Science and Technology news... :: View topic - when push comes to shove, the only way Special Relativity ca

Guest

The premise was simple...

Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.

The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.

Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:

1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.

When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques

One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.

Thanks.

Guest

On 9 oct, 14:48, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]The premise was simple...

Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.

The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.

Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:

1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.

When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques

One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.

Thanks.
[/quote]
Your problem Strich is that you do not want to study physics. You are
here just to troll, to entertain yourself while wasting the time of
everybody else. You are unable to read the references which are
provided to you, as well as the direct demonstration that are spoon
fed to you, but with zero response.

Miguel Rios

Paul Cardinale · Guest

Your 'reasoning' boils down to:
"Since dE/dE = 1 and since dM/dM = 1 then it must be that dE/dM = 1."

Idiot.

RustyJames · Guest

On Oct 9, 11:58 am, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
[quote]Your 'reasoning' boils down to:
"Since dE/dE = 1 and since dM/dM = 1 then it must be that dE/dM = 1.."

Idiot.
[/quote]
IF YOU USED CLOCKS OF PULSING LIGHT ONE PULSE PER SECOND WOULD NOT THE
LIGHT PUALSES SEAM SLOWER FROM OUR FRAME THAN THE PUALSES SEAM
FROMTHE FRAMES OF OBSEVED LIGHT PUASES FROM of clock E in frame E WICH
WOULD APPEAR AS ONE SECOND PAULSES

glird · Guest

On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]The premise was simple...

Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1.
[/quote]
Don>t just say "it is easily shown", show it; using esynched clocks
to do so..

[quote] It is also easily shown that the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2)
is equal to its old rate (E1), or E2=E1.
[/quote]
Show this too.

[quote]The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.
[/quote]
As measured by its own system, yes, As measured by a differently
moving esynched system, no.

[quote]Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
[/quote]
The LTE were produced before SR; thus could not have assumed
anything at all about SR before SR was invented by MINKOWSI (NOT
Einstein) in 1907.

[quote]2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
[/quote]
A far better argument is that it disagrees with the cesium clock
experiments of the 1970s.

[quote]3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.
[/quote]
Although GR does NOT follow from SR, invoking FR to "solve" the
twins paradox solved nothing.

[quote]When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques
One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.
[/quote]
Or by high paid mathematical physicists who>s clients buy any of
their 50 TRILLION dollars worth of worthless junk.

glird

Eric Gisse · Guest

On Oct 9, 10:48 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

Do people just not visit you at the VA? Or what?

spudnik · Guest

that was supposed to "be 'a "l.,"'
not "a one, although" this punctuation is informal. Like,
if you want to say "an one," I won>t insist upon "1."

yeah, that>s what I did. so, then,
I had to prove TO MYSELF that Einstein was real,
or at least the norm of the imaginary part of complex real;
oops, there>s a misplaced semicolon, below:
replace it with an "l."

I also resent the timing of the remark about my chum --
I mean, my God-am lawyer!... or, the timing
of my ;awyer with respect to your remark;
hae you photocopied your moniker on a copyout form?

well, that>s a penny for you & a penny for me,
first installment of _Diary of a Real Insurance Man_,
just unscrolling through this chapter, n.

[quote]One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.[/quote]

BURT · Guest

On Oct 9, 1:18 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 10:48 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

Do people just not visit you at the VA? Or what?
[/quote]
What does an accelerated particle see if its clock is running slower?

Mitch Raemsch

Eric Gisse · Guest

On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 1:18 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:48 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

Do people just not visit you at the VA? Or what?

What does an accelerated particle see if its clock is running slower?

Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
Go away, kid.

spudnik · Guest

OK, what is "FR" -- wait, let me guess ... ahm... well,
it>s Far-out Associative Economical Reality, or some thing.

I don>t see how the twin gedanken experiment is really,
really going to bother Einstein. Most of the objections,
actually seem to occur to advocates of a "speedlimit
other than light" or, as we sometimes say in Wonderland,
it>s not necessarily equal, or it might not have, even,
a detectable norm in stories about spaceflight e.g. -- period;
and I do have a quasi-literate example to hand;
I can>t wait to read her next story back to her!

Basically, they need this to sell those spaceships --
the ones that They supposeedly have, or we do,
in a hole at "Area X-file."

So, why don>t they just require that gerrymandering
be restricted to "convex districts," or
districts with at most one concavity ... yes,
we may need a fractal dimension or so,
to actually generate this map. So,
you try explaining that to Joe & Jill Sixpack
after n six-packs!

I>d hide that 6-pack if I was I, and
I just did, if I had it.

I mean, One!... or more.... Anyway,
better to ask if they>ve been to Roswell,
soonest. I already found it
by way of Massachussetts!

and I do mean, Holes in the Ground.

[quote] Although GR does NOT
follow from SR, invoking FR to "solve" the
twins paradox solved nothing.

When all these circular defenses are exposed,
the relativists resort
to some of these options: a)
-hominems, b)
Qua-sequiturs
3) NEW 'trolling' techniques
[/quote]
thus:
that was supposed to "be 'a "l.,"'
not "a one, although" this punctuation is informal. Like,
if you want to say "an one," I won>t insist upon "1."

yeah, that>s what I did. so, then,
I had to prove TO MYSELF that Einstein was real,
or at least the norm of the imaginary part of complex real;
oops, there>s a misplaced semicolon, below:
replace it with an "l."

I also resent the timing of the remark about my chum --
I mean, my God-am lawyer!... or, the timing
of my ;awyer with respect to your remark;
hae you photocopied your moniker on a copyout form?

well, that>s a penny for you & a penny for me,
first installment of _Diary of a Real Insurance Man_,
just unscrolling through this chapter, n.

[quote]of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
[/quote]
--The Defenders of Relativity:
How does Dan-the-man Quayle spell "it?"

PD · Guest

On Oct 9, 1:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]The premise was simple...

Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.

The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.
[/quote]
The first sentence in the previous paragraph is correct. The second
one is incorrect, and it probably stems from your not understanding
what time dilation means. Time dilation means that if you take a look
at two identical clocks from a *common* reference frame, where one of
the clocks is stationary in that frame and the other is moving in that
frame, the moving clock>s rate will be lower.

It>s quite possible that you don>t know what a reference frame is, or
what synchronization means, or both.

[quote]
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:
[/quote]
I don>t think any defenses are necessary if you (Strich9) don>t know
what SR is saying in the first place. It may be worth pointing that
out to you, just as a statement of obvious fact.

[quote]
1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.

When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques

One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.

Thanks.
[/quote]
You>re welcome.

PD · Guest

On Oct 9, 1:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:

Aside from the content of the post, allow me to respond to the title.

First of all, special relativity is not proven. No theory is ever
proven. This has been mentioned to you before.

Secondly, the way theories are tested is precisely what you say:
1. Assume the premises of the theory are correct -- for the moment.
2. Follow the consequences of those premises until they produce a set
of quantitative and qualitative predictions about measurable phenomena
that would be observed under various sets of conditions.
3. Either search for, or arrange, those sets of conditions to hold and
look to see if the observations match the predictions.
4. The theory that accomplishes the greatest success for steps (2) and
(3) over the widest range of phenomena, wins -- at least for now.

Competing theories may follow the steps (1)-(4) at any time, and in
fact are wholly encouraged.

So far, relativity wins over any other competing theory that has been
put forward *so far*. This does not mean that another won>t come along
that turns out to be better. It>s just that none of them so far have
done (1)-(4) with greater success yet. You are free to try.

This is precisely how science works.

If you don>t like it, then you>re not really interested in science,
and you might be well served to find a hobby you enjoy more.

PD

kenseto · Guest

On Oct 9, 2:48 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]The premise was simple...

Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.
[/quote]
No.....M2 =/= M1. Why? Because M1 and M2 are in different frames.
M1=E2=E1. Why? Because M1, E2 and E1are in the same frame.

Ken Seto

Ken Seto
[quote]
The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.

Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:

1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.

When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques

One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.

Thanks.[/quote]

Dirk Van de moortel · Guest

strich.9993@gmail.com <strich.9993@gmail.com> wrote in message
4e86b0c0-1c31-494a-a9a4-7c28dba9759c@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com
[quote]The premise was simple...

Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.

The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.
[/quote]

4 variables for 8 defined quantities:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourWaterloo.html
DOA

[quote]
Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:

1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.

When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques

One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.

Thanks.
[/quote]
Always welcome:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=strich+site:users%2etelenet%2ebe

Dirk Vdm

Matthew Lybanon · Guest

In article
<4e86b0c0-1c31-494a-a9a4-7c28dba9759c@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com>,
strich.9993@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]The premise was simple...

Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. The rate of clock E in frame E (E1) is by definition
equal to the clock rate of M in frame M (M1), or E1=M1. Let clock M
now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. It is
easily shown that the new rate of the moving clock M in frame M (M2)
is equal to its old rate (M1), or M2=M1. It is also easily shown that
the new rate of clock E in frame E (E2) is equal to its old rate (E1),
or E2=E1.

The obvious conclusion is that M2=E2. This disproves Special
Relativity (SR) since time becomes constant in any inertial frame.

Relativity physicists scramble for a 'scientific' defense. The
defenses are:

1) "It does not take into account the Lorentz transformation
equations". The LTE however assumes beforehand that SR is already
correct.
2) "It disagrees with experiment." The experiment being the so-called
Muon experiment, which assumed that the premise of time dilation is
correct in its interpretation of the result.
3) The last resort is to invoke General Relativity. This is like
proving a theorem A by invoking corollary A, which had followed from
the same theorem.

When all these circular defenses are exposed, the relativists resort
to the their last options:
1) Ad hominems
2) Non-sequiturs
3) Other 'trolling' techniques

One would think that a supposedly solid theory as Einstein>s Theories
of Relativity could mount up a better defense than that typically
employed by highly paid lawyers defending a losing client.

Thanks.
[/quote]
No scientific theory can be proven, only supported by evidence. Special
relativity is supported by a great deal of evidence. Also, whether
special relativity is right or wrong it is mathematically
self-consistent. There are no mistakes in algebra, or logic. Sorry if
you can>t keep up, but generations of very good mathematicians have
confirmed that there is nothing wrong with the math.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Logic Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 Next
Page 1 of 14