“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example. Let me, by way of interjection, refer to a very appropriate legend. Procrusteswas a celebrated legendary highwayman of Attica who tied his victims upon an iron bed and, as the case required, either stretched or cut off their legs to adapt them to its length. A Procrustean bed refers therefore to a theory to which facts are
“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example. Let me, by way of interjection, refer to a very appropriate legend. Procrusteswas a celebrated legendary highwayman of Attica who tied his victims upon an iron bed and, as the case required, either stretched or cut off their legs to adapt them to its length. A Procrustean bed refers therefore to a theory to which facts are
“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual
by an almost childish example. [...]
On 9/25/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:He did, but you are so anxious to dismiss it that you wouldn't even read an abstract: Light from two flashlights end to end move apart at 2c:
“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual
by an almost childish example. [...]
The author is an idiot. By not immediately following with the "almost childish example", they have lost all sensible readers who won't bother
to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant screed.
Note also that it is virtually certain that the author is wrong about
this claim, and they are most likely discussing their personal misconceptions rather than the actual theory. But as they did not
describe that "almost childish example" I cannot know for sure....
Tom Roberts
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
--
Rich
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
--
Rich
Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with
relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
center at the same time t = 1/c.
Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definition
of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that the
velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
with respect to the fixed stars.
However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c
since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon irrespective of relative inertial motion"
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/25/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual
by an almost childish example. [...]
The author is an idiot. By not immediately following with the "almost childish example", they have lost all sensible readers who won't bother
to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant screed.
Note also that it is virtually certain that the author is wrong about
this claim, and they are most likely discussing their personal misconceptions rather than the actual theory. But as they did not
describe that "almost childish example" I cannot know for sure....
Tom RobertsHe did, but you are so anxious to dismiss it that you wouldn't even read an abstract: Light from two flashlights end to end move apart at 2c:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Thank you, but there is no rational science forbidding speeds over the speed of light and no use for a Lorentz transformation.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
--
Rich
Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord withou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
center at the same time t = 1/c.
Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definitionSince no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
wrt p1.
both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that theOnly ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
with respect to the fixed stars.
at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed toRelativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon irrespective of relative inertial motion"
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
--
Rich
Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord withou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
center at the same time t = 1/c.
Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definitionSince no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
wrt p1.
both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that theOnly ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
with respect to the fixed stars.
at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so thisRelativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
irrespective of relative inertial motion"
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
Thank you, but there is no rational science forbidding speeds over the speed of light and no use for a Lorentz transformation.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
--
Rich
Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord withou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
center at the same time t = 1/c.
Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definitionSince no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
wrt p1.
both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that theOnly ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
with respect to the fixed stars.
at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so thisRelativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
irrespective of relative inertial motion"
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
Thank you, but there is no rational science forbidding speeds over the speed of light and no use for a Lorentz transformation.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer. Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative speeds of 3c. The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
--
Rich
Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord withou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
center at the same time t = 1/c.
Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definitionSince no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
wrt p1.
both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that theOnly ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
with respect to the fixed stars.
at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed toRelativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon irrespective of relative inertial motion"
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:physics is Galilean transformations. Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant. There are only sources and sinks. There is no need for the LT for balls or photons. You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
--
Rich
Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord withou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
center at the same time t = 1/c.
Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definitionSince no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
wrt p1.
both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that theOnly ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
with respect to the fixed stars.
at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so thisRelativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
irrespective of relative inertial motion"
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer. Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative speeds of 3c. The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
When the points of light A and B move
in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left and B to the
right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory
techniques, that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.
Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative
speeds of 3c.
The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is Galilean
transformations.
Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.
There are only sources and sinks.
There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.
You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.
Nothing in physics forbids this.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.
I appreciate the opportunity to see if relativity can defend itself from someone who will try to defend it by reasoning (in addition to the usual pooh-poohing of skepticism).Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relativeVacuous assertion.
speeds of 3c.
The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is GalileanRefuted assertion.
transformations.
Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
if you want to understand reality.
There are only sources and sinks.I am a source, you are a sink.
There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.
You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c.
Nothing in physics forbids this.Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)
I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
so here it comes right down your gullet:
From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
+u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:
u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c
As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c. Your appeal
to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.
On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:I have almost as high an estimate of you and relativity as you of me.
“The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
--
Rich
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.
Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relativeVacuous assertion.
speeds of 3c.
The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is GalileanRefuted assertion.
transformations.
Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
if you want to understand reality.
There are only sources and sinks.I am a source, you are a sink.
There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.
You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c.
Nothing in physics forbids this.Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)
I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
so here it comes right down your gullet:
From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
+u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:
u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c
As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c. Your appealI appreciate the opportunity to see if relativity can defend itself from someone who will try to defend it by reasoning (in addition to the usual pooh-poohing of skepticism).
to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.
The photons are two different IRFs. Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.
Anything can move faster than c relative to something else because relative speeds are additive.
u'= (-1 +1)/ (1 + 1/c^2)= 0
Yet the photons move apart at 2c.
The photons are two different IRFs.
Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.
Yet the photons move apart at 2c.
...Nothing can exceed c.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
...Nothing can exceed c.
I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go faster than c.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:44:14 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/25/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:He did, but you are so anxious to dismiss it that you wouldn't even read an abstract: Light from two flashlights end to end move apart at 2c:
“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of >>>> science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual
by an almost childish example. [...]
The author is an idiot. By not immediately following with the "almost
childish example", they have lost all sensible readers who won't bother
to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant screed.
Note also that it is virtually certain that the author is wrong about
this claim, and they are most likely discussing their personal
misconceptions rather than the actual theory. But as they did not
describe that "almost childish example" I cannot know for sure....
Tom Roberts
That's false. This mistake has been quite common in this over the years.
The only problem relativity (special) has is that its mathematical access barrier
is extremely low (less than Newtonian mechanics even because no calculus is needed). This attracts the obligatory hordes of Boeotians with the predictable
gobbledygook as the only result.
--
Jan
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.
Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relativeVacuous assertion.
speeds of 3c.
The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is GalileanRefuted assertion.
transformations.
Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
if you want to understand reality.
There are only sources and sinks.I am a source, you are a sink.
There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.
You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c.
Nothing in physics forbids this.Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)
I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
so here it comes right down your gullet:
From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
+u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:
u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c
As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c. Your appealI appreciate the opportunity to see if relativity can defend itself from someone who will try to defend it by reasoning (in addition to the usual pooh-poohing of skepticism).
to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.
The photons are two different IRFs. Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.
Anything can move faster than c relative to something else because relative speeds are additive.
u'= (-1 +1)/ (1 + 1/c^2)= 0
Yet the photons move apart at 2c.Yet neither photon ever exceeds c. Nothing can exceed c.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
...Nothing can exceed c.
I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go
faster than c.
Nothing with mass can exceed c...
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
...Nothing can exceed c.
I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go
faster than c.
Nothing with mass can exceed c...(I correct you only to get this thread above the sea of spamming foreign stupidity}
Nothing with mass can reach c.
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 14:36:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
...Nothing can exceed c.
I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go
faster than c.
Nothing with mass can exceed c...
(I correct you only to get this thread above the sea of spamming foreign stupidity}
Nothing with mass can reach c.
:) Learn your GR shit, poor halfbrain.
Nothing with mass can reach c.
:) Learn your GR shit, poor halfbrain.“The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
[...] The author is an idiot. By not immediately following withHe did, but you are so anxious to dismiss it that you wouldn't even
the "almost childish example", they have lost all sensible readers
who won't bother to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant
screed.
read an abstract:
Light from two flashlights end to end move apart at 2c:
"When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a
source S, A to the left and B to the right, we must conclude, using
the simplest accepted laboratory techniques, that the rate of
separation of these points is 2c.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!
Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.
Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relativeVacuous assertion.
speeds of 3c.
The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is GalileanRefuted assertion.
transformations.
Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
if you want to understand reality.
There are only sources and sinks.I am a source, you are a sink.
There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.
You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c.
Nothing in physics forbids this.Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)
I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
so here it comes right down your gullet:
From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
+u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:
u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c
As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c. Your appealI appreciate the opportunity to see if relativity can defend itself from someone who will try to defend it by reasoning (in addition to the usual pooh-poohing of skepticism).
to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.
The photons are two different IRFs. Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.
Anything can move faster than c relative to something else because relative speeds are additive.
u'= (-1 +1)/ (1 + 1/c^2)= 0
Yet the photons move apart at 2c.Yet neither photon ever exceeds c. Nothing can exceed c.
“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:16:18 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 14:36:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
...Nothing can exceed c.
I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go
faster than c.
Nothing with mass can exceed c...
(I correct you only to get this thread above the sea of spamming foreign stupidity}
Nothing with mass can reach c.
:) Learn your GR shit, poor halfbrain.“The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
-- Anonymous
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 313 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 47:19:15 |
Calls: | 6,994 |
Files: | 12,422 |
Messages: | 5,453,159 |