Einstein Was Right

[Paradox]

I don't see how any of this contradicts what I have said about Grossman and so on.

I don't see how scientists long dead can contradict an experiment done long after their demise. Its the experiment that contradicts them. IOW its advancement.

Nor do I see how any scientist's that work was published before the experimental results came out contradict the results of an experiment that came after.

Nor can I see how anyone can refute an experiment before analysing the data and results. That is being biased and is totally non scientific.

Over 4 decades of work dismissed by a wave of the hand because, "I don't like what it means".

That's not science, that's religion.

 

 

You don't seem to know who Grossman was. He was the old school friend of Einstein who devised all the maths for GR, which Einstein wasn't sufficiently good enough, as a mathematician, to devise himself.

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what we are assessing on this thread is the logical substance of the theory -- not experimental findings and whether or not they yield a close match.

Ever tried describing a theory that you find pretty simple to understand and logical yet someone totally rejects it because they either can't fully understand it or they don't like what it says, i.e. Its not logical?

I have. Many times. Do I now have to dismiss the theory because of the lowest common denominator?

How exactly do we expand our knowledge if we do that?

Einstein was wrong because Jow Blogs doesn't get it.

Newton was wrong because Peggy Sue reckons he got hit with the wrong sized apple.

 

Are you saying I don't understand relativity? Actually, if you are I don't really mind, because Einstein himself said that he no longer understood the theory when the mathematicians had taken over it. Or, as Rutherford said (when confronted with the statement 'No anglo Saxon can understand relativity') 'No! They've got too much sense!). Listen, I understand it but it's crap.

 

 

I have issues with relativity just like I have issues with the big bang and dark matter and dark energy

 

You should express your issues and not hide behind a belief in packaging of data. If your issues are genuine, then they will be issues that object to logical matters -- and that is a whole different ball game, as you should know.

but when experimental data follows through there is a basis for the theory to be accepted.

If you want to really debate this at the level where you may find answers I can direct you to a site that does exactly this.

Its frequented by physicists, astronomers, mathematicians and research scientists.

Its here: http://www.bautforum.com/

Go to against the mainstream, read the rules in there first.

Then post your concerns.

 

Ten years ago I would have taken you up (I might just, yet) and would have cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces -- something that really isn't difficult, because not a single one of them is anything special as a mind, philosophically speaking. I have been through it on numerous discussion forums and have got exhausted by it and, to quote Mozart, 'You struggle in vain against absolute stupidity'.

 

If you ask them to explain or refute the evidence that you are presenting (referencing: Arp, Gossmann etc) that doesn't agree with relativity you will find they will be far more helpful than if you proclaim that relativity is wrong and here is my evidence.

After years of debunking the sources that you have provided they get a little short with flat out accusations of error.

Tackle it the right way and you'll find people in the top of their fields explaining the concepts with patience and just maybe you might change your position on this.

 

If you're truly compelling, ask the right questions, give the right answers you may convert some people.

 

I doubt it -- relativity, I'm afraid, is (as I have said before on this web domain), every bit a religion. This is the classic article that no relativist ever comments on, no matter how many times you present it to them:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html

[AlphaToOmega]

You don't seem to know who Grossman was.

How did you come to that conclusion from my post?

Are you saying I don't understand relativity?

No.

Are you claiming you do?

You should express your issues and not hide behind a belief in packaging of data.

I do. When my ideas differ from the data I re-evaluate my ideas not ignore the data.

Data is a sanity check.

Ten years ago I would have taken you up (I might just, yet) and would have cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces -- something that really isn't difficult, because not a single one of them is anything special as a mind, philosophically speaking. I have been through it on numerous discussion forums and have got exhausted by it and, to quote Mozart, 'You struggle in vain against absolute stupidity'.

Are you saying I'm stupid because I disagree with you?

I too have a mind, so do physicists, mathematician's, scientists and engineers.

Also, ten years ago, I was the Universes most powerful God. I could out run, out swim, out jump, out think, out smart anyone or anything in the known Universe in which you live and several others known only to me because I was an expert in every field known to exist, have existed or will ever exist. Other Gods asked me for advice when designing a new Universe for their children to play in.

This of course presents a problem. A paradox it seems.

You claim to have been able to "cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces" yet this clearly conflicts with the known fact that I was ten years ago the most powerful God in existence and could out smart anyone and everyone including you.

How do you reconcile this paradox, Paradox?

[Paradox]

You don't seem to know who Grossman was.

 

How did you come to that conclusion from my post?

 

Are you saying I don't understand relativity?

No.

Are you claiming you do?

 

You should express your issues and not hide behind a belief in packaging of data.

 

I do. When my ideas differ from the data I re-evaluate my ideas not ignore the data.

Data is a sanity check.

 

Ten years ago I would have taken you up (I might just, yet) and would have cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces -- something that really isn't difficult, because not a single one of them is anything special as a mind, philosophically speaking. I have been through it on numerous discussion forums and have got exhausted by it and, to quote Mozart, 'You struggle in vain against absolute stupidity'.

 

Are you saying I'm stupid because I disagree with you?

I too have a mind, so do physicists, mathematician's, scientists and engineers.

 

Also, ten years ago, I was the Universes most powerful God. I could out run, out swim, out jump, out think, out smart anyone or anything in the known Universe in which you live and several others known only to me because I was an expert in every field known to exist, have existed or will ever exist. Other Gods asked me for advice when designing a new Universe for their children to play in.

 

This of course presents a problem. A paradox it seems.

You claim to have been able to "cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces" yet this clearly conflicts with the known fact that I was ten years ago the most powerful God in existence and could out smart anyone and everyone including you.

How do you reconcile this paradox, Paradox?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about you get on with addressing the issues I have raised as regards the logic of relativity?

[bornagainathiest]

Now I could be making some sort of rookie-level blunder here Paradox, but as far as I can see the logical substance of Xeno's Arrow appears sound...

 

Paradox replied...

The assumptions of Zeno's paradox are not sound. The assumption is that velocity is a fundamental, measurable property of objects. It is not. No object has a velocity at any instant (because instants don't really exist as final realities); velocty is always calculated as an average taken over a time period, and is never an absolutely precise measurement.

 

So it looks like I can't cut it as a philosopher either. Big surprise there!

 

To repeat, I'm self-taught when it comes to cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy. When it comes to philosophy, I'm un-taught, the proof of which we can see above. Therefore, on what basis should I decide between the orthodoxy of Einsteinian physics and Paradox's alternatives?

 

My answer is this. I shall do it on the basis of which scenario I find the more likely, the more persuasive and which is in best agreement with my own experience. Do I accept scenario A or scenario B?

 

Scenario A.

The millions of scientists who support Einstein fall into these groups.

1. There are the immoral, lying conspirators who knowingly and ruthlessly suppress free speech and unfettered inquiry in exchange for money, kudos, power or a combination of these things.

2. The amoral opportunists who, having no concept of integrity and honesty, simply go with the flow and sell themselves to the powers that 'be'.

3. Those who can see the obvious flaws in Einstein's work but who are too scared to speak up and put their careers in jeopardy - so they keep their cowardly heads down.

4. Those who could see those flaws, but are too blinkered to do so, thereby making themselves the unwitting pawns of the ruling high priesthood of Einstein worship.

 

Opposing this secret, global 'Einstein-is-God' conspiracy are the N.P.A. (Natural Philosophy Alliance) and it's adherents.

These guys have a lock on all the fairness, honesty, integrity and tolerance to be found in scientific circles.

They are as principled and truthful as the pro-Einstein conspirators are devious and deceitful.

They always abide by the rules, always hold to that which is rigorously logical and never, ever falsify anything.

 

Scenario B.

In any sphere of human activity (the sciences are no exception) there will always be a disgruntled minority of malcontents who rail against the status quo. Many do this for positive reasons, such as exposing the criminal, corporate and political conspiracies that do exist. By and large this is a healthy thing, sometimes yielding justice and fairness. However, there are those who are excessive in their pursuit of perceived injustices. They are pre-disposed to seeing patterns of conspiracy and wrongdoing where none exist. These are the die-hards, the obsessives and the incorrigibles.

 

So which scenario do you think I'm going to opt for?

 

A or B?

 

BAA.

[Paradox]

Now I could be making some sort of rookie-level blunder here Paradox, but as far as I can see the logical substance of Xeno's Arrow appears sound...

 

Paradox replied...

The assumptions of Zeno's paradox are not sound. The assumption is that velocity is a fundamental, measurable property of objects. It is not. No object has a velocity at any instant (because instants don't really exist as final realities); velocty is always calculated as an average taken over a time period, and is never an absolutely precise measurement.

 

So it looks like I can't cut it as a philosopher either. Big surprise there!

 

To repeat, I'm self-taught when it comes to cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy. When it comes to philosophy, I'm un-taught, the proof of which we can see above. Therefore, on what basis should I decide between the orthodoxy of Einsteinian physics and Paradox's alternatives?

 

My answer is this. I shall do it on the basis of which scenario I find the more likely, the more persuasive and which is in best agreement with my own experience. Do I accept scenario A or scenario B?

 

Scenario A.

The millions of scientists who support Einstein fall into these groups.

1. There are the immoral, lying conspirators who knowingly and ruthlessly suppress free speech and unfettered inquiry in exchange for money, kudos, power or a combination of these things.

2. The amoral opportunists who, having no concept of integrity and honesty, simply go with the flow and sell themselves to the powers that 'be'.

3. Those who can see the obvious flaws in Einstein's work but who are too scared to speak up and put their careers in jeopardy - so they keep their cowardly heads down.

4. Those who could see those flaws, but are too blinkered to do so, thereby making themselves the unwitting pawns of the ruling high priesthood of Einstein worship.

 

Opposing this secret, global 'Einstein-is-God' conspiracy are the N.P.A. (Natural Philosophy Alliance) and it's adherents.

These guys have a lock on all the fairness, honesty, integrity and tolerance to be found in scientific circles.

They are as principled and truthful as the pro-Einstein conspirators are devious and deceitful.

They always abide by the rules, always hold to that which is rigorously logical and never, ever falsify anything.

 

Scenario B.

In any sphere of human activity (the sciences are no exception) there will always be a disgruntled minority of malcontents who rail against the status quo. Many do this for positive reasons, such as exposing the criminal, corporate and political conspiracies that do exist. By and large this is a healthy thing, sometimes yielding justice and fairness. However, there are those who are excessive in their pursuit of perceived injustices. They are pre-disposed to seeing patterns of conspiracy and wrongdoing where none exist. These are the die-hards, the obsessives and the incorrigibles.

 

So which scenario do you think I'm going to opt for?

 

A or B?

 

BAA.

 

It's entirely up to you.

[bornagainathiest]

Yes. It is.

[AlphaToOmega]

How about you get on with addressing the issues I have raised as regards the logic of relativity?

You mean the logic of, "it doesn't make common sense so it must be flawed"?

I thought I already did that.

OK, a helicopter flies over the Amazon forest. A chief of a tribe looks up and says, "it doesn't have wings. It cannot fly".

Suddenly the world of physics crumples in a pile and the helicopter falls to the ground because it was illogical.

You seem to be caught up in the idea that the mind is the be all and end all of knowledge and understanding.

This is simply incorrect.

The mind is severely limited in this capacity.

It is prone to miscalculation, illusion, error in judgement and capacity.

Every individual sample is different.

The only thing that ties them together is the common thread of reality that is testable and falsifiable.

You stated that you could have ten years ago cut every relativist to pieces.

That is a hugely arrogant statement. I responded in like with extremely obvious sarcasm and exaggeration and thus rebutted your statement.

The problem I see here is that you accuse relativists of bias and circular reasoning yet you yourself want to argue in the realm of the mind with what is "logical" to you and what you define as "common sense" thus circular reasoning is what you are guilty of.

Much like Christians who assume everything is correct in the Bible, you are assuming that your mind is.

There was never a clearer example of that than this statement:

Ten years ago I would have taken you up (I might just, yet) and would have cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces -- something that really isn't difficult, because not a single one of them is anything special as a mind, philosophically speaking.

How can you expect me to take you seriously?

[Paradox]

How about you get on with addressing the issues I have raised as regards the logic of relativity?

You mean the logic of, "it doesn't make common sense so it must be flawed"?

I thought I already did that.

OK, a helicopter flies over the Amazon forest. A chief of a tribe looks up and says, "it doesn't have wings. It cannot fly".

Suddenly the world of physics crumples in a pile and the helicopter falls to the ground because it was illogical.

You seem to be caught up in the idea that the mind is the be all and end all of knowledge and understanding.

This is simply incorrect.

The mind is severely limited in this capacity.

It is prone to miscalculation, illusion, error in judgement and capacity.

Every individual sample is different.

The only thing that ties them together is the common thread of reality that is testable and falsifiable.

You stated that you could have ten years ago cut every relativist to pieces.

That is a hugely arrogant statement. I responded in like with extremely obvious sarcasm and exaggeration and thus rebutted your statement.

The problem I see here is that you accuse relativists of bias and circular reasoning yet you yourself want to argue in the realm of the mind with what is "logical" to you and what you define as "common sense" thus circular reasoning is what you are guilty of.

Much like Christians who assume everything is correct in the Bible, you are assuming that your mind is.

There was never a clearer example of that than this statement:

Ten years ago I would have taken you up (I might just, yet) and would have cut every relativity 'expert' to pieces -- something that really isn't difficult, because not a single one of them is anything special as a mind, philosophically speaking.

How can you expect me to take you seriously?

 

 

Don't worry about it, A-to-O. To cut something to pieces you only need to make one decisive cut. I could make several, perhaps a dozen, perhaps more, but I think they all stem ultimately from the same source of error. This is the thing that no relativist has ever answered, no matter how many times I have put it to them:

 

General relativity is based on relatvitistic concepts, which in turn are founded in special relativity. In special relativity, velocity causes time dilation.. but velocity is distance divided by time. This is circularity.

 

Don't bother with the 'this is hugely arrogant' -type objections, or anything else, until you have produced as resolution to the problem in the preceding paragraph. Otherwise, with your comments about logic, you make yourself look like a guy playing chess who, on being check-mated, reckons that if he sits looking at the pieces and the chess board long enough he will find a way out, and each time he is shown to be wrong, it is a matter of scientific principle that he still cannot be definitively check-mate because he could always just spend more time looking and it'll remain conceivable answer might appear. (Sounds like me playing my Dad when I was five! )

[AlphaToOmega]

General relativity is based on relatvitistic concepts, which in turn are founded in special relativity. In special relativity, velocity causes time dilation.. but velocity is distance divided by time. This is circularity.

No. Its a formula.

Surely you understand formula transposition?

I have given you a link to where you can debate this with the suitably qualified people. Go and ask. Provide a link to the thread you start. We'll follow your progress as you "cut them to pieces".

I'll also add, I gave you the benefit of doubt when you found the astronomical survey confusing.

I'll take that back now.

Anyone who has serious knowledge of astronomical studies knows what an astronomical survey is.

This was enough to throw you off and you claimed it wasn't clear.

It was extremely clear, concise and to the point. You simply didn't understand it.

Instead of looking at it objectively that it was you that was in error, you maintained it wasn't clear.

It was to everyone else.

Much like the concepts you keep bringing up. They are clear to everyone else so why are you finding problems. The logical conclusion is, you don't understand that either.

[Paradox]

General relativity is based on relatvitistic concepts, which in turn are founded in special relativity. In special relativity, velocity causes time dilation.. but velocity is distance divided by time. This is circularity.

 

No. Its a formula.

 

Surely you understand formula transposition?

 

I have given you a link to where you can debate this with the suitably qualified people. Go and ask. Provide a link to the thread you start. We'll follow your progress as you "cut them to pieces".

 

It is very obvious circularity and it would be unacceptable in any other field of mathematics.

 

I have been through it all on other discussion forums. The 'experts' just do what you do above, and convert empirical constucts into abstractions, and tell me that I am simply wrong when I object.

 

For example, if I say that a reference frame is defined as a set of co-ordinates specific to some observer or (less strictly) some measuring device (as it is), I might then say that it is impossible to accelerate, or move in any way, a set of co-ordinates. Co-ordinates are abstractions; mathematicians don't ever speak of them as 'moving'. Bring this up on a relativity forum and the 'experts' will just say something like 'in relatvity, this is how it's done. And it works'. I'm afraid that this is the simple truth of what happens there.

 

I'll also add, I gave you the benefit of doubt when you found the astronomical survey confusing.

I'll take that back now.

Anyone who has serious knowledge of astronomical studies knows what an astronomical survey is.

This was enough to throw you off and you claimed it wasn't clear.

It was extremely clear, concise and to the point. You simply didn't understand it.

 

I never claimed to be familiar with astronomical studies. Indeed, most things to do with GR -- in which the field of astronomy is sadly steeped -- bore me.

[AlphaToOmega]

Can you explain laser gyro's?

[Paradox]

Can you explain laser gyro's?

 

Asking me? what do you want to know about them?

[AlphaToOmega]

Can you explain how they work and why they work?

[Paradox]

Can you explain how they work and why they work?

 

All optical gyros work on the Sagnac principle. They revolve at high speed and there is a shortening of the optical path in one direction in relation to the other, resulting in the light taking less time to travel one way round the device than the other, and therefore you get interference at the receptor -- as in an interferometer. It's attributable to there being an absolute reference frame in relation to rotation. And since all clestial bodies are never in a perfectly straight path, one may extend that to say that there is an absolute reference frame full stop.

I expect you thought I Googled most of that. Actually it was etched in my mind for two reasons: one is that I have made an error a few years ago in discussing this subject and, perfectionist that I am, it made an impression on me, and the other is that I have a good friend who is into experiments using interferometers -- he carries them out himself vatst expense. And of course a third is that interferometry is simply up there with a lot of other stuff one should know if one comments on relatvity.

[AlphaToOmega]

I thought so.

You're confusing laser gyroscopes with mechanical ones and getting mixed up.

They do not need to rotate at all. They are stationary and fixed to the device being monitored. They detect the rotation of the device itself even if it is extremely small with NO moving parts.

Its mechanical gyroscopes rotate at high speed. It works on the principle of conservation of angular momentum thus needs to be rotating to work.

 

 

While the basic mirror Sagnac interferometer can be explained by both relativity and classical electrodynamic methods only one theory can explain a fibre optic laser gyroscope.

The reason is that the fibre optic cable introduces a velocity v to the equation by virtue of the fibre optic cable now having a velocity v and the only way to obtain a correct result is when we calculate it using relativistic velocity addition as C+v. The classical solution leads to errors.

The lack of using relativistic summing of the angular velocity v with the speed of light causes the classical method to fail.

One gives wrong results. The other right results.

I'd also ask your friend at what RPM he has to spin his interferometers before they will work.

If he know his stuff he will give you a very odd look.

B.T.W. This little gem from your link shows the ignorance of the writer:

Relativists seem to be rather shaky on dimensions: has not Eddington told us that the mass of the Sun is 1·47 km

OMFG!

 

[bornagainathiest]

Who's doing the cutting now... ?

[Paradox]

I thought so.

You're confusing laser gyroscopes with mechanical ones and getting mixed up.

They do not need to rotate at all. They are stationary and fixed to the device being monitored. They detect the rotation of the device itself even if it is extremely small with NO moving parts.

Its mechanical gyroscopes rotate at high speed. It works on the principle of conservation of angular momentum thus needs to be rotating to work.

 

Well as you know perfectly well it makes absolutely no difference because it is still based on the Sagnac effect. As I said, all optical gyroscopes are based on it.

 

While the basic mirror Sagnac interferometer can be explained by both relativity and classical electrodynamic methods only one theory can explain a fibre optic laser gyroscope.

The reason is that the fibre optic cable introduces a velocity v to the equation by virtue of the fibre optic cable now having a velocity v and the only way to obtain a correct result is when we calculate it using relativistic velocity addition as C+v. The classical solution leads to errors.

 

This is not Einsteinian relativity at all. It's Galilean relativity, as is very obvious! You might just as well think of each released photon as a material particle and such a model is entirely in line with classical physics! Just do the diagrams and the maths, mate! Indeed the Sagnac effect is used by many as grounds to *refute* relativity -- it implies an absolute reference frame, as I have alread described!

 

The lack of using relativistic summing of the angular velocity v with the speed of light causes the classical method to fail.

One gives wrong results. The other right results.

 

This is deceptive, manipulative speak. As you also know full well, anything that uses the speed of light, c, in its equations is termed 'relativistic', and this leads toto misnomer after misnomer.

 

In fact you can easily show how this is utterly at odds with Einsteinian relativity. Imagine a rotating gyroscope, emitting its beam of light from its light source, in a specified reference frame. Take it that the tangential velocity of the rotating light source is v. Tell me, at any single point, how fast is the light travelling with respect to the gyroscope's reference frame? It's c+ v, which if I am not mistaken is faster than the speed of light. Now *how* Einsteinian is that ?

 

Doubtless you will say 'oh, the light source has a different reference frame from the gyro itself' but this will just be playing with/retreating into abstract concepts in an attempt to avoid concrete, empirical concepts.

 

 

I'd also ask your friend at what RPM he has to spin his interferometers before they will work.

If he know his stuff he will give you a very odd look.

 

An interferometer is just a device that operates on the basis of optical interference -- using rotation (optical-gyroscope-style) or otherwise. I'll tell you another thing -- he doesn't for a moment believe in relativity and never has.

 

 

B.T.W. This little gem from your link shows the ignorance of the writer:

Relativists seem to be rather shaky on dimensions: has not Eddington told us that the mass of the Sun is 1·47 km

OMFG!

 

That was a footnote. The author was very obviously just putting it in for a laugh. Which is what I am getting for your lack of understanding of -- or dogged imposition of intellectual barriers against -- that very well-written, very well-informed paper.

[Paradox]

Whoops -- I now see that you were referring to a nonrotating, laser gyroscope in what you spout about c + v. No worries -- it's all cobblers. I have shown very clearly that the c + v equation makes a nonsense of relativity (go back that Burniston Borwn paper, where he mentions it!!!).

[Paradox]

And one other thing, A-to-O: in regard to your absurdly perverted ideas about c + v 'proving' Einstein right, I shall refer you to that much celebrated but sadly deceased member of NPA, and dissident par excellence -- and one who, you've guessed it, was ostracised by the establishment and savagely censored by the peer review setup -- Bryan G. Wallace.

 

Here is a sentence from his work:

"My 1969 published analysis of the first published Venus radar contact data showed that the best fit to the data was for the Newtonian c+v particle model, and not the Einstein general relativity c wave model."

 

http://bourabai.narod.ru/wallace/farce06.htm

 

So, your extraordinarily misguided use of laser gyroscopes only serves to dig yourself into a bigger and bigger hole; it proves *my* case, not yours.

[AlphaToOmega]

How do you seriously want me to answer this?

1) You say its not important that you got it totally wrong how an optical gyroscope works.

2) You continue to assume that an optical gyroscope is rotating w.r.t. its reference frame when its bolted to the reference frame.

 

This is not Einsteinian relativity at all. It's Galilean relativity, as is very obvious! You might just as well think of each released photon as a material particle and such a model is entirely in line with classical physics! Just do the diagrams and the maths, mate! Indeed the Sagnac effect is used by many as grounds to *refute* relativity -- it implies an absolute reference frame, as I have alread described!

 

Feel free to post your maths here and explain it to me.

 

Yes it is used to attempt to refute it by those who fail to understand it.

 

I'll say it again. The basic mirror interferometer is explainable by both classic electro dynamics and relativity.

It gets the incorrect results in a ring laser interferometer. The reason it gets those incorrect results is because it adds C+V in the classic sense.

 

his is deceptive, manipulative speak. As you also know full well, anything that uses the speed of light, c, in its equations is termed 'relativistic', and this leads toto misnomer after misnomer.

 

C simply represents the speed of light for gods sake. Are you assuming that it has no speed? Infinite speed or some other weird figure for speed?

Its been known for a long time now what that speed is. Are you now denying this too???

Are you saying that in your physics there is no quantity for the speed of light?

 

In fact you can easily show how this is utterly at odds with Einsteinian relativity. Imagine a rotating gyroscope, emitting its beam of light from its light source, in a specified reference frame. Take it that the tangential velocity of the rotating light source is v. Tell me, at any single point, how fast is the light travelling with respect to the gyroscope's reference frame? It's c+ v, which if I am not mistaken is faster than the speed of light. Now *how* Einsteinian is that ?

 

So you add velocity with C using classical maths and then claim the result proves relativity wrong?

Clearly your ignorance is showing.

 

That was a footnote. The author was very obviously just putting it in for a laugh. Which is what I am getting for your lack of understanding of -- or dogged imposition of intellectual barriers against -- that very well-written, very well-informed paper.

 

OMFG!

You don't even know what he's referring to yet you assume he's joking.

Look, I don't mind ignorance. We're all ignorant in something. Its simply lack of knowledge in any given subject.

Will-full ignorance on the other hand I don't understand.

Nor do I understand the illusions of grandeur some people have considering everyone around them understands a concept and they fail to.

 

You have problems understanding the two clocks travelling away from each other exercise and call it a paradox.

Its not a paradox. You just don't understand it.

 

An example for you:

Two ships travelling away from each other. Each see's the other getting smaller relative to themselves.

OMG, they both see the other shrinking!

Where is the paradox?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

Whoops -- I now see that you were referring to a nonrotating, laser gyroscope in what you spout about c + v. No worries -- it's all cobblers. I have shown very clearly that the c + v equation makes a nonsense of relativity (go back that Burniston Borwn paper, where he mentions it!!!).

 

Except that the addition of a medium being the fibre throws of classical calculations but relativistic ones give the correct results.

Funny that.

 

That paper is garbage btw.

[Paradox]

 

So you add velocity with C using classical maths and then claim the result proves relativity wrong?

Clearly your ignorance is showing.

 

 

The only way you can be 'relativistic' and not classical is to mess around with the concept of reference frames, which as I have shown will amount to a logically unacceptable framing of concepts. When you say that the classical account 'gets it wrong' it is only 'wrong' in the context of the false relativistic assumption of the constancy of the speed of light with respect to all reference frames.

 

That was a footnote. The author was very obviously just putting it in for a laugh. Which is what I am getting for your lack of understanding of -- or dogged imposition of intellectual barriers against -- that very well-written, very well-informed paper.

 

OMFG!

You don't even know what he's referring to yet you assume he's joking.

Look, I don't mind ignorance. We're all ignorant in something. Its simply lack of knowledge in any given subject.

Will-full ignorance on the other hand I don't understand.

Nor do I understand the illusions of grandeur some people have considering everyone around them understands a concept and they fail to.

 

This looks outstoundingly defensive. Please explain, (soberly and clearly, so that nothing is disguised in such a way as to suit you and your claims of superior knowledge): what, exactly, it the problem?

You have problems understanding the two clocks travelling away from each other exercise and call it a paradox.

Its not a paradox. You just don't understand it.

 

You are referring to the twin paradox (or am I once again not knowing even what you are referring to and am therefore disgracefully ignorant? [Actually, if you weren't so badly on the back foot, you would have come out and named this problem you are thinking of, for what it is])? If so, I agree -- it's not a paradox. It is, as Brown says, a logical contradiction.

 

An example for you:

Two ships travelling away from each other. Each see's the other getting smaller relative to themselves.

OMG, they both see the other shrinking!

Where is the paradox?

 

Eh? It's a simple non sequitur.

PS As to your comment on the Burniston Brown article, I have never seen any component of its critique properly addressed by a relativist. The best they can do is what you do, and say 'It's a load of < insert word here >' and they then say that the author is a crackpot/crank/kook. Seriously, that is the best I have ever seen. Very telling.

[Paradox]

Whoops -- I now see that you were referring to a nonrotating, laser gyroscope in what you spout about c + v. No worries -- it's all cobblers. I have shown very clearly that the c + v equation makes a nonsense of relativity (go back that Burniston Borwn paper, where he mentions it!!!).

 

Except that the addition of a medium being the fibre throws of classical calculations but relativistic ones give the correct results.

Funny that.

 

That paper is garbage btw.

 

 

The inclusion of a medium makes one difference: spurious grounds for saying that there is a new reference frame (that of the fibre) that the classical account ignores. Strange how, in relativity, anything can be seized upon as grounds for making some entirely abstract subdivision of reality.

[bornagainathiest]

...the die-hards, the obsessives and the incorrigibles.

[Paradox]

 

So you add velocity with C using classical maths and then claim the result proves relativity wrong?

Clearly your ignorance is showing.

 

 

More Jekyll-and-Hyde speak. You are saying that by relativity, the casual observer might think that one adds c to v, and that is what common sense and mathematical analysis (and indeed, observation) would tell you to do, but Einstein tells you to create a new reference frame so that in fact you don't. You don't have any sum at all, you just fall back on a different (and, as it happens, false) assumption about light speed. So the term 'relativistic summing of velocities' actually means 'the sum of velocities that isn't a sum'. Einstein's term 'celerity' was brought in as another relativistic sleight of hand of a similar kind.

 

So, A-to-O, exactly what are these 'issues' you said you had with relativity, a few days ago? Tell us. We wouldn't wish for any intellectual dishonesty on Ex-Christian, would we...