Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[marcospolo]

Not just bad logic... read my post again.

I can only conclude that you are ONLY a mere mathematician, a number cruncher, like a Casio Calculator but run on McDonald's, totally without a single brain cell able to understand the higher science of Physics.

 

Because the rest of that post where you say I am using "bad logic" says "unrepentant and shameful persistence".

Which of course any child over 10 y.o will recognize as relating to one's current state of personality. It has nothing to do with Math or Physics.

 

And still, you just continue to duck and dodge, sidestepping the actual questions. Preferring to pretend that all is well in the Land of Einstein's rubber rulers, broken clocks and overweight Professors. (mass increase)

 

You really should just offer a math calculation service, if you are that great a mathematician, for those of us who can't afford the Casio.

Then you would not get yourself so conflicted what confronted by hard puzzles like why reality is so opposite to Einsteins claims.

 

But as Rhertz has pointed out, maybe your use as a human Casio is not so accurate or valuable as we Physicists require of our tools.

Myself, I have Google and Excel to solve any math of interest.

 

I think you may be redundant.

 

Maybe you should consider learning a  multi-disciplined approach to science. As Math alone is useless.

Its like owning some windscreen washing fluid when you don't own a car.

Really, doubleosix, we don't need someone who can calculate how many feathers are required on the wings of a typical garden fairy, or how many atoms of dark matter existed one-millionth of a second before the mythical Big Bang. 

But I bet you can come up with a result, right?

[Dubbelosix]

I can only conclude that you are ONLY a mere mathematician, a number cruncher, like a Casio Calculator but run on McDonald's, totally without a single brain cell able to understand the higher science of Physics.

 

Because the rest of that post where you say I am using "bad logic" says "unrepentant and shameful persistence".

Which of course any child over 10 y.o will recognize as relating to one's current state of personality. It has nothing to do with Math or Physics.

 

And still, you just continue to duck and dodge, sidestepping the actual questions. Preferring to pretend that all is well in the Land of Einstein's rubber rulers, broken clocks and overweight Professors. (mass increase)

 

You really should just offer a math calculation service, if you are that great a mathematician, for those of us who can't afford the Casio.

Then you would not get yourself so conflicted what confronted by hard puzzles like why reality is so opposite to Einsteins claims.

 

But as Rhertz has pointed out, maybe your use as a human Casio is not so accurate or valuable as we Physicists require of our tools.

Myself, I have Google and Excel to solve any math of interest.

 

I think you may be redundant.

 

Maybe you should consider learning a  multi-disciplined approach to science. As Math alone is useless.

Its like owning some windscreen washing fluid when you don't own a car.

Really, doubleosix, we don't need someone who can calculate how many feathers are required on the wings of a typical garden fairy, or how many atoms of dark matter existed one-millionth of a second before the mythical Big Bang. 

But I bet you can come up with a result, right?

 

If you could hear what you write, it would be clear you'd love to hear yourself talk. Unfortunately, other people do not. As for only a ''mere mathematician'' I strongly disagree... in fact, I am a theoretician, not a pure mathematician and certainly not the best mathematician out there... but you know, you could only be air-head to think ''mere mathematicians'' has no purpose in physics. It's clear to me at least, you appear to envy the apparent success of others able to understand certain subtleties of how to use the correct terminology with a dash of math. For that, I am sorry if it hurts, but if you put effort in, you get knowledge and creativity back, if you put nothing in, as I have said before, you will get nothing back. No one has to reply to your posts because they are quite simply, laughable.

[Dubbelosix]

Oh and for the record, I do not understand some of your terminology, but I suspect you are thinking along the lines of mathmatica? I have never used such a system nor do I ever intend to use the system. It was so much more rewarding learning how to go from one mathematical statement to another, using pure creativity alone.

[Sherwood]

You need to include a graphical illustration of what you just said, as its difficult to get your point.

 

      _______

     |_______|

  

      \      /

 

         O

 

Gravity will pull in the direction of the slanted lines toward the center of  object O, acceleration will not.

[marcospolo]

      _______

     |_______|

  

      \      /

 

         O

 

Gravity will pull in the direction of the slanted lines toward the center of  object O, acceleration will not.

Yes, that's correct.  But somehow, Dubbelosix and other relativists can't seem to make the logical jump required to realise that this one simple statement, destroys all of Special Relativity. Here we see absolute evidence that one CAN do a simple experiment to know if he is under acceleration of 1G, or simply stationary on the Earth.  (in a box with no windows, of course, because Einsteins theories DEMAND that at least one observer, (usually the moving one) MUST be kept totally ignorant of his situation.  Relativity is based on only knowing part of the data, and having to guess the rest. When simply looking out a window would have made guessing unnecessary.

[Sherwood]

 

Sherwood;

 

[if that were true, there would be no time dilation observed.]

 

(ct)2 - x2 = (ct')2 > (ct')2 - (x')2 = (tr)2

 

What is constant, x/t = x'/t' = x"/t" = c.

 

On the right, using u/c=.8, A describes the B coordinates as (2.4, 3.0), while B describes his coordinates as (1.44, 1. 8) relative to A.

The reference frame clock has the maximum time, and any clock that moves relative to it, loses time.]

[What you present is your own interpretation of SR, which doesn't agree with experimental evidence.]

forum eg2.jpg

 

One of my points is that since objects moving wrt each other using light travel to determine time can be done accurately both by NM and SR, 'time dilation' is a mathematical thing of using SR and not a physical thing.  Since SR derives from assuming something (light, or anything else for that matter) can travel the same speed relative to two objects moving wrt each other, and since the same SR math and concepts can be applied to anything about which this assumption is made, at any speed, SR is clever math without actual physical foundation.  There is no time dilation.  Nothing in the universe has velocity or kinetic energy per se.  Everything in the universe has velocity and kinetic energy wrt everything else in the universe except for those things not changing distance with it over time.  That's a lot of time dilations.  And they are reciprocal ("twin paradox").  SR 'time' is a function of time, speed, and location.

t' = gt + (u/c2)x

The SR time that is the same as NM time is t=I/c.

 

I2 = (ct)2 - x2 = (ct')2 - x'2 = (ct'')2 - x''2 = ...

 

I am using "u" for the SR velocity between objects because it is always different from the NM velocity between objects which I have called "v".  

u = x/t;    u' = x'/t';    u'' = x''/t'';    u''' = x'''/t'''; . . .  

These x's divided by the 'dilated' t's in their reference frames are the definition of SR velocity between objects, i.e., the u's, not c.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Sherwood

[rhertz]

rhertz#243;

 

t_B − t_A = t'_A − t_B

 

2AB/(t'_A − t_A) = c,

 

Quote

In this way, he is anticipating that c has the same value either in the first lapse when the mirror is hit or in the second lapse, when the light beam bounces back from the mirror to its origin A. Clever?)

[He has just defined the outbound trip time equal to the inbound time for synchronous stationary clocks located at different places. This is what an observer at rest would expect.

 

 

 

Quote

(Now he includes "v" in the famous round trip, because he needs the factors (c - v) and (c + v) to obtain the famous c²-v², otherwise impossible to appear. But, doing so, he violates his own 2nd. postulate: speed of light dependent on the motion v of the source or reflexion of the source).

[Not true. The expressions (c±v) are used when two objects are moving and both velocities are required for measurements. It is not propagation speed in space.]

 

 

 

I didn't read the older post until now. It's replying a post of mine, where I explain (directly from Einstein's paper)

the fallacies and trickeries.

 

But, it was in vain. So, I decided to let Al to speak by himself. Any doubt? Then read carefully the ORIGINAL paper

and stop making up things OR create your own theory.

 

I've extracted the relevant parts from the original paper and, also, added a couple of drawings that I did, to represent

what Al was disinforming. The paper is not a sacred scripture, so there are only LOGICAL interpretations, without any

place for theological re-interpretation. I told you that he's preparing the grounds to obtain c²-v² for his "Lorentzs".

 

This is how he does it: He adds and substract v from c, but get rid of this as soon as he can. These operations

are done to represent the observations of an "observer at rest". By doing so, he adds v to the c speed of a moving

source (the lantern), and later substracts v from the c speed of the reflection (the mirror) and, it this way he purposedly

violates his second conjecture postulate: "the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source". It is not, here.

 

An observer at rest can't measure a speed (c+v), because it is a supraluminal speed. Is it clear or not?

 

 

 

 

In this part, Al changes the meaning of signs for the speed observed from the observer at rest. It's c+v  for the

initial path (going away from the observer) and c-v for the second path (going toward the observer at rest).

Edited June 5, 2019 by rhertz

[Sherwood]

 

sherwood#265;

 

As the graphic shows, B and C are moving faster than c (blue), so all those calculations are invalid. Units are x100 m.

 

 

hypo-sherwood.jpg

 

According to SR, they are not moving faster than c.  Check the u/c values that were calculated.  They went a greater distance than the light did because the ratio of the distance the objects separated to the distance the light traveled, according to SR, is gu.

[Sherwood]

 

Sherwood;

 

Standard convention shows the reference frame with a vertical 'time' axis (ct) and a horizontal 'space' axis (x). Any other frame is compared to it. Your example defines A as the reference with B as a (') frame and C as a (") frame, both moving relative to A.

The coordinate transformations for B relative to A are

 

x' = g(x-vt) and t' = g(t-vx/cc).

 

If A assigns coordinates (x, t) to event E as (.50, .50), then using the above form results in (x', t') = (.25, .25).

Substituting -v in the 1st expression, since A is moving to the left relative to A,

 

x = g(x'+vt') and t = g(t'+vx'/cc)

 

calculates the A coordinates in terms of those of B.

 

What I described as vertical and horizontal was simply to differentiate velocities perpendicular to each other as you might look at it if you never heard of SR.  My descriptions have nothing to do with the vertical time axis and horizontal space axis often used to illustrate concepts of SR.

[Sherwood]

Yes, that's correct.  But somehow, Dubbelosix and other relativists can't seem to make the logical jump required to realise that this one simple statement, destroys all of Special Relativity. Here we see absolute evidence that one CAN do a simple experiment to know if he is under acceleration of 1G, or simply stationary on the Earth.  (in a box with no windows, of course, because Einsteins theories DEMAND that at least one observer, (usually the moving one) MUST be kept totally ignorant of his situation.  Relativity is based on only knowing part of the data, and having to guess the rest. When simply looking out a window would have made guessing unnecessary.

Remember, this has to do with General Relativity, not Special Relativity.  Unfortunately General Relativity incorporates Special Relativity.  I have posted plenty on the nature of Special Relativity using its own equations.

[marcospolo]

THE DILATION OF TIME CONUNDRUM
Two unmoving spaceships: A & B are the same distance from an observation point C.
The observer at point C sends a signal in both directions which will reach A & B after the same
amount of time. This signal thus starts both spaceships moving simultaneously.
Both spaceships accelerate identically and reach the same high velocity on their way to point C.
This velocity is close enough to the velocity of light so that they should apparently be
significantly affected by time dilation according to the principles of Special Relativity.

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/Light%20and%20Spin%20-%20Chapter%20xxvii.pdf

 

At the precise point that they pass by C, both spaceships send a signal which is the measurement
of the time on their own clocks to reach point C. These signals are marked AT & BT in the
second diagram.
Both spaceships are in a state of perfect symmetry from the perspective of C.
It is therefore clear regardless of the exact value of AT & BT, that these measurements of their
respective times (including any time dilation) will be equal to one another at the point of passing
C, from the observation point of C.
Thus AT = BT when perceived from the observer at C.
However the signals sent out are also both received by the other ship!
So A receives the signal BT, and B receives AT. There will be a very small delay in the time
that it takes the signals to pass between the ships. Seeing as the measurement is taken before the
signal is sent (as they both symmetrically pass by point C) this will not affect the actual
measurement, and thus the signals sent will be identical.
Both ships each will therefore be able to see that the times of their flight are such that BT = AT
when they arrive at point C.
We do not need to specify any values to see that despite a large effective velocity between A &
B, that there can be absolutely no effective time dilation between A & B!
This proves that time dilation due to relative velocity as specified in the Special Theory of
Relativity can only be a logical and empirical impossibility!!
 (clipped from www.flight-light-and-spin.com)

 

Relativists need to step up and show how SR still can work.

Edited June 6, 2019 by marcospolo

[Dubbelosix]

      _______

     |_______|

  

      \      /

 

         O

 

Gravity will pull in the direction of the slanted lines toward the center of  object O, acceleration will not.

 

What are you actually on about? Gravity does indeed pull towards, the worldline of a photon can even bend around these objects and is well-established. The acceleration appears very naturally if you took time to try understand relativity, I am ignoring Marco because he's a complete idiot troll, but let me demonstrate in a simple mathematical way, how acceleration relates to the mass of the object in question.

 

The force in Newtonian physics is stated by a relationship to the force:

 

[math]mg = \frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math]

 

Let's divide through by the small mass term and we are left are left with the gravitational acceleration:

 

[math]g = \frac{GM}{r^2}[/math]

 

So we learn here that the acceleration is dependent on the mass of an object. Now, I need to ask, I do not understand why you need ''pictures'' to overcome the difficulty of learning some basic physics, so I will ask, what is it you do not understand?

[rhertz]

According to SR, they are not moving faster than c.  Check the u/c values that were calculated.  They went a greater distance than the light did because the ratio of the distance the objects separated to the distance the light traveled, according to SR, is gu.

 

 

I didn't read the older post until now. It's replying a post of mine, where I explain (directly from Einstein's paper)

the fallacies and trickeries.

 

But, it was in vain. So, I decided to let Al to speak by himself. Any doubt? Then read carefully the ORIGINAL paper

and stop making up things OR create your own theory.

 

I've extracted the relevant parts from the original paper and, also, added a couple of drawings that I did, to represent

what Al was disinforming. The paper is not a sacred scripture, so there are only LOGICAL interpretations, without any

place for theological re-interpretation. I told you that he's preparing the grounds to obtain c²-v² for his "Lorentzs".

 

This is how he does it: He adds and substract v from c, but get rid of this as soon as he can. These operations

are done to represent the observations of an "observer at rest". By doing so, he adds v to the c speed of a moving

source (the lantern), and later substracts v from the c speed of the reflection (the mirror) and, it this way he purposedly

violates his second conjecture postulate: "the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source". It is not, here.

 

An observer at rest can't measure a speed (c+v), because it is a supraluminal speed. Is it clear or not?

 

 

 

 

In this part, Al changes the meaning of signs for the speed observed from the observer at rest. It's c+v  for the

initial path (going away from the observer) and c-v for the second path (going toward the observer at rest).

 

Yes, there is one object (the only one that Einstein needed to falsify his damm theory).

 

It's the light itself (first photon) that is observed moving at a speed c' = c+v by the observer at rest, in the Point 2

of his paper: On the relativity of lenghts and time.

 

Without this fallacy, which he later deny, he proves (petitiio principii) that nothing can travel faster than light. And

THIS is a effing fallacy within the SR theory, do you get it or not?

 

By using this fallacious hypothesis, later develop Lorentz transforms and the relativistic adition of velocities, which

forbids what he used to demonstrate it. And this is a fallacy: a circular reference (using something to prove

that it is wrong to use something).

 

To see it more clearly, just use tA = 0. It's valid and show results more clearly.

Edited June 5, 2019 by rhertz

[Dubbelosix]

Yes, there is one object (the only one that Einstein needed to falsify his damm theory).

 

It's the light itself (first photon) that is observed moving at a speed c' = c+v by the observer at rest, in the Point 2

of his paper: On the relativity of lenghts and time.

 

Without this fallacy, which he later deny, he proves (petitiio principii) that nothing can travel faster than light. And

THIS is a effing fallacy within the SR theory, do you get it or not?

 

By using this fallacious hypothesis, later develop Lorentz transforms and the relativistic adition of velocities, which

forbids what he used to demonstrate it. And this is a fallacy: a circular reference (using something to prove

that it is wrong to use something).

 

To see it more clearly, just use tA = 0. It's valid and show results more clearly.

 

 

Just no. You are using negative fallacies of your own, because you do not understand the addition of relative velocities. I want people to keep trying to understand why something is not moving at 2c.

 

Understand, this is only a two-body problem, you need a third system, known as the three body problem to understand relative dynamics. Like I said before, a stationary observer watching two photons move from a single source, will always measure those photons moving at the speed of light... not 2c.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[rhertz]

Just no. You are using negative fallacies of your own, because you do not understand the addition of relative velocities. I want people to keep trying to understand why something is not moving at 2c.

 

Understand, this is only a two-body problem, you need a third system, known as the three body problem to understand relative dynamics. Like I said before, a stationary observer watching two photon move from a single source, will always measure those photons moving at the speed of light... not 2c.

 

I've told you twice, but now you're making me behave as I don't want to, due to your stupid affirmation that I don't understand something.

 

I understand EVERYTHING about what I post. If NOT, then I shut up and just read others.

 

You should follow my advice and, later, go back to high-school. Once finished, go to any college to learn something right, like MATH!

 

Make a correction at the damm formula in your signature, because IT IS WRONG! Learn math, ffs!

 

Last time I try this with you. Read and compare this formula with your term. Take your time, and then correct it. It offends my intelligence!

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by rhertz

[Dubbelosix]

Don't try and insult me by making equations big and fat and bold just to suit your desire to find some fault with relativity... besides this equation has nothing to do with the ''2c'' problem you lot are struggling with.

[Dubbelosix]

Also, don't tell me to learn math, I've been doing it independently since I was 16 years old, I am now 34. Tell yourself to learn math first, or even... just how equations are interpreted or their true meaning. As I said, the equation you have taken has nothing to do with the 2c problem, it is a black body radiation formula. This is like me, if I had taken E=mc^2 and said it has to do with a planetary alignment... its just a load of rubbish.