Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sluggo last won the day on June 29 2019

sluggo had the most liked content!

About sluggo

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. petrush; Almost ! If p is a prime>11 then d is a recurring decimal. d=p(p+1)/1100 d=[p/11][(p+1)/100] The 1st term has no common divisors. The 2nd term will have 2 decimal positions.
  2. petrush; Almost ! If p is a prime>11 then d is a repeating decimal. d=p(p+1)/1100 d=[p/11][(p+1)/100] The 1st term has no common divisors. The 2nd term will have 2 decimal positions.
  3. The magnitude of x and t are scalars, thus x/t is a ratio/rational number.
  4. Marcos; Fine, but you are working this out using an ABSOLUTE STATIONARY FRAME OF REFERENCE.- your frame. Einstein's theory ( i need to remind you) was that EACH of those two objects HAVE THE RIGHT to consider that that they are stationary, and the other is moving, so they WOULD RIGHTFULLY be measuring that the other object's REAL relative velocity is indeed 0.4c. SO you are trying to convince me that Einstein is correct by using Newton's Physics alone? "You are observing from the space station launching the device." Can you read? There are 2 inertial ref. frames, the station and the devi
  5. Marcos; According to you, scientific experiment cannot prove any predictions of a theory. Only your opinion decides what is correct. Here is a simple question. In Newton's time, light speed was thought to be instantaneous. Today, a laser sends a signal from earth that reflects from the moon surface and returns. How would Newton or you explain the 2.5 sec transit time?
  6. AnssiH; And just as a side note I really find it interesting that people who are so eager to defend relativistic simultaneity as an actual ontological "fact", never comment anything about the fact that cosmic background radiation is not isotropic. There are many possible sources for cosmic background radiation, but they all must recognize the simple fact that it only emanates from one magical inertial frame. I would think that should give people a little bit of a pause...yeah? No? Einstein defined a relative simultaneity as a convention, for the purpose of measurement. There was no unive
  7. Marcos; Some one mentioned 'gap' speed. Let's consider a simple problem in basic algebra. You are observing from the bank. The criminal robs a bank and speeds away in a car at 50 mph. The police begin a chase in a car at 60 mph, after a sighting of the robber 1 mile away. How soon do they overtake the robbers car? For the robber, x=1+50t. For the police, x=60t. If 60t=50t+1, then t=1/(60-50)=1/10 hr =6 min. There are 2 objects in motion, at 50 and 60 mph. There is NOTHING moving at 10 mph. The distance/gap is decreasing at a rate of 10 mph. The gap is not an object, but a spatial relati
  8. Marcos; There was nothing wrong with the previous theory of classical Physics. If light speed is not a constant, then bang goes the 1905 hypothesis. If space can be considered as an absolute frame in which to do physics, then again, bang goes Special Relativity. What experimental experiments confirm either SR or GR? Nothing that cant be better explained by classical principals, with out the magical stuff of Einstein. Which part of the "curved spacetime" concept being nothing but a pure mathematical construct never intended to describe reality don't you understand? Name one solid experime
  9. AnssiH; It is certainly impossible to measure any universal simultaneity as far as we know. It is quite a stretch to then say "it does not exists". Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't - it's not very clever to just assume one way or another. Consider the wind. We can't see it directly but we can detect it's effects. Apply the same analysis to the Lorentz ether. It's invisible and experiments like MM cannot detect any effects it produces. If the behavior of the universe can be accurately described without it, it serves no purpose. When there was speculation for new 'particles' to extend
  10. engcat; In GR, by definition, by a rule, which is the equivalence principle, a light that follows a curved path is in an accelerated frame. Gravitional lensing proves. In SR, by definition, light cannot be in an accelerated frame. it follows a straight line! Which is it? It cannot be both. SR was the 'special' version, which did not include significant gravitational effects. Inertial ref.frames have inertial motion or constant velocity. GR is used for significant gravitational effects.
  11. Marcos; facts 1-8 Your facts are distorted. My basic source is the 1905 paper, OTEOMB. Einstein's 'principle of relativity' used the real world example of induction, as a case for relative motion, and the failure of the MM experiment to detect absolute motion, as a basis for Special Relativity. He could find no need for an absolute reference frame. As usual, the theory is based on the work of others before him. SR is restricted to inertial (constant velocity) motion, and insignificant effects of mass, thus the title. He includes the effects of SR on spatial and time measurements, electrod
  12. ; The invariant spacetime interval: For Einstein it was the spatial distance between two events expressed as an equality. It was invariant because events do not move, which is equivalent to the Lorentz ether, and why Einstein labeled the ether as 'superfluous'. x2+y2+z2=c2t2 Minkowski, being a mathematician, generalized the expression to 4 variables, by using complex notation to transform t to it, making it an independent variable. In the process of mathematical manipulation and removing its identity, 'time' became just another line on paper.
  13. AnnsiH#1276; First of all the "aether detection" experiments 100 years ago all assumed that "objects" and "space" have independent existence from each other, and thus signals between macroscopic objects could be simply measured as if the measurement devices are not part of reality themselves. The revelation of SR was, 'motion altered measurement and perception'. Unthinkable in a world of absolute, ideal concepts, in a supposedly 'enlightened' world. Measurement is the verification tool of science. It's accepted as proof, just as evidence is accepted in a court of law. Clock synchroniza
  • Create New...