law is two conservation laws, one of it".
And they have one continuity law, which least action in theory is time, t.
"Relativity's most irrational claim: SR's, that things don't move, under roots
building image, as so for each bundle of roots, that parallel transport is the entire picture, what under optical and gometric terms is only one point image, also only one-sided".
Think of perspective as looking from infinitely far away, it's called 2-D perspective.
This way mentally you reconstruct what you're seeing besides what's in front of the eyes -
also it's the model construct in space terms which are of course equivalent: one mental drawing.
The point is being that for Einstein and "SR or GR themselves or both",
is that GR changes in the future, while SR is from the past, so having SR
in front, is corresponding to the contents, which in imaging are free".
So, one must separate "SR and GR" or "GR, then SR", and these days enough it's "why yes my units are classical but SR will relativize them, SR is then say
STR and then GTR" and as Einstein's "SR, then GR, called STR then GTR". There's though that STR-arians say as GR then "GTR...", but it is though, "ah but now, my old GR is already Einstein's new old GR and already old SR's GTR to SR", so in this manner it's still SR and GR to "according to the units",
that into STR are "these are our units..." then as "then it's one of Einstein's
'either SR, _or_ GR_", simply gently factoring Einstein's "SR" and "GR" among
the other resulting constructs, as of course they go together in usual boost addition, what are frames the entire frame.
It's not irrational, though, both Special Relativity and General Relativity of course
have a no-nonsense theory, which are quite true and absolutely so in all respects.
So, any "irrational claim" about relativity must have some "how irrational is it"
and "how is it irrational", then there's "that's obviously irrational", or, "our knowledge of the theory really ends here, picking one or the other of the SR or GR because I don't have both, is that SR at least is computed always
as constant velocity, because everything else in the universe is moving.
"Light never moves: only glows and goes away."
Light Speed Rest Frame theory <-> Glow Speed Rest Frame theory
Then, rays over time, helps establish it's a continuous theory.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:18:37 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:02:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
....
I just showed that they were different,
Crooked crankLet's lose the pejoratives, Dono. That's #1 on Sagan's baloney detection kit of things NOT to do in a debate:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:02:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
....
I just showed that they were different,
Crooked crank
You are trying to change the outcome of an experiment by adding observers, this is a typical crank idea. You have been trying this from the very beginning
only to get slapped around.
(10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching frames in the middle of solving the problem.
Crooked crank,
You cannot remove the causality violation by switching frames.
Figures 4 and 5 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two
frames disagree with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of simultaneity.
Crooked crank,
You cannot remove the causality violation by switching frames.
You cannot change the outcome of an experiment (the presence of the
causality violation) by switching frames.
THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation.
In the classical (as in non-crank) explanation of the "relativistic anti- telephone", no one is switching any frames.
The causality violation is clearly present in Fig 1.
So, whatever handwaving you are trying, it is just crank crap.
The moral is to stay in ONE frame and solve the problem.
Classical explanations (as in the original one by Tolman) STAY in one frame.
Tolman, unlike you was not a crooked crank.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:18:37 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:02:32 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
....
I just showed that they were different,
Crooked crankLet's lose the pejoratives, Dono.
four observers are commonly employed in tachyon discussions:
Crooked crank,No, Dono. A "crank" is someone that adheres to an idea in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is false.
Your assertion that I'm trying to pull a fast one by adding
observers is unfounded.
You cannot remove the causality violation by switching frames.
You cannot change the outcome of an experiment (the presence of the causality violation) by switching frames.Sure you can:
"An extremely important strategy in solving relativity problems is to plant yourself in a frame and stay there. The only thoughts running through your head
should be what you observe. That is, don’t try to use reasoning along the lines
of, 'Well, the person I’m looking at in this other frame sees such-and-such.'
This will almost certainly cause an error somewhere along the way, because you
will inevitably end up writing down an equation that combines quantities that
are measured in different frames, which is a no-no. -- David Morin, "Introduction
to Classical Mechanics," p. 522.
In the classical (as in non-crank) explanation of the "relativistic anti- telephone", no one is switching any frames.It's subtle, but yes, they are, Dono.
You have gone off the deep end , Gary.Classical explanations (as in the original one by Tolman) STAY in one frame.No, they don't, Dono.
Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate this: the arrows with a question mark are from the other frame's perspective and cannot be done without switching frames.
Tolman, unlike you was not a crooked crank.No, but he was wrong because he switched frames in the middle of trying to solve the problem. Relativity of simultaneity bit him in rear.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:19:45 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
[...]
I gave Dono a chance to present reasoned arguments against
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I even provided a list of
possible points for discussion.
[...]
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:19:45 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
[...]
I gave Dono a chance to present reasoned arguments against
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I even provided a list of
possible points for discussion. Unfortunately, he continues to
rant and rave like an unhinged fanatic, making assertions that
I'm claiming exactly the opposite of what I've written.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I gave Dono a chance to present reasoned arguments against
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I even provided a list of
possible points for discussion.
All your points have been proven to be the idiocies of a hardened crank
You will go to your grave defending your crackpottery. Keep it up (the entertainment, I mean)
On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically slow
down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different rates. You
can't have it both ways. [...]
Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the >clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.
This is no different from two sides of a triangle having
a different total path length than the third side.
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:98587af2-de8d-4a90...@googlegroups.com...
SR holds that there is an entity "space-time" that is measured by different observers with rulers and clocks. "space-time" is an
invariant.
That is, in this context there is an entity "time" that is measured by clocks.
There is also rulers which measure the space part. You seem to be
ignoring that.
Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.
Not really. Clocks measure space, too:
I have specifically explained in detail that clocks read differently and
not
unique, and why they do. In contrast, you are just blabbering.
Pot, kettle, black. But if different observers read different values for
the
same clock, your argument that "clocks read differently" cannot be used
to claim "clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time ("space-
time") at different rates."
Another observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't say the moving clock is running slow at some specific rate.
Strawman. I never made that claim.
SR does, and it's unavoidable. You look at a subset of the phenomenon and >believe you have the whole thing figured out.
Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong
(Adams
prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/
Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
Time into video 0:31 :
"...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of nature...?"
Time into video 19:30 :
"... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call
the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe…
and
the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into
little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these
bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the
same
is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."
Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.
QF are "background fields".
You seem to be dismissing the most accurate theory we have to describe
one domain of reality.
It means that there is an invariant or absolute object of reality that is
fixed in 4 dimensions. Its called the "Block Universe"
I don't believe in the block universe. You shouldn't either.
https://www.realclearscience.com/2018/09/03/the_block_universe_theory_explained_282664.html
Observers take "different paths in space-time". That's why clocks and lengths, apparently, read differently, in SR, not because rules and
clocks change how they record events.
you might get less confused about SR.
I have a pretty good handle on SR mate.
So you deleted the references to proper time and coordinate time. How
come?
Indeed, here is what is one of the few actually correct accounts of the
Twins Paradox that doesn't use acceleration or frame switching.
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
I think you disparage some perfectly valid explanations. I've thought
a lot about the TP in the past and have no need to revisit it.
I am also bit of a dab hand at GR, here's my derivation of the Riemann
Curvature Tensor....
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/riemann/riemann.xht
You seem to have good handle on tensor calculus. I'm impressed.
This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and
length.
No problem, we have those.
Unfortunately, we don't have them independently.
Yes, we do. We had length, time and mass standards, surely you know the >history of the meter:
https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/meter
as well as time and mass.
One can only make consistent choices, from many consistent choices.
To verify the SOL for another inertial system, one needs to
independently
measure both the SOL and the TIME in that inertial system. This is impossible.
Dead wrong, Kevin. The MMX used the same equipment in different (approximately) inertial frames to measure the SoL. Admittedly, the measurements were performed in air and had deleterious effects, but
LLR experiments are consistent with the SoL not being dependent on
the motion of the mirror on the moon.
Oh dear... None of this has any relevance to the issue. The observer and
observed are traveling in the MMX at the *same* speed. dah... There is no
relative speed for their to be measuring clocks from different points of
view. Indeed, the MMX can be explained simply by assuming photons.
You just don't understand the point.
Ah, but I do understand. And the MMX moved into different inertial frames
as the earth turned, so your requirement was met without reference to time.
The frequency of a tuned circuit, whether it be tank, crystal or atomic, >>doesn't
change in different frames when measured in that frame.
Describe how a *non* moving observer actually *measures* the *proper*
time
that a *moving* observer experiences.
A "moving" observer can consider himself to be stationary, so he can refer
to
the time standard he carries with him.
How does one actually know what the clock tick rates are of the moving
observer, from their point of view, if when the non moving observer
measures
it, the ticks are actually measured to run slow.?
Because movement is relative -- Duh! The "one" is moving relative to the >"moving one"
Suppose the measurements of the moving clock are the actually reality.
That
moving clocks *physically* run slow.
Why would I imagine such nonsense?
One has to use the axioms of relativity to *assume* that the moving clock
ticks at the same rate.
Nope, I KNOW that they do because I'm always moving at different rates.
As has LET, and any other that simply states that there is a physical
background that time and space emerged from. Sure, the Lorentz ether is
clearly wrong.
The reason why the SR *interpretation* of the LT is not tenable, is here:
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html
Pardon me if I don't go there.
Hint: in a true empty universe, there are no rulers and clocks, thus its
impossible for any physical property such as an invariant *physical* SOL
to
exist. SR requires it does.
There is no such thing as a "true empty universe" so the point is moot.
We haven't discovered everything yet.
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:8af2a83f-6372-4b83...@googlegroups.com...
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:33:57 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.
Not really. Clocks measure space, too:
Only if one *assume*s that a speed, such as c, is valid. c can only be verified as valid when referred back to clocks. Its circular.
I have specifically explained in detail that clocks read differently
and not unique, and why they do. In contrast, you are just blabbering.
Pot, kettle, black. But if different observers read different values for the same clock, your argument that "clocks read differently" cannot be
used to claim "clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time ("space-time") at different rates."
I don't understand your point.
I am, of course, simplifying the issue for the discussion.
Because of the circularity the the POR and SOL, there are actually an infinite number of ways of assigning how the clocks read different. They can be a mix of clocks slowing down and time travel.
This is a complication not relevant for the discussion.
Another observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't
say the moving clock is running slow at some specific rate.
Strawman. I never made that claim.
SR does, and it's unavoidable. You look at a subset of the phenomenon and believe you have the whole thing figured out.
I don't understand you language. To be clear. I never made the claim that SR states that moving clocks run slow
SR most certainly does not claim that moving clocks run slow. Is your claim that SR says they do?
SR claims that clocks "take different paths in space-time", always.
Time dilation is at the level of "optical illusion" in SR. its an "as if" and never physically true.
"... so there is spread something throughout this room, something
we call the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire
universe… > >> and the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum
mechanics... and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."
Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.
QF are "background fields".
You seem to be dismissing the most accurate theory we have to describe
one domain of reality.
Nope. I am dismissing the name. A QF is an ether.
It means that there is an invariant or absolute object of reality that is
fixed in 4 dimensions. Its called the "Block Universe"
I don't believe in the block universe. You shouldn't either.
Its impossible to accept the SR interpretation without the BU.
However, the Block Universe can be proven to be a direct
consequence of the SR interpretation of the LT. Its trivially obvious.
One 3rd party argument is here:
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf
As I noted prior, its a position held by Lee Smolin.
I have a pretty good handle on SR mate.
So you deleted the references to proper time and coordinate time. How come?
Its not relevant. Many get way, way confused on the difference between coordinate systems and reference frames and thus conflate them. Einstein was quite confused on this, using the terms interchangeably.
Coordinate systems, by definition, have no effect of any physical results whatsoever. They are just a change of variables. One has a function, and its tautological inverse function to swap coordinates back and forth.
The point of the Lorentz Transform is that it is a *frame* transform that uses coordinates simply for convenience.
A coordinate transform cannot make clocks read different on travel through different paths.
The LT represents a *frame* transform that does allow for clocks to read different. The GT represents a frame transform that does not allow for clocks to read different. The coordinate systems used for a universe satisfying the LT of GT are irrelevant. The physical difference between LT frames and GT frames are very relevant.
If the coordinate system is locked to the frame, then one may analyse on an "as if" basis.
The point is that a rotating coordinate system cannot generate effective forces in an inertial reference frame, it only makes it more difficult to mathematically deal with, so one don't usually do it.
Thus when terms like "coordinate time" are mentioned, I roll my eyes.
Indeed, here is what is one of the few actually correct accounts of the Twins Paradox that doesn't use acceleration or frame switching.
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
I think you disparage some perfectly valid explanations. I've thought
a lot about the TP in the past and have no need to revisit it.
If acceleration was actually required to explain the TP, SR would be false. Thus, explanations claiming that acceleration are required, should be disparaged.
I am also bit of a dab hand at GR, here's my derivation of the Riemann Curvature Tensor....
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/riemann/riemann.xht
You seem to have good handle on tensor calculus. I'm impressed.
Its a hobby. I have a passing knowledge. My interest is in the fundamentals.
This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and length.
No problem, we have those.
Unfortunately, we don't have them independently.
Yes, we do. We had length, time and mass standards, surely you know the history of the meter:
Nope. If both length and clock rates have the same function of motion, it all cancels out.
Its impossible to independently define X, T and c. This is obvious.
Nature can be more subtle than anticipated.
The MMX used the same equipment in different (approximately)
inertial frames to measure the SoL. Admittedly, the
measurements were performed in air and had deleterious effects, but LLR experiments are consistent with the SoL not being dependent on
the motion of the mirror on the moon.
Oh dear... None of this has any relevance to the issue. The observer and observed are traveling in the MMX at the *same* speed. dah... There is no
relative speed for their to be measuring clocks from different points of view. Indeed, the MMX can be explained simply by assuming photons.
You just don't understand the point.
Ah, but I do understand. And the MMX moved into different inertial frames as the earth turned, so your requirement was met without reference to time.
Oh dear.... interference fringes are dependant on l, c and t
hint c=l/t
You seem to miss the point that it is already accepted by mainstream physics that LET IS a valid mathematical explanation of the the LT, and hence, with the additional assumption, that the LT is universal, all of the results of SR, including for example, the Dirac Equation are reproduced.
The reason LET works is precisely because of the circularities in the POR and POR wit regard to X, T and c
One doesn't have to agree that LET is actually true, however you claim that there is no flexibility in how X, T and c interact is a claim that is already proven to be false.
The frequency of a tuned circuit, whether it be tank, crystal or atomic, doesn't change in different frames when measured in that frame.
Only if one assumes that the clocks don't change in their rates.
The clock is the only reference to time. Time and clocks are not, logically, the same. Clocks measure time.
How are you going to check that the rates of the clocks are not different?
Its a circular argument.
Describe how a *non* moving observer actually *measures* the *proper* time that a *moving* observer experiences.
A "moving" observer can consider himself to be stationary, so he can refer to the time standard he carries with him.
But he don't know that such a clock isn't ticking different because of his motion.
When he actually measures a clock in another system, it reads different, thus he should logically conclude that his clock has problems....
How does one actually know what the clock tick rates are of the moving observer, from their point of view, if when the non moving observer measures it, the ticks are actually measured to run slow.?
Because movement is relative -- Duh! The "one" is moving relative to the "moving one"
Oh dear.... you just don't get it.
When observers try and actually measure other clocks, they measure them as ticking different.
Thus they are quite entitled to conclude that clocks do physically depend on motion, thus contradicting the POR.
To save the POR one has to *assume* aspects of c, L and T
As I noted, SR is *only* a consistent interpretation of observations, it isn't the *only* consistent interpretation of observations.
Suppose the measurements of the moving clock are the actually reality. That moving clocks *physically* run slow.
Why would I imagine such nonsense?
There is nothing nonsensical about taking a view that when one actually measures the the frequency of moving clocks that they are truly physically running slow. Its the obvious 1st choice. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....
One need to apply the theory of SR to decide otherwise.
One has to use the axioms of relativity to *assume* that the moving clock
ticks at the same rate.
Nope, I KNOW that they do because I'm always moving at different rates.
Nope. Prove that clocks tick at the same rate when in motion. The direct measurement of inertial clocks say they don't. Its the quacks like a duck thing.
Unfortunately, those stuck in a circular argument loop often don't know. Its the how "the the bible is proven to be the word of god because the bible says its the word of god" fallacy deludes many.
If all processes go in step on motion, no one would be the wiser. its subtle, its why many have missed it, which has led to truly magical thinking.
As has LET, and any other that simply states that there is a physical background that time and space emerged from. Sure, the Lorentz ether is clearly wrong.
The reason why the SR *interpretation* of the LT is not tenable, is here:
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html
Pardon me if I don't go there.
You should, it avoids one believing in magic.
Hint: in a true empty universe, there are no rulers and clocks, thus its impossible for any physical property such as an invariant *physical* SOL to exist. SR requires it does.
There is no such thing as a "true empty universe" so the point is moot.
We haven't discovered everything yet.
The concept is of major importance. It's why SR works.
Straight lines, X, T and c cannot exist in a truly empty universe. The fact that they do in this universe, says its not empty.
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html
When you understand this, you will understand why Lee Smolin stated that:
"...the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end"
SR was invented before QFT existed. It ignored fields as a mechanism as to how it could work because it had no idea how in 1905. It did this by inventing the "as if" "space-time" *model*.
The SR model is physically nonsense. Its view of time and space, is physically wrong. Space and time must be an aspect of real physical processes of real physical objects.
Sure, physically nonsense descriptions can be very useful. The entire field of analog circuit design uses such false ideas, yet create real products.
-- Kevin Aylward
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 3:43:38 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:8af2a83f-6372-4b83...@googlegroups.com...
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:33:57 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.
Not really. Clocks measure space, too:
Only if one *assume*s that a speed, such as c, is valid. c can only be verified as valid when referred back to clocks. Its circular.Kevin, are you trying to get me involved in another interminably-long discussion? I don't like it. But what the hey.
One need not assume that there is a speed as c: It can be done with
neither clocks nor rulers. Can you figure out how?
Hint: you need clocks and rulers to measure the value, but not to
measure its existence.
50% the "normal rate, the other says it's running at 80% of the normal rate. Also, two observers in relative motion measure the other's clock as running slow.
On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 03:18:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 3:43:38 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:8af2a83f-6372-4b83...@googlegroups.com...
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:33:57 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.
Not really. Clocks measure space, too:
Only if one *assume*s that a speed, such as c, is valid. c can only be verified as valid when referred back to clocks. Its circular.Kevin, are you trying to get me involved in another interminably-long discussion? I don't like it. But what the hey.
One need not assume that there is a speed as c: It can be done with neither clocks nor rulers. Can you figure out how?
Hint: you need clocks and rulers to measure the value, but not toYou also need to deeply believe, that when clocks don't show
measure its existence.
what you want them to - they can't be real.
You have more than one observer. One observer says the clock is running
50% the "normal rate, the other says it's running at 80% of the normal rate.Fortunately, we have GPS now, so we can be completely
Also, two observers in relative motion measure the other's clock as running
slow.
sure that the mumble of your bunch of idiots has nothing
in common with the real clocks, the real observers or real
anything.
Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time ("space-time") at different rates.
An odometer reads different going from London to Edinburgh either because it takes a different path OR ...
Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space. If clocks read differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks,
thus space is not relevant.
On October 23, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space. If clocks read differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks, thus space is not relevant.
******************************************** https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
"The times in different frames are different because time in frames is dependent on
distance as well as time of other frames. This changes the distances that the traveller
measures from that which the stay at home twin measures. The fact that frame times
depend on distance is typically ignored." ********************************************
Good job!
PS I refer you to Orwell's "doublethink"
--
Rich
The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter distance.
On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter distance.
No, he doesn't.
Your bunch of idiots has fabricated that.
Anyone can check GPS, no real observer is going to apply
your mad, primitive schema.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:35:15 AM UTC-6, Mad Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter distance.
No, he doesn't.Mad hatter Maciej spends his time submerged in a river in Africa.
“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR,
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:35:15 AM UTC-6, Mad Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
distance.
No, he doesn't.
Mad hatter Maciej spends his time submerged in a river in Africa.
Poor fanatic idiot Gary is denying that GPS clocks
are real, because they don't fit the "description of
reality" he's deeply believing.
Like denying that GPS clocks are real, because they don't
fit some "description of reality" announced by an insane
crazie.
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR,
And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
the correct state.
On October 23, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space. If clocks
read
differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks, thus space is not relevant.
********************************************
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
"The times in different frames are different because time in frames is********************************************
dependent on
distance as well as time of other frames. This changes the distances that
the traveller
measures from that which the stay at home twin measures. The fact that
frame times
depend on distance is typically ignored."
Good job!
PS I refer you to Orwell's "doublethink"
--
Rich
The traveller measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter >distance.
Kevin typically ignores this.
The distance is shorter because of the relativity of
simultaneity.
Distance is measured by noting the starting point and the ending
point *at the same time*. The "same time" is different in different
frames. Time is
the key factor in length contraction AND time dilation.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:50:08 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:35:15 AM UTC-6, Mad Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
distance.
No, he doesn't.
Mad hatter Maciej spends his time submerged in a river in Africa.
Poor fanatic idiot Gary is denying that GPS clocksMad-hatter Maciej is a liar.
are real, because they don't fit the "description of
reality" he's deeply believing.
Like denying that GPS clocks are real, because they don'tI'm not denying any such thing.
fit some "description of reality" announced by an insane
crazie.
And for some hours or days things were matching the mumbleLying isn't covered by deleting facts.
of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
the correct state.
if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR,
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:b1e207c9-86cb-4b02...@googlegroups.com...
The traveller measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter distance. Kevin typically ignores this.
What are you babbling on about?
I explain in full detail in my TP calculation that the traveller measures a shorter distance for himself, and that the stay at home also agrees that the traveller distance is shorter.
I use whatever the LT spits out for the times and distances.
Sure, I sometimes might be a tad brief in my prose...
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
The distance is shorter because of the relativity of simultaneity.
"relativity of simultaneity" is code for "the front and back end of the rod are at different points in time", however time travel makes people sound like nutjobs, so its usually avoided.
The problem is that many are scared shitless to actually state the elephant in the room.
That is, what is the only rational physical interpretation of the SR model of the LT?
Its time travel in a block universe.
The way one lives in denial of this, is to persist in the "path in space-time" euphuism and simply refuse to acknowledge what that actually means.
Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now get this, represents *time*. A length in the time axis physically means going at different rates, say 100sec/sec. Its the only way to interpret a "length" in time. This is the bit Tom Roberts just don't get. I understand his viewpoint, unfortunately, he don't understand what time actually is.
One covers more or less of another's time, in their own time. Thus, one covers time at different rates.
See below on "time represents a real physical process" as clarification on this.
Distance is measured by noting the starting point and the ending
point *at the same time*. The "same time" is different in different frames. Time is the key factor in length contraction AND time dilation.
Sure.... absolutely...we agree.
The red herring in the TP is that the time difference occurs on a one way trip, and this can be checked by sending signals back and forth, thus no need to ever experience accelerations by going back. Return just doubles up the time.
Its how the LT has to work. Any observer has to agree on the physical results, without accelerations.
The problem with SR isn't the LT, and its base conclusions, its the interpretation of the LT.
We now [k]now that physical objects are excitations in a field. Its QFT. Thus
the universe absolutely does have background fields. They are ethers in all but name.
A truly empty universe cannot possible have any characteristics. Epsilon0 thus cannot possible exist, neither can c. This is truly obvious, unfortunately, many have been gaslighted into the delusion that nothing is something.
The only reason "c in vacuum" can exist, is if the vacuum isn't actually empty.
The basic flaw in the "space-time" view is that time represents a real physical process, thus space cannot be exchanged with time. Its not a kinematic effect. Its objects physically ageing.
Space:
Space is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real physical, measurable objects do not all merge into one object. It expresses the fact that there are discrete, separate objects that can be identified from other objects. Without individual physical objects, space does not exist. That is, “space” is how separation of physical objects is accounted
for.
Time:
Time is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real physical, separate measurable objects change their state such as position and momentum. If no individual mass-energy objects changes their state, including the quantum vacuum, time does not exist. That is, “time” is how
change of a physical object’s state is accounted for.
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html
Its real physical objects that create space and time, thus space-time" is physically wrong, and can only represent an "as-if".
SR is a blind behavioural mathematical model, that works, for the wrong reason.
One don't even need SR or LET to get to the basic equations.
Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other,
now get this, represents *time*.
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:yqidnSWeE7fNoqr4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com...
On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically
slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different
rates. You can't have it both ways. [...]
Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the
clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.
This is no different from two sides of a triangle having
a different total path length than the third side.
Nope. That's precisely what "travels through time at different rates
means". Its what actually *creates* the different path length.
Its why time in the LT has the gamma factor.
The "path length" can't change without travelling through "space-time",
that is "time", at different rates, by action of the gamma factor.
Your use of the word "path length" is just a meaningless word used to
avoid the fact that SR is time travel into the future.
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf - 3rd party account of the block universe
I explain in full detail in my TP calculation that the traveller measures a shorter distance for himself, and that the stay at home also agrees that theDoes the home twin agree? On what basis does he agree?
traveller distance is shorter.
On 10/31/2023 11:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR,
And for some hours or days things were matching the mumblePoor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
the correct state.
things exactly backwards.
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR,
And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
the correct state.
On 10/31/2023 11:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR,
And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
the correct state.
Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
things exactly backwards.
So maybe it's a form of dyslexia? I hadn't thought of that. Poor, poor Maciej!
Sorry to hear about your slip and fall. Did you at least put out one of those "Wet Floor" warning things so nobody else gets hurt?
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:32:22 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
On 10/31/2023 11:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR,
And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
the correct state.
Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states things exactly backwards.Wozzie wouldn't have done that. It makes him feel better when he watches someone else slips and falls, too.
So maybe it's a form of dyslexia? I hadn't thought of that. Poor, poor Maciej!
Sorry to hear about your slip and fall. Did you at least put out one of those "Wet Floor" warning things so nobody else gets hurt?
On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 17:32:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
things exactly backwards.
It's you, not me, stupid Mike.
On 11/1/2023 1:05 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 17:32:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
things exactly backwards.
It's you, not me, stupid Mike.See what I mean? Wozniak even gets who is confused backwards!
Professor of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
Time into video 0:31 :
"...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of nature...?"
"... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe… and
the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron...."
Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.
You are another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.***************************
You have a pop media concept of SR, yet believe that you have it sussed.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:12:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:physicists who claim differently? These actual physicists have written tons of textbooks and written tons of actual research papers. Why don't you read what the experts have written?
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:29:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:Radwan Kassir is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials whatsoever in relativity. He may be a terrific mechanical engineer but he is lousy at relativity. Why would you seek evidence from a mechanical engineer when there are umpteen actual
Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
here who think the exact same way as you do! You guys should form a club and have a meeting where you can all rant and rave at mainstream physics! I'm pretty sure that Woz would be glad to host an event in his basement!Obviously, you don't know $hit about relativity and are apparently quite proud of the fact that your huge brain can figure all of this out without *ever* having read even a single textbook! Amazing! Also, doubly amazing is that you have many clones
Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e. the
diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
because light's speed is constant.
An image from a relativistic approach exists insofar as "behind the wavefront",
then as passing the last look and the look back, as that the look back,
is "reverse angle", so the rear-view would only see if proceeding on the track the image came from, or as what image arrives in space otherwise
as that it would go out of perspective, which would appear as having shrunk,
but shrinking while it's observed, vanishing when it's not.
I.e., something approaching directly and also meeting directly, is visible coming and going, while not directly, it's only visible where it was,
as when the image arrives as when it was emitted.
Loosely, ....When watching, it's motion and in motion.
First, when talking about an irrational claim, is to make the case,
that "irrational", is about the "rational". Here, "rational" is two
things: it's both the completion of the reasoning, and, the completion
of never being irrational, the rational. So, "relativity's most irrational", claim, would have to be so minimally irrational or directly rational,
as what's never exercised irrational, is "irrational roots in relativity, are space and time units, their roots and rational roots and irrational roots".
This is that "linear keeps in rational roots, irrational roots are also called non-linearities".
Then, insofar as an irrational claim, then is for "what claim of Relativity actually
is reasonably or reasonatingly irrational, claim that if irrational at all goes with it,
other claims".
I.e., relativity has an "ideal" "claim of irrationality", a guarantee of the guarantee's of its reasonings, that "if irrational at all falls down all roots",
changing "confusion about everything to do with science, or here relativity, where I can't axiomatize integrable my integrand, that I do, what the guarantees of non-confusion, mean in the applied, and finally to the direct action, usually relativity's first effect, effects in light.
Then "look" is to effect perspective, and "watch" is to effect perspective, that image is reflectively being present in the perspective, that "motion" and "motion in real-time", is that at any instant, the light diffuses, including shine.
Clearly it's galilean as a "to light speed impulse", explaining for example chrome effects,
reflections and that in effect mirrors, where the light is reflected, participate with
the other observable incident rays at that location, going out, as reflections of sources
make for that "under the eclipse the leaves of the tree have fringes in their shadow",
that that moment of the focus, is that "look" is an effect of focus, that each location
has only one "look" at a time, and is watching what it's looking at, or looking.
I.e. "it's galilean to an infinite speed impulse, including a light speed impulse",
making "thus effectively there are no mirrors between any two points in space".
Then under "irrational roots" there finding either side "overcomplete" that not
having that, property of mutual completion, it's called "Dirichlet" and "irrational roots"
where "Dirichlet is rationals 1 irrationals 0" that "a Dirichlet function is about any
function that density properties in completion are the same everywhere, but it's
exactly two complementary domains only denseness properties and one 1 the other 0".
Or, "relativity's most irrational claim" is then "for Einstein either SR or GR, here it
is that special relativity's most irrational claim, is that light that went one meter,
did not also go less than one meter with any object in the same 1 meter or it
over 1 second".
Then, "restoring relativity's most irrational claim to a contrivance of overcompleteness,
a usual property guaranteeing what we have adds up, that light's speed is a constant
and invariant, that then it's glow and shine, the optical and geometric".
Light is always incident from all angles.
The scale of the resolution of an image, here is what it means science has achieved "20 orders
of magnitude resolution" and all the way to atomic scale "25 orders of magnitude resolution",
the entire body of observability, in the micro is micro-optical and micro-geometric, and in
the macro is macro-optical and macro-geometric, and in the meso- is optical and geometric.
So, here I have even put the needle in "I won't even hear nonsense about relativity at all",
"it's harder to actually of course validate special relativity experimentally", i.e. that point
being that of course as far as I can tell, every experience I've ever had is explained quite
well, my interpretation of having "researched special relativity" and "resolved relativity
in foundations, physics", the point being that by being academic and making an apologetics
first, then as it goes along I just point to the entire apologetics, mathematical foundations,
coming up to physical foundations, of bringing that along and bringing one along, an
entire canon and an apologetics that for "Relativity: the entire discussion and Einstein's
theories thereon, with all respects to theories real physics", that making arguments in
relativity always explaining "the light wasn't there", it's that special relativity is given
the terms in the units, and dimensionless, about why "according to SI's units its these
necessary formalisms in the Special Relativity all what may apply", is that then for
example "wherever it falls out or even loosens in contraction, SR has no irrational
claim in it, only any mistaken derivations after SR and other units, then also and
especially: that SR's reflection and imaging optical and geometric the light-like,
is built as continuity laws when not invariances, any invariance that is undercomplete".
Then this is that "any conservation law is two conservation laws, one of it".
And they have one continuity law, which least action in theory is time, t.
"Relativity's most irrational claim: SR's, that things don't move, under roots
building image, as so for each bundle of roots, that parallel transport is the entire picture, what under optical and gometric terms is only one point image, also only one-sided".
Think of perspective as looking from infinitely far away, it's called 2-D perspective.
This way mentally you reconstruct what you're seeing besides what's in front of the eyes -
also it's the model construct in space terms which are of course equivalent: one mental drawing.
The point is being that for Einstein and "SR or GR themselves or both",
is that GR changes in the future, while SR is from the past, so having SR
in front, is corresponding to the contents, which in imaging are free".
So, one must separate "SR and GR" or "GR, then SR", and these days enough it's "why yes my units are classical but SR will relativize them, SR is then say
STR and then GTR" and as Einstein's "SR, then GR, called STR then GTR". There's though that STR-arians say as GR then "GTR...", but it is though, "ah but now, my old GR is already Einstein's new old GR and already old SR's GTR to SR", so in this manner it's still SR and GR to "according to the units",
that into STR are "these are our units..." then as "then it's one of Einstein's
'either SR, _or_ GR_", simply gently factoring Einstein's "SR" and "GR" among
the other resulting constructs, as of course they go together in usual boost addition, what are frames the entire frame.
It's not irrational, though, both Special Relativity and General Relativity of course
have a no-nonsense theory, which are quite true and absolutely so in all respects.
So, any "irrational claim" about relativity must have some "how irrational is it"
and "how is it irrational", then there's "that's obviously irrational", or, "our knowledge of the theory really ends here, picking one or the other of the SR or GR because I don't have both, is that SR at least is computed always
as constant velocity, because everything else in the universe is moving.
"Light never moves: only glows and goes away."
Light Speed Rest Frame theory <-> Glow Speed Rest Frame theory
Then, rays over time, helps establish it's a continuous theory.
On 10/31/23 2:10 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now
get this, represents *time*.
There's your mistake. The other axis represents time IN THE INERTIAL
FRAME IN WHICH THE DIAGRAM IS DRAWN.
But remember in SR, all inertial frames are equally valid....
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:11:06 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:b1e207c9-86cb-4b02...@googlegroups.com...
The traveller measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter distance. Kevin typically ignores this.
What are you babbling on about?
I explain in full detail in my TP calculation that the traveller measures
a
shorter distance for himself, and that the stay at home also agrees that
the
traveller distance is shorter.
Does the home twin agree? On what basis does he agree?
I use whatever the LT spits out for the times and distances.
Sure, I sometimes might be a tad brief in my prose...
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
The distance is shorter because of the relativity of simultaneity.
"relativity of simultaneity" is code for "the front and back end of the
rod
are at different points in time", however time travel makes people sound
like nutjobs, so its usually avoided.
There you go being "a tad brief" again :-) An observer ALWAYS measures
the front end and back end of the rod at the SAME time.
The way one lives in denial of this, is to persist in the "path in
space-time" euphuism and simply refuse to acknowledge what that actually
means.
Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now
get
this, represents *time*. A length in the time axis physically means going
at
different rates, say 100sec/sec. Its the only way to interpret a "length"
in
time. This is the bit Tom Roberts just don't get. I understand his
viewpoint, unfortunately, he don't understand what time actually is.
Nobody understands that. There are a lot of speculations, though. Joan >Vaccaro
has put her finger on the REAL elephant in the room: the fact that there
is, in
fact, an asymmetry between time and space.
One covers more or less of another's time, in their own time. Thus, one
covers time at different rates.
"covers" time? What does that mean? One always experiences time at one >second per second.
See below on "time represents a real physical process" as clarification on this.
Its how the LT has to work. Any observer has to agree on the physical
results, without accelerations.
Acceleration doesn't matter, although an argument using acceleration
yields the same results as non-accelerated approaches. So using
acceleration is not stupid.
The problem with SR isn't the LT, and its base conclusions, its the
interpretation of the LT.
We now [k]now that physical objects are excitations in a field. Its QFT.
Thus
the universe absolutely does have background fields. They are ethers in
all
but name.
A truly empty universe cannot possible have any characteristics. Epsilon0
thus cannot possible exist, neither can c. This is truly obvious,
unfortunately, many have been gaslighted into the delusion that nothing
is
something.
The only reason "c in vacuum" can exist, is if the vacuum isn't actually
empty.
The question you're not addressing is, "Can a volume of space be truly >empty?"
Space:
Space is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real
physical, measurable objects do not all merge into one object. It
expresses
the fact that there are discrete, separate objects that can be identified
from other objects. Without individual physical objects, space does not
exist. That is, “space” is how separation of physical objects is
accounted
for.
But does the ZPE count as "individual physical objects"?
One don't even need SR or LET to get to the basic equations.
What about the basic assumptions (postulates)? One must start with
those. SR has such which are observed behaviors of nature. If your >postulates aren't observables ... ?
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:yqidnSWeE7fNoqr4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com...
On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically slow
down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different rates. You
can't have it both ways. [...]
Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the
clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.
This is no different from two sides of a triangle having
a different total path length than the third side.
Nope. That's precisely what "travels through time at different rates >means". Its what actually *creates* the different path length.
Its why time in the LT has the gamma factor.
Hmmmm. So for a right triangle with sides along Cartesian x and y axes, the >hypotenuse "travels through y at a different rate [#]" -- have you ever
seen anyone make such a silly claim?
The "path length" can't change without travelling through "space-time", >that is "time", at different rates, by action of the gamma factor.
Except that every clock "travels through time" at 1 second per second. It
is only when you look at a clock from a different inertial frame, AND
FORGET THAT YOU ARE DOING SO, that you can deceive yourself like that.
Your use of the word "path length" is just a meaningless word used to
avoid the fact that SR is time travel into the future.
Nonsense. For a timelike path, its path length is well defined and equal to >the elapsed proper time of a clock that follows the path.
But yes, due to the way we humans perceive time, SR and GR model timelike >paths as necessarily future directed. Anything else would be instantly and >completely refuted by very basic observations of the world we inhabit. And
in accordance with myriad observations, SR and GR also model clocks
traveling between a given pair of endpoints along different paths as having >different path lengths (elapsed proper times) -- just like triangles on a >Euclidean plane.
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf - 3rd party account of the block universe
Did you even read the abstract???? -- it directly implies the universe
cannot be 3D, implying it must be (3+1)-D as in SR.
"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message news:b1e207c9-86cb-4b02...@googlegroups.com...
Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now
get
this, represents *time*. A length in the time axis physically means going
at
different rates, say 100sec/sec. Its the only way to interpret a "length"
in
time. This is the bit Tom Roberts just don't get. I understand his
viewpoint, unfortunately, he don't understand what time actually is.
Nobody understands that.
There are a lot of speculations, though. Joan Vaccaro
has put her finger on the REAL elephant in the room: the fact that there
is, in
fact, an asymmetry between time and space.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2015.0670 >https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04012
When any object in the universe, including the quantum vacuum,
changes its position, time has changed.
This is truly obvious.
If nothing changes position, somewhere, than time has stopped, that
is, don't exist
This includes Spin. There must be something internal that moves from
one position to another.
That's why something like String Theory must be correct. Internal
vibrations is the obvious solution.
All there is in the universe, are objects, that move. Period.
QFT with its "particles are excitations in a field" is an explicit declaration that there exists throughout the vacuum, a real physical substance.
Most are too $hit scared to state this because of all the historical
bad press on "Ether"
On 11/14/23 2:12 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
When any object in the universe, including the quantum vacuum, changes
its position, time has changed.
Tha vacuum, quantum or classical, hds no "position", and thus cannot
"change position".
This is truly obvious.
Only to people like you who reify their personal fantasies.
If nothing changes position, somewhere, than time has stopped, that is,
don't exist
Not in our best physical theories.
This includes Spin. There must be something internal that moves from one position to another.
That's why something like String Theory must be correct. Internal
vibrations is the obvious solution.
Only to people like you who reify their personal fantasies.
All there is in the universe, are objects, that move. Period.
Not in QFT. In QFT, all that exists are fields.
QFT with its "particles are excitations in a field" is an explicit
declaration that there exists throughout the vacuum, a real physical
substance.
Hmmm. This depends on unusual meanings of words.
Most are too $hit scared to state this because of all the historical bad
press on "Ether"
Not true. Physicists don't way that because in QFT it is not true. ALso >because the fields of QFT are not at all an "ether".
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:ud6cnZTsb9wrzMn4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com...
On 11/14/23 2:12 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
When any object in the universe, including the quantum vacuum,That vacuum, quantum or classical, has no "position", and thus cannot
changes its position, time has changed.
"change position".
Sure it does. if the quantum fields have no position, its impossible to
write f(x,t) to describe anything with referance to it.
This is truly obvious.Only to people like you who reify their personal fantasies.
Its true to anyone that don't believe in magic.
[... too much nonsense to be bothered with]
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 02:05:04 |
Calls: | 6,972 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,405 |
Messages: | 5,446,941 |