 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / November 2006relaTIvity doesn't fit
anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore time works against science, imagine a scientist comming with the real theory 100 years from now, they will not belive him because relativity has been undisputed 200 years etc if you can'd disproove relativity now, then forget it, later will be nearly impossible > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if you can'd disproove relativity now, then forget it, later will be > nearly impossible If you can't disprove it, then it must be a very good theory. > > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > If you can't disprove it, then it must be a very good theory. I don't understand what the big fuss is all about. If you are aware of the fact that all matter is in motion a " c " across Space-Time, then all the pieces fit together. A simple geometric analysis of the constant motion taking place within the four dimensional Space-Time, reveals the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, and the Lorentz Transformation equations. From there on, it simply points out how it is impossible to determine what direction one is traveling in within Space-Time, thus the true frame of being at spatial rest, is unidentifiable. And so " RELATIVITY " is born, and is misunderstood as being some kind of magic independent function. http://www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm ( + the next 4 pages. ) Read the above web site pages, and let's see if FWD is right. ( WARNING - Truth may be too simple to accept as truth ) THE_ONE | > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore | > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | > | If you can't disprove it, then it must be a very good theory. My theory is "Bright Green Flying Elephants Lay Eggs in Black Holes" It is a very good theory, you cannot disprove it. There is a hole in your logic I could drive a double decker bus through. | > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore | > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | > | If you can't disprove it, then it must be a very good theory. >My theory is "Bright Green Flying Elephants Lay Eggs in Black Holes" >It is a very good theory, you cannot disprove it. >There is a hole in your logic I could drive a double decker bus through. You been seeing the green elephants again? Tsk, tsk. I told you to lay off the booze. || > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore || > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | You been seeing the green elephants again? Tsk, tsk. I told you to lay off | the booze. If you can't disprove it, then it must be very good scotch. There is a hole in your logic I could sail the Titanic through. Aren't you too smart to be a common troll? | "Norman Bates" <nospam@gmail.com> wrote in message | news:1164273095.126374@vasbyt.isdsl.net... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | You been seeing the green elephants again? Tsk, tsk. I told you to lay off | the booze. >If you can't disprove it, then it must be very good scotch. >There is a hole in your logic I could sail the Titanic through. >Aren't you too smart to be a common troll? Hahaha. Thanks Androcles. I did say it in context with the prior post, but you are right, I should have thought about it first. Thanks for the lesson. Let me say this then: relativity makes perfect sense to me. I can dig the whole 'relative' thing with it's time dilation thing and the length contraction thing and the increase in mass thing, y'know..? Relativity is really cool man. But, like, I can't dig infinites and absolutes, man, those things really suck man. || "Norman Bates" <nospam@gmail.com> wrote in message || news:1164273095.126374@vasbyt.isdsl.net... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] | really cool man. But, like, I can't dig infinites and absolutes, man, those | things really suck man. Hahaha! "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity." - Albert Einstein. "if an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant source of light"--- yada yada yada --- "It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite intensity." - Albert Einstein. Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Aren't you too smart to be so obviously self-contradictory? Androcles | "Norman Bates" <nospam@gmail.com> wrote in message | news:1164288551.947965@vasbyt.isdsl.net... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] | really cool man. But, like, I can't dig infinites and absolutes, man, those | things really suck man. >Hahaha! >"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an >infinitely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >light must appear of infinite intensity." - Albert Einstein. >Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >Aren't you too smart to be so obviously self-contradictory? >Androcles Einstein used infinites and it might be a valid hypothetical abstraction, but I don't know of any infinites that occur in the physical world. Space is discreet in fact quantum geometry is discrete. (Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, page 131). We are pretty sure the universe is not infinite. Anyway, this is a complicated subject that has been thoroughly debated in the newsgroups by people far more qualified than myself, so I won't get into it. || "Norman Bates" <nospam@gmail.com> wrote in message || news:1164288551.947965@vasbyt.isdsl.net... [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] | debated in the newsgroups by people far more qualified than myself, so I | won't get into it. "We are pretty sure... " I'm glad I'm me and not "we". Aren't you too smart to be so obviously a sheep following the other sheep and bleating whatever they bleat? Have ewe been sniffing other "we's" arses again? Tsk, tsk. I told you to think. Androcles > I'm glad I'm me and not "we". So are we. Paul, one of us | > I'm glad I'm me and not "we". | | So are we. | | Paul, one of us sheep Androcles the wolf. > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if you can'd disproove relativity now, then forget it, later will be > nearly impossible Almost certainly you are asking the wrong question. Relativity probabaly isn't the kind of theory that you think it is. > > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Almost certainly you are asking the wrong question. Relativity probabaly > isn't the kind of theory that you think it is. in order to be certainly and wrong, it needs first and farmost be question, there is no any question in the post > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if you can'd disproove relativity now, then forget it, later will be > nearly impossible What kind of dressing would you like to add to that word salad? > > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What kind of dressing would you like to add to that word salad? you use words and say nothing let me see - relativity cant do quantum physics - relativity cant do nonlocality at very large scale - relativity cant do universal expansion constants nor whatever - relativity predict black holes, ergo singularities in our univers which are absurd - relativty is in conflict with very the basics of entropy, endless stories - relativity alow travel back in time which is absurd - relativity cant deal with probabilities, entangles, FTL speeds, EM, tidals etc etc > > > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > > > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - relativity cant do quantum physics Ever heard of quantum field theory? Incomplete and riddled with infinities, yes, but it's a start. > - relativity cant do nonlocality at very large scale Why would it want to? Relativity is based on local causality. > - relativity cant do universal expansion constants nor whatever Au contraire. Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology has enough flexibility to accomodate this. Apparently you do not understand it well enought to make a judgement. > - relativity predict black holes, ergo singularities in our univers > which are absurd Newtonian gravity has singularities also. > - relativty is in conflict with very the basics of entropy, endless > stories They're different concepts, but if you want to put together a relativistic theory of thermodynamics, you're welcome to it. Good luck! > - relativity alow travel back in time which is absurd Nobody ever said that. That's just plain wrong. > - relativity cant deal with probabilities, entangles, FTL speeds, EM, > tidals etc etc You're barking up the wrong tree here. Most of what you mention is covered by QM. But until someone comes up with a theory to unify the two, this is what we're stuck with. > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if you can'd disproove relativity now, then forget it, later will be > nearly impossible I cannot understand why you feel that some form of relativity would not apply to the world. In the latter half of the nineteenth century Galilean Relativity was found to be incompatible with Maxwell's equations and Fitzgerald, Larmor, Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein all came up with new approaches to account for the incompatibility. All of these theories contain relativity principles, all of them contain the Lorentz Transformation (LT). All of them contain the LT so they are all capable of giving rise to "paradoxes" similar to Einstein's relativity theory. All that Einstein did was to point out that here are consequences to the Lorentz Transformation itself. The LT, without any further hypotheses, has certain physical consequences which we call Special Relativity. So what is your gripe? What special theory did you have in mind that does not replicate any relativity theory? Alex In sci.physics.relativity, fwd <gfd5fh8ds2sa@adexec.com> wrote on 22 Nov 2006 15:04:54 -0800 <1164236694.639360.173980@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>: > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if you can'd disproove relativity now, then forget it, later will be > nearly impossible [1] Propose an alternate theory, with predictions. [2] Propose an experiment to test that theory's predictions. [3] Run the experiment. [4] Have the experimental procedures and data peer-reviewed. [5] Publish. SR/GR *has* been replaced but not by Newtonianism; I'd have to defer to Uncle Al for the details on the chirality results and I freely admit I wouldn't understand them (I barely understand the mathematical rudiments of GR, since I don't know tensors). Every other attempt at disproof has met with failure, which is one reason SR and GR are so widely assumed today, especially in the design of laser gyroscopes and astronomical diffraction gratings. In any event, you are free to illustrate what is the right theory, but don't expect much unless you can back it up with experimental results.  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net People think that libraries are safe. They're wrong. They have ideas. (Also occasionally ectoplasmic slime and cute librarians.) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com | In sci.physics.relativity, fwd | <gfd5fh8ds2sa@adexec.com> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | (I barely understand the mathematical rudiments of GR, | since I don't know tensors). Aw... poor baby. See if you can understand this: ax +by = c dx +ey = f Can you solve for x and y? |a b| |x| | c | | | * | | = | | |c d| |y| | f | Can you solve for x and y? Hint: Only the notation has changed. Now try: |a_11 a_12| |a_21 a_22| Every other attempt at | disproof has met with failure, which is one reason SR and | GR are so widely assumed today, especially in the design | of laser gyroscopes and astronomical diffraction gratings. HAHAHAHA! Too funny, fuckhead! C'mon, give us a reference. Maybe an "astronomical grating" is a cattle grid, or a janitor is a "domestic scientist", like you. You definitely need SR/GR for your mop and bucket. Bullshitting arsehole! Androcles. | In any event, you are free to illustrate what is the right | theory, but don't expect much unless you can back it up | with experimental results. In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote on Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:33:01 GMT <NNH9h.3177$bz5.557@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: > | In sci.physics.relativity, fwd > | <gfd5fh8ds2sa@adexec.com> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Can you solve for x and y? I can solve for x and y as formulae depending a, b, c, d, e, and f. > |a b| |x| | c | > | | * | | = | | [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > |a_11 a_12| > |a_21 a_22| ? Sorry, part of that apparently got lost in transmission. > Every other attempt at > | disproof has met with failure, which is one reason SR and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You definitely need SR/GR for your mop and bucket. > Bullshitting arsehole! You're right. Absolute time is the only possible reference. And that of course eliminates SR from contention. (Spot the Flaw.) > Androcles. > > | In any event, you are free to illustrate what is the right > | theory, but don't expect much unless you can back it up > | with experimental results. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. The choice of a GNU generation. Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish". -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer | <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] | | I can solve for x and y as formulae depending a, b, c, d, e, and f. Ok, so do it. [space here] | > |a b| |x| | c | | > | | * | | = | | [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | Sorry, part of that apparently got lost in transmission. Nah, it was left for you to think about. http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/mrmeanie/matrix/matrices.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(mathematics) Hint: Only the notation has changed. Let a_11 = a a_12 = b a_21 = d a_22 = e a_11.x +a_12.y = c a_21.x +a_22.y = f You could solve that before, so you still can. We have a vector [x,y] and a matrix |a_11 a_12| |a_21 a_22| producing a vector [c, f] A tensor is a matrix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor Matrices can be multiplied together, so if we give a name to |a_11 a_12| |a_21 a_22| = A and |b_11 b_12| |b_21 b_22| = B then we have a simple term for a large object. We can compute A*B, but be careful, that is NOT B*A. Going back to ax +by = c dx +ey = f a,b,d and e ARE the matrix called A. c and f are the transformation of x and y by the matrix A, and we can do that more than once, transforming by the matrix B. Matrix algebra gets useful when we go from [x,y] to [c,f] to [p,q] in ONE operation. For example, an image can be rotated http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.gif and it can be stretched http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/LT.gif and both transformations can be done at once, using A*B, BUT.... stretching and then rotating is not the same as rotating and then stretching. If you stretch the Mona Lisa she gets fat, then rotate and she's fat laying on her side. If you rotate the Mona Lisa then stretch, she's laying on her side and tall. A*B <> B*A. Don't you have a nearby college where you can learn this stuff? If not, try a correspondence course. I've retired, but I still have my code libraries to create images the way I want them. Solve this: 2x+2y= 0 2x+3y =1 for x and y. Simple, right? Now try this: 2x+2y = 0 4x+4y = 1 Tell me why it fails. | > Every other attempt at | > | disproof has met with failure, which is one reason SR and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | (Spot the Flaw.) You are the flaw. | > Androcles. | > | > | In any event, you are free to illustrate what is the right | > | theory, but don't expect much unless you can back it up | > | with experimental results. In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:46:11 GMT <T7O9h.4553$Pk.3889@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer > | <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > [space here] If I must. adx + bdy = cd adx + aey = af (ae-bd)y = af-cd y = (af-cd)/(ae-bd) aex + bey = ce bdx + bey = bf (ae-bd)x = ce-bf x = (ce-bf)/(ae-bd) Clear enough for you or shall I go more slowly so that you can follow along? BTW, det A = ae-bd. > | > |a b| |x| | c | > | > | | * | | = | | [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > A tensor is a matrix. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor A tensor is irrelevant. GR has been invalidated, remember? You invalidated it some time back. > Matrices can be multiplied together, so if we give a name to > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Tell me why it fails. x = (ce-bf)/(ae-bd) = (0*4-2*1)/(2*4-2*4) = -2/0 = -2 * SR lightspeed y = (af-cd)/(ae-bd) = (2*1-0*4)/(2*4-2*4) = 2/0 = 2 * SR lightspeed It fails for the same reason (your explanation of) SR fails: division by zero. [rest left unsnipped so as not to be accused of plagiarism] > | > Every other attempt at > | > | disproof has met with failure, which is one reason SR and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > ideas. > | > | (Also occasionally ectoplasmic slime and cute librarians.) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's important, it's the ability to DO something with it. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer | <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] | A tensor is irrelevant. GR has been invalidated, remember? | You invalidated it some time back. You complained you didn't understand them. | > Matrices can be multiplied together, so if we give a name to | > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] | | [rest left unsnipped so as not to be accused of plagiarism] Now tell me why you continue to drool out such garbage as | > | > | [1] Propose an alternate theory, with predictions. | > | > | [2] Propose an experiment to test that theory's predictions. | > | > | [3] Run the experiment. | > | > | [4] Have the experimental procedures and data peer-reviewed. | > | > | [5] Publish. 1) Emission theory 2) Sagnac 3) Done 4) Done, ring laser gyroscopes are in use. 5) Done, see http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf Everything you asked for, before you even asked. Want more? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm Clear enough for you, or shall I go more slowly so that you can follow along? I know, I know, it still doesn't explain prezzies under the Xmas tree so there must be a Santa, but you don't know sleigh and reindeer tensors yet you understand width contraction for sliding down chimneys and why Rudolph's nose is red-shifted. Androcles | > | > Every other attempt at | > | > | disproof has met with failure, which is one reason SR and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | > ideas. | > | > | (Also occasionally ectoplasmic slime and cute librarians.) Androcles, much of what you write is reasonable. Shame about the obscenities. That said, would you agree that almost all versions of relativity post Maxwell derive the Lorentz Transformations? If you do agree with this do you agree that the LT can be analysed to produce a metric for space and time? If you agree with this then surely the only difference between you and those who support Modern Relativity is the fine details of interpretation. Alex | Androcles, much of what you write is reasonable. Shame about the | obscenities. They don't bother me, a word is only a word. If I want to offend, I do so. Profanity is remarkably effective. | That said, would you agree that almost all versions of | relativity post Maxwell derive the Lorentz Transformations? There are but three versions of relativity -- Galilean, SR and GR, not counting individual taste. Einstein denied Galilean relativity in favour of his sci-fi time machines and attendant paradoxes so oft discussed, vehemently. | If you do | agree with this do you agree that the LT can be analysed to produce a | metric for space and time? I have already analyzed the cuckoo malformations thoroughly. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm | If you agree with this then surely the only | difference between you and those who support Modern Relativity is the | fine details of interpretation. But I don't agree. Start here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm Androcles >anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore >time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >if you can'd disproove relativity now, then forget it, later will be >nearly impossible You cannot disprove relativity. It is absurd but instead of relativists abandoning it because it is absurd they make a virtue of accepting the absurd and look down on those who question absurdity. "relativity is counter intuitive - you are trying to apply mere common sense." Anyone who does not accept relativity is deemed not to understand it. The fact is that physics has degenerated into mysticism and recreational hyper-mathematics. If you look at where relativity came from it is absurd. If you point this out you will be told "that is history, you are ignoring 100 years of physics. Go join a group discussing history". I would have thought it important what 100 years of physics is built on. Contrary to popular belief relativity is the result of Einstein refusing to abandon Maxwell's ether. He interpreted the MMX as showing that every observer IS stationary w.r.t the ether (not merely 'apparently so' as per Lorentz) and that the nature of the ether must be such as to allow this to be. He described it as 'an ether without the immobility of Lorentz's ether.' As a concept it doesn't work so he eventually described his theory as a 'principle theory'. Ask any awkward questions and relativists will inform you that "relativity is a principle theory and as such does not attempt to answer that sort of question." Implying that you are wrong to ask that sort of question. Study Einstein's definition of a 'principle theory' and you will find that what he is describing isn't a physical theory at all, merely a mathematical model. Lorentz's ether theory is mathematically identical to relativity so the only physical theory consistent with the relativity mathematical model is Lorentz's. Einstein failed to get his own physics theory - the mobile ether theory - to work. You might ponder the thought as you watch your wide screen multi-channel, digital, interactive, colour, TV that physicists have no clearer idea as to what it is which travels from the transmitter to your aerial, nor how it travels, than anyone did 100 years ago. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal | >anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore | >time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] | clearer idea as to what it is which travels from the transmitter to your | aerial, nor how it travels, than anyone did 100 years ago. You are correct, except for the time frame. Action at a distance. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spindistance.gif > You are correct, except for the time frame. > Action at a distance. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spindistance.gif Nice gifs! |> You are correct, except for the time frame. | > Action at a distance. | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spindistance.gif | | Nice gifs! Thank you. I have many. The index page needs some attention, when I get a round tuit I'll address that. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ This round tuit didn't work: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wheel.gif sh.t-for-brains Kennaugh wrote: > I would have thought it > important what 100 years of physics is built on. Then rather than spending so much energy on becoming a usenet crank, you should have instead worked to gain familiarity with the role of symmetry in physics. ---Tim Shuba--- | sh.t-for-brains Kennaugh wrote: | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | ---Tim Shuba--- Hey fuckhead! Solve the three body problem using symmetry. Androcles >sh.t-for-brains Kennaugh wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >crank, you should have instead worked to gain familiarity with >the role of symmetry in physics. Einstein's only stated objection to Lorenz's theory was the asymmetry in the theoretical structure. He described Lorentz as having made the biggest contribution to this branch of physics since Maxwell. What Einstein did about that asymmetry can be seen in three different ways: 1/ Having objected to the asymmetry in the theoretical structure of Lorenz's theory he avoided it by producing a theory which has no theoretical structure. 2/ Lorentz's theory is such that while a FoR, stationary w.r.t the ether, is in the theoretical structure there is no way of identifying it. To do the maths one can arbitrarily select any FoR as the ether frame and get the same answer. If you always select the observer's FoR as the ether frame you have something indistinguishable from Einstein's relativity. Because the ether frame and the observers FoR are one and the same you can do the maths without mentioning the ether frame. 3/ He maybe took the empirical approach which says Maxwell is right. Light is a wave travelling in ether. MMX therefore shows that every observer is stationary w.r.t the ether. That is of course what his second postulate is describing. Of the three options above all provide symmetry but the first is cheating, the second is simply a mathematical technique, and he never convinced anyone regarding the third. This assumes we have too simplistic a view of the ether and that the ether can be such that every observer finds himself stationary w.r.t it - his "ether without the immobility of Lorentz's"'. Both Lorentz and Einstein assumed that Maxwell was right and accepted without question the other property of the ether, that the speed of the source would not effect the speed of light because it was controlled by the properties of the ether. The idea that Einstein 'got rid of the ether' is absurd. IF you go the other way and assume the MMX did not detect the ether because there isn't one and downgrade Maxwell. Then you do not try and answer the question that both Lorentz and Einstein were striving to answer. You do not try to explain why every observer appears to be stationary w.r.t the ether. Lorentz's explanation was that it was an illusion brought about by distortion of measurements. Einstein's, if he had an explanation at all, was that every observer IS stationary w.r.t the ether. If you conclude there is no ether then the question you ask is 'if there is no ether what is the speed of light constant w.r.t?'. Without an ether the only physical process which can be responsible for the speed of light is that taking place at the source so without an ether the speed of light must be constant w.r.t the source. This is not what Einstein or Lorentz said, that non-ether interpretation was explored by Walter Ritz. With hindsight the Ritz approach looks more logical because Maxwell's theory had by then failed again and light had been found to be particulate in nature. The logic that the speed at which particles are shot out by the source must be determined by the physical process taking place in the source is inescapable. i.e. source dependence. As we know Ritz died in 1909. Orthodoxy prevailed and physics continued to believe in a patched up Maxwell's ether theory (while adamantly denying the existence of the ether). The particulate nature of light spawned a separate branch of physics and physicists are now trying to unify the two branches using string theory assuming the universe has 10 (or maybe 26) dimensions. I deny that I am a crank because I do not claim to know the answers. The above is a perfectly reasoned assessment of the history stripped of the flannel which text books put in to make it sound more reasonable and putting in those things text books carefully avoid. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal >>anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore >>time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You cannot disprove relativity. It is absurd but instead of adorning the obviously wrong curved earth theory they continue to call flat earthers cranks. Sound familiar John? Rest Snipped Bill > >anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > >time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is that physics has degenerated into mysticism and recreational > hyper-mathematics. I suppose if you failed highschool algebra, you would consider non-Euclidian geometry "hyper-mathematics". Whatever the f.ck "hyper-mathematics" means that is. I'm sure it is simply code for "I don't get it". Do you think you have an empirical disproof for relativity other than "I don't get it", or are you whining like the rest of the worthless rejects in this newsgroup? [...] >> >anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore >> >time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I suppose if you failed highschool algebra, you would consider >non-Euclidian geometry "hyper-mathematics". I suppose if one did one might but as I didn't that doesn't apply. By hyper-mathematics I meant mathematics which has no real point such as string theory, or producing equations to model conditions 20milliseconds after the big bang. It matters not a jot whether either is right or wrong as neither can be proved wrong. SignatureJohn Kennaugh The problem with maths is that an awesomely impressive equation may be describing an incredibly silly idea. > I suppose if one did one might but as I didn't that doesn't apply. By > hyper-mathematics I meant mathematics which has no real point such as > string theory, or producing equations to model conditions 20milliseconds > after the big bang. It matters not a jot whether either is right or > wrong as neither can be proved wrong. So do you believe that the universe has to conform to simple equations? The mathematics regarding conditions after the big bang and/or string theory is just hard math, and there is nothing to suggest that the universe has some dividing line that says "nope, that math is too hard - we can't use that". Its borderline calling physics "magic", much as someone from a thousand years ago calling an electric light bulb magical. SignatureJust \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > anyone knows that relativity is not the right theory, therefore > time works against science, imagine a scientist comming [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if you can'd disproove relativity now, then forget it, later will be > nearly impossible Let me see, you get your ideas on how science works from TV soaps, right? In real life OTOH scientists have been trying to break relativity since its inception. Contrary to your Hollywoodesque view, for a physicist _disproving_ relativity there awaits fame, fortune, cosy tenure, and an almost certain Nobel prize. The length of time over which relativity is held "undisputed" (your term) makes no difference. (Where do people get those ideas from? It simply must be television, I see no other medium stupid enough. Oh wait... Uh, never mind.) -- Jan Bielawski |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.