Einstein Was Right

[Ouroboros]

I don't know why you object so vehemently -- you should see some of the things I have had to put up with by headstrong people thinking they are right (and you are not perfect on that count yourself).

A person with a big heart and big mind wouldn't throw those low-blows that you do. Only small minded people do. That makes it easy to judge your "science."

 

If I might be provocative once more, I imagine that AlphaToOmega's recently more subdued style of replying is something to do with his having made an attempt at working out the problem using geometry, as I had suggested from the start. If you want me to be all gentle and keep receiving A-to-O's (and other people's) snide comments as though I am just a punchbag whose sad lot is to keep repeating the simple, common-sense, well-recognised (though sadly not well-recognised enough) scheme that I have spelt out all along, then I am sorry, but I have my limits.

So you treated me based on how he treated you? I see. That's still the behavior of small minded people.

 

I don't think you really have anything to show. You're just a lot of hot air.

 

So, Ouroboros, how come you never speak to that condescending jerk, DeGaul in the way that you speak to me, above.

Because he never speaks to me in a condescending way. I treat him how he treats me. I treat you how you treat me.

[Paradox]

 

So you treated me based on how he treated you? I see. That's still the behavior of small minded people.

 

Alright, if you can't take a light-hearted, sparring-ring type comment, which was nothing more offensive than 'let me know when you guys have conceded defeat', then if it makes you feel better, my 'you guys' referred to anyone who was still up for disputing the maths of the matter. If you weren't, then by all means don't consider yourself part of the 'you guys'.

But it's not as though you yourself don't enjoy making the occasional unnecessary jab.

 

So, Ouroboros, how come you never speak to that condescending jerk, DeGaul in the way that you speak to me, above.

Because he never speaks to me in a condescending way.

 

He will, the moment you disagree wth him.

 

Am not up for any more bickering.

[Ouroboros]

Unlike some I know my limitations and can freely admit when I'm out of my depth.

 

Y'know, it's quite a liberating and refreshing feeling to fess up and say so.

 

I highly recommend it!

Very true.

 

That's why I asked questions, but it was not appreciated. I know better now. One should not ask questions when the Master speaks.

[skepticalme]

So if a hot air balloon takes off at the equator it begins traveling west at 1000mph?

Cars get better gas milage traveling east-west than west-east?

 

Yes. You've got to think of a vehicle as something that has an inertia, as though it were to some extent detached from the earth. The spin of the earth brings the destination towards it as its inertia tries to keep it stationary (but not that is not, specifically, stationary with respect to the earth -- rather, to the cosmos).

 

So what you are saying is, in fact, the first postulate of relativity.

 

-"The laws of physics are the same for all uniformly moving observers. "

[Paradox]

So if a hot air balloon takes off at the equator it begins traveling west at 1000mph?

Cars get better gas milage traveling east-west than west-east?

 

Yes. You've got to think of a vehicle as something that has an inertia, as though it were to some extent detached from the earth. The spin of the earth brings the destination towards it as its inertia tries to keep it stationary (but not that is not, specifically, stationary with respect to the earth -- rather, to the cosmos).

 

So what you are saying is, in fact, the first postulate of relativity.

 

-"The laws of physics are the same for all uniformly moving observers. "

 

I don't quite see how you draw this conclusion. The earth is a rotating (accelerating) frame, so not in uniform motion.

Also your use of 'the same' is not precise. In Einstein's scheme, there is no physical means *to distinguish* between any two reference frames. This is false, even by what is commonly taken to be proof of relativity: the fact that atomic clocks tick at different rates in different frames, and can be *measured* to so as much.

[Ouroboros]

This is an interesting article about the sociological aspects of science: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-know-better-than-you

 

He's from Cardiff. Call the Doctor. He could be an alien.

 

Another good page, by a theoretical physicist, about speed of light, SR, and GR: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Actually, he has a lot of good articles: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

[skepticalme]

So if a hot air balloon takes off at the equator it begins traveling west at 1000mph?

Cars get better gas milage traveling east-west than west-east?

 

Yes. You've got to think of a vehicle as something that has an inertia, as though it were to some extent detached from the earth. The spin of the earth brings the destination towards it as its inertia tries to keep it stationary (but not that is not, specifically, stationary with respect to the earth -- rather, to the cosmos).

 

So what you are saying is, in fact, the first postulate of relativity.

 

-"The laws of physics are the same for all uniformly moving observers. "

 

I don't quite see how you draw this conclusion. The earth is a rotating (accelerating) frame, so not in uniform motion.

Also your use of 'the same' is not precise. In Einstein's scheme, there is no physical means *to distinguish* between any two reference frames. This is false, even by what is commonly taken to be proof of relativity: the fact that atomic clocks tick at different rates in different frames, and can be *measured* to so as much.

 

But you distinguished between two reference frames when you said , "with respect to the cosmos, not with respect to the Earth". See, we launch rockets in an eastern direction because Earth orbit is a differnt frame of reference than the surface of the Earth, orbital velocity is not calculated relative to the Earth's surface, it is relative to Earth's center of gravity.

[Paradox]

But you distinguished between two reference frames when you said , "with respect to the cosmos, not with respect to the Earth". See, we launch rockets in an eastern direction because Earth orbit is a differnt frame of reference than the surface of the Earth, orbital velocity is not calculated relative to the Earth's surface, it is relative to Earth's center of gravity.

 

I think this is playing with concepts, to be frank. Relativists distinguish different reference frames for their equations but I can't see the point. It is just one more conceptual tier. Take it out and you have a simpler method. Decide what reference you are going to use (eg. the fixed stars) and use that for every measurement you take.

One point: the rotating earth is a reference frame but not an *inertial* reference frame. Special relativists would say that this make it invalid for use in applying the equations of SR.

[Ouroboros]

I recommend that people who are deeply interested in the discussion of relativity vs anti-relativity to visit following website: http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/index.php

 

Both sides are represented.

 

What surprises me is that the anti-relativity movement is so aggressive and seemingly ubiquitous.

[Paradox]

I recommend that people who are deeply interested in the discussion of relativity vs anti-relativity to visit following website: http://www.anti-rela...forum/index.php

 

Both sides are represented.

 

What surprises me is that the anti-relativity movement is so aggressive and seemingly ubiquitous.

 

 

NPA isn't agressive as a matter of policy. It knows that the only way to precipitate a revolution to overthrow relativity is to get a large section of he establishment onside.

 

And I had never thought of the anti-relativity movement as being ubiquitous -- most people seem never to have knowingly encountered anyone who is serious about being anti-relativity.

[Ouroboros]

And I had never thought of the anti-relativity movement as being ubiquitous -- most people seem never to have knowingly encountered anyone who is serious about being anti-relativity.

True. Perhaps that was a too strong word.

[AlphaToOmega]

If I might be provocative once more' date=' I imagine that AlphaToOmega's recently more subdued style of replying is something to do with his having made an attempt at working out the problem using geometry, as I had suggested from the start. If you want me to be all gentle and keep receiving A-to-O's (and other people's) snide comments as though I am just a punchbag whose sad lot is to keep repeating the simple, common-sense, well-recognised (though sadly not well-recognised enough) scheme that I have spelt out all along, then I am sorry, but I have my limits.[/quote']

 

ROFL

 

Again you assume. There's an old saying about that...

 

Trace back the steps to when my sarcasm with you started. Its all on record right here.

I continued to be polite till you pulled this little stunt:

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'.

 

So you could cut every relativity expert to pieces yet you seem to have very patchy knowledge of physics. I'm betting you still haven't worked out the M=1.47km reference yet it was part of a calculation that was a HUGE milestone back in its day.

 

You struggle in vain against absolute stupidity.

That's what you said about people trying to explain to you relativity.

Since I was trying to explain where you have gone wrong then I must be absolutely stupid.

 

Yet, you condemn me for being sarcastic.

Your arguments both in the field of physics and maths are as consistent with your understanding of cause and consequence demonstrated here.

You lack the fundamental background to understand the concepts yet you want to argue like you have expert knowledge.

You have neither.

 

You claim the paper has never been refuted. What a crock. Its based on huge ignorance, much like the 1.47km snide comment you "assumed" was humour.

It is full of logical fallacies and out dated as well as rebutted theories.

 

You lack of comprehension regarding a moving medium in a laser ring interferometer and you yet again "assumed" that it rotated at high speed shows your real lack of fundamental knowledge. When its pointed out you dismiss it as irrelevant anyway.

 

You constantly ask for clarification of concepts you were ignorant about and then dismiss them like they mean nothing even though to fully understand them would take you much research.

 

Any wonder why people who could teach you something give up in frustration?

Then you accuse them of not being able to refute what you say.

 

Your arguments against relativity are as ridiculous as someone saying a diesel engine will not work, I have proof, then shows a shovel full of horse dung.

Your surprise at no one taking you seriously is the same as someone who was totally unaware that horse dung does not refute a diesel engine.

 

Go study physics if you want to argue physics. Study maths. Study logic.

You seriously lack in all three but are too arrogant and ignorant to see it.

So far as I can tell you are an "Internet search" physicist and not even a good one at that. I'll offer my proof: M=1.47km

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

If you can drop the sarcasm for a second -- and I feel you ought to, being a moderator -- you might give some though as to why I asked. A point doesn't move, but the surface of the earth does.

As a moderator on another forum I can tell you he was being very patient with your comments. See my post above to understand why.

He was certainly more patient than I would have been with you if I was moderating here.

[Paradox]

If I might be provocative once more' date=' I imagine that AlphaToOmega's recently more subdued style of replying is something to do with his having made an attempt at working out the problem using geometry, as I had suggested from the start. If you want me to be all gentle and keep receiving A-to-O's (and other people's) snide comments as though I am just a punchbag whose sad lot is to keep repeating the simple, common-sense, well-recognised (though sadly not well-recognised enough) scheme that I have spelt out all along, then I am sorry, but I have my limits.[/quote']

 

ROFL

 

Again you assume. There's an old saying about that...

 

Trace back the steps to when my sarcasm with you started. Its all on record right here.

I continued to be polite till you pulled this little stunt:

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'.

 

So you could cut every relativity expert to pieces yet you seem to have very patchy knowledge of physics. I'm betting you still haven't worked out the M=1.47km reference yet it was part of a calculation that was a HUGE milestone back in its day.

 

You struggle in vain against absolute stupidity.

That's what you said about people trying to explain to you relativity.

Since I was trying to explain where you have gone wrong then I must be absolutely stupid.

 

Yet, you condemn me for being sarcastic.

Your arguments both in the field of physics and maths are as consistent with your understanding of cause and consequence demonstrated here.

You lack the fundamental background to understand the concepts yet you want to argue like you have expert knowledge.

You have neither.

 

You claim the paper has never been refuted. What a crock. Its based on huge ignorance, much like the 1.47km snide comment you "assumed" was humour.

It is full of logical fallacies and out dated as well as rebutted theories.

 

You lack of comprehension regarding a moving medium in a laser ring interferometer and you yet again "assumed" that it rotated at high speed shows your real lack of fundamental knowledge. When its pointed out you dismiss it as irrelevant anyway.

 

You constantly ask for clarification of concepts you were ignorant about and then dismiss them like they mean nothing even though to fully understand them would take you much research.

 

Any wonder why people who could teach you something give up in frustration?

Then you accuse them of not being able to refute what you say.

 

Your arguments against relativity are as ridiculous as someone saying a diesel engine will not work, I have proof, then shows a shovel full of horse dung.

Your surprise at no one taking you seriously is the same as someone who was totally unaware that horse dung does not refute a diesel engine.

 

Go study physics if you want to argue physics. Study maths. Study logic.

You seriously lack in all three but are too arrogant and ignorant to see it.

So far as I can tell you are an "Internet search" physicist and not even a good one at that. I'll offer my proof: M=1.47km

 

 

 

 

 

So have you got any counterarguments to mine?

[AlphaToOmega]

One's that you can understand?

No.

[Ouroboros]

As a moderator on another forum I can tell you he was being very patient with your comments. See my post above to understand why.

He was certainly more patient than I would have been with you if I was moderating here.

[Paradox]

One's that you can understand?

No.

 

Well I think that it would be a very good idea that, at this point, you keep your trap shut, because I can do something pretty awsome to embarrass you on this, 'Mr Obvious'

[Paradox]

One's that you can understand?

No.

 

Well I think that it would be a very good idea that, at this point, you keep your trap shut, because I can do something pretty awesome to embarrass you on this, 'Mr Obvious'

 

Oh, what the hell -- here it is, from a message board (here, a sample):

 

Mr Obvious:

 

<<I've been debating someone who claims that no relativist has an answer to this:

 

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

 

Any help appreciated. >>

 

Mr Obvious:

 

<<I hear you.

So far I've provided information why Paul Marmet was wrong, that was another reference he brought up.

The main reason I posted this is because that page seems to be regularly used as a reference to try and disprove relativity.

I searched this site for someone that has debunked the article but found none.

At least this way someone researching that article can have a site (here) that does a formal rebuttal.

 

After I posted this I asked the guy to explain how a optical gyrometer works.

He had that mixed up with a mechanical gyrometer in that he assumed it needed to rotate at high speed to function.

So I explained the difference and why the laser ring gyrometer can only give correct results when relativity is considered.

If he doesn't understand that or disagree's then I'll give up and not waste my time as you say. >>

 

Mr Obvious:

 

<<To be honest I posted here before I'd had coffee and its been a loooong time since I've looked at relativity.

I took him at his word that he argued with people who were physicists so I didn't pay too much attention to the article figuring it might be beyond me so debated with things I was confident of.

Rather embarrassing now that I'm awake and reading it. Really embarrassing actually.

That'll teach me to post BC. >>

 

[...]

<<This at least gives me the inspiration to go back and brush up my relativity theory which I always found fascinating.>>

 

Well, Mr Obvious, I shall state the obvious. You need a few cups of coffee. And prbably a few stiff drinks too!!!

 

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116253-What-s-wrong-with-this-relativity-article

 

Oh -- and all those replies, but not *a single* rebuttal on that discussion page, just as I had anticipated. Just that thing taken from the footnote, about Eddington telling us the mass of the sun was what he measured as a deflection of sunlight, which indeed *was* a joke by Burniston Brown (there was me thinking there was a story behind the slip of the tongue, and trying to find it by Google) -- but none of the relativists have got any sense of irony -- unsurprising, really. Oh, and there was the obligatory selection of 'Bah!' and 'the author is so ignorant of relativity that his criticisims are worth addressing' comments (Dingle mentions -- with a chuckle -- one of those from his own experience, [this one from a peer-reviewer] on precisely the same issue in relativity, the Clock Paradox)

 

And, Mr Obvious, one of the replies was really quite complimenatry about, eh? A turn up for the books on a relativity forum!

 

I call that a nice job of cutting-to-pieces done.

[AlphaToOmega]

ROFL.

 

Here, I'll provide it myself.

 

http://www.bautforum...ativity-article

 

Yes, I started a post for physicists, mathematicians and scientists to rebut the article you linked, on the very forum I suggested you go to so you can "cut them to pieces".

Which you I might add, you didn't.

At the time I posted the thread I didn't even bother reading your linked article.

 

When they started to point out the errors I decided to take a good look at it.

 

Yes. I was embarrassed. Embarrassed for even bothering to post there and waste their time.

Embarrassed that I took someone, you, at their word that you knew what you were talking about BEFORE checking your sources thoroughly.

 

If you can't even see that, then you really have no clue.

 

But, I learnt from that, never to assume that someone has knowledge when without first testing them.

Its a mistake I won't repeat.

 

BTW, one member has offered to pick any paragraph for him to rebut.

Fell free to pick one. Quote it here and I'll even post it there for you seeing as you aren't willing to.

And yes, after reading your "great" article properly, it is full of shit.

[AlphaToOmega]

Just that thing taken from the footnote, about Eddington telling us the mass of the sun was what he measured as a deflection of sunlight, which indeed *was* a joke by Burniston Brown (there was me thinking there was a story behind the slip of the tongue, and trying to find it by Google) -- but none of the relativists have got any sense of irony -- unsurprising, really

 

 

And you still assume that the M=1.47km reference is humour.

[Paradox]

ROFL.

 

Here, I'll provide it myself.

 

http://www.bautforum...ativity-article

 

Yes, I started a post for physicists, mathematicians and scientists to rebut the article you linked, on the very forum I suggested you go to so you can "cut them to pieces".

Which you I might add, you didn't.

At the time I posted the thread I didn't even bother reading your linked article.

 

When they started to point out the errors I decided to take a good look at it.

 

Yes. I was embarrassed. Embarrassed for even bothering to post there and waste their time.

Embarrassed that I took someone, you, at their word that you knew what you were talking about BEFORE checking your sources thoroughly.

 

If you can't even see that, then you really have no clue.

 

But, I learnt from that, never to assume that someone has knowledge when without first testing them.

Its a mistake I won't repeat.

 

BTW, one member has offered to pick any paragraph for him to rebut.

Fell free to pick one. Quote it here and I'll even post it there for you seeing as you aren't willing to.

And yes, after reading your "great" article properly, it is full of shit.

 

Now you have over-done it. You have taken too much coffee. And probably too many stiff drinks too.

Now, back to the gyroscope. Did you have any luck with that geometry, Mr Obvious?

 

Oh -- a paragraph to rebut -- here's a nice one:

"The three examples which have been dealt with above show clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore untenable as a physical theory".

But I will fight the fight on any other paragraph of your friend's choosing. Not that I wouldn't kick a man when he's down. Or. for that matter, cut to pieces.

[Paradox]

Just that thing taken from the footnote, about Eddington telling us the mass of the sun was what he measured as a deflection of sunlight, which indeed *was* a joke by Burniston Brown (there was me thinking there was a story behind the slip of the tongue, and trying to find it by Google) -- but none of the relativists have got any sense of irony -- unsurprising, really

 

 

And you still assume that the M=1.47km reference is humour.

 

It evidently was, on Burniston Brown's part. But on Eddington's part it looks like an attempt to equate mass as a dimension (the word used in the footnote; others being length and time [and, for some, charge]: M,L,T) to length, via luminal deflection and space-time geodesics. Doesn't work very well, does it What is your interpretation of the use of M? Just some symbol for distance? You haven't been very forthcoming (makes a change!).

 

BTW If you look into Brown's other works, you will find that he is an expert on M,L,T dimensions; he even shows how mass can be made to be a superfluous dimension. Great, great work -- but all been forgotten because of those with an agenda.

 

So, I notice form your 'More About Me' part of your profile that you are here to teach us all about humour.... You know a thing or two about that, I see, from your posts.

Oh, and with your comments about my 'arrogance' etc., I'll take your 'Interests' entry (which matches your More About Me section, and indeed much of what you have written on this forum),

'Making everyone worship me' as another bit of your dry -- albeit sometimes to the point of been parched -- wit.

[AlphaToOmega]

You still fail to understand the fibre optic laser gyroscope.

You disagree with F=mA

You don't agree with conservation of momentum or the conservation of angular momentum.

You disagree with relativity.

 

You still assume that the author of the paper was joking when he made a claim that Eddington used M=1.47km to derive the predicted values for the deflection of light due to gravity.

I'll give you a hint, its using units that are representative of Schwarzschild's Geometry.

They also gave the correct results.

[Paradox]

You still fail to understand the ring laser gyroscope.

You disagree with F=mA

You don't agree with conservation of momentum or the conservation of angular momentum.

You disagree with relativity.

 

You still assume that the author of the paper was joking when he made a claim that Eddington used M=1.47km to derive the predicted values for the deflection of light due to gravity.

I'll give you a hint, its using units that are representative of Schwarzschild's Geometry.

They also gave the correct results.

 

Every single comment you make, above, about me is a flagrant misrepresentation (your style of doing things, huh!). With the sole exception of "You disagree with relativity".

 

So other than your comment about the Burniston Brown article, that it was 'full of shit', can you give any serious critique of it? NO? Well... I should get on to a few other relativity discussion forums pretty hastily. Summon their big guns.

 

And did you get any further -- I am really keen to know -- with that Sagnac geometry?

 

Still a relativist, mate, or an ex-relativist, now?

[Paradox]

I hope BAA is reading this thread, by the way