An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
Next: Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding - Indicates Big Bang Not Its Origin
From: Jerry on 1 Nov 2009 00:14 On Oct 31, 6:50 pm, Sebastian Garth <sebastianga...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> The results show pretty convincingly that Einstein's second postulate > >> is wrong...as is his whole stupid theory.. > > Nothing is more convincing than a theory confirmed by experiment. > Anything else is just speculative talk, as far as I'm concerned. Henry Wilson aka Ralph Rabbidge is a liar and an idiot. The -public- information below can be obtained by doing a whois on Henry's web site: Ralph Rabbidge 8 Barlings Drive Tomakin NSW, Australia 2537 Phone:+61.732492500 FAX:+61.738322604 Email:rmrab(a)bigpond.com For your amusement: Henry Wilson's Lies Start with his ALL-TIME CLASSIC http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm A few of his many other lies over the years... http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm Jerry
From: rotchm on 1 Nov 2009 00:40 > >> and SR says it is closing on O2 at c-v, > > >But SR does not say that, nor does classical kinematics at that > >matter. > > Both Diaper and 'inertial' assured me that it does. > You can argue with them if you like. What they say does not mean thats what SR says. Or, as you misuderstand SR, you probably misunderstood them. Now, what is your argument concerning my claim that ...: > >But SR does not say that, nor does classical kinematics at that > >matter. SR says that: If frame X measures the speed of Light, he will get c. Therefore, boolean Logic: If O2 measures the speed of Light, O2 will get c If O1 measures the speed of Light, O1 will get c If O1 measures the closing speed ... Oups, nothing can be concluded since "closing speed" is not part of the premise; it is not defined up to this point. Simple Boolean Logic! I hope you got that part. In fact, closing speed has nothing to do with SR, ist a classical "Galilean" quantity. It is not the speed of Light nor the speed of an object.
From: Sebastian Garth on 1 Nov 2009 01:51 >> I doesn't mean that at all. What does it mean then, exactly? >> There no time dilation. Yes, there is (assuming you believe relativity to be true). >> Hahahhaha! very funny. For one thing, it cannot be done on Earth. Air acts like an aether and controls light speed. So do the experiment on the moon then. Or from a spacecraft where the signal is directed into an extremely long fiber-optic strand. Whatever. Point is, one-way light experiments are unnecessary. >> No experiment has confirmed any of Einstein's silly theory. Ignore the evidence, for all I care. That is your perogative. At any rate, all that you have really proven to me is that: 1) You have no intention of accepting any aspect of the Special Theory of Relativity, on principle. 2) You have no interest in carrying out a serious discussion on the matter. 3) You have no capacity to address others with respect. 4) You are essentially a very intelligent troll. Needless to say, I think I've heard enough.
From: Ilja on 1 Nov 2009 03:43 On 31 Okt., 19:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 4:53 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > > That is plainly an aether concept. > > No....SR claims that EVERY OBSERVER will measure the speed of light to > be istropic. LET claims that only the ether observer will measure the > speed of light to be isotropic. False. LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in such a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be anisotropic, the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks appears isotropic.
From: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 04:08
"Ilja" <ilja.schmelzer(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:b962022b-bde6-415d-b664-0f8d4dc6f428(a)e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On 31 Okt., 19:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> On Oct 30, 4:53 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> > That is plainly an aether concept. >> >> No....SR claims that EVERY OBSERVER will measure the speed of light to >> be istropic. LET claims that only the ether observer will measure the >> speed of light to be isotropic. > > False. Yeup .. its false. Are you surprised that seto has no idea of what any theory of physics actually says beyond what he reads in coffee table magazines? > LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in such > a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be > anisotropic, Where true, of course, means the speed in the aether frame. Not that we can know what that frame is, of course,as the way the aether 'magiacally/ works, one cannot detect it. > the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks > appears isotropic. Yeup. Seeing both use the same math, both predict the same results. Clever eh? Of course, it is all rather philosophical. LET says all distances compress, but how is that any different to space contracting .. can space truly be said to be not-compressed when every length IS? Similarly, does it make sense to say time is unaffected when every process is slowed? Is there really any difference between the two .. in any tangible measureable sense? Other than the aether notion raising even more unanswered questions. |