Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False

On Jul 7, 9:19 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 7, 7:46 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 7, 8:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 6, 6:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 6, 6:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

Sure. If you've not read Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics, or
Penrose's Road to Reality or Robert Geroch's General Relativity from A
to B, I suggest you start there.

There you will find the statement that between two physical events
(and you do know what an "event" is, don't you?), two different
inertial observers will measure different elapsed times. That is,
between two physical events A and B, what is 2.26 us in one frame will
be 4.18 us in another frame. Or conversely, what pair of events that
are 2.26 us in one frame will not be the same pair of events that are
separated by 2.26 us in another frame.

It will help you enormously if you study a bit more about SR before
attempting a critique. What resources have you availed yourself so
far?

Do any of those books say anything like:

<<if you know about complex numbers you will notice that
the space part enters as if it were imaginary

Sure, out of context. A great number of books also NEVER both with a
completely unnecessary complex number formalism.

We anxiously await your refution of the author's
statement which clearly indicates it IS necessary:

Sorry, I don't see it.

---- LQQK CLOSER ----

<< But the discovery, of Minkowski, which was of importance
for the formal development of the theory of relativity,
does not lie here. It is to be found rather in the fact
of his recognition that the four-dimensional space-time
continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most
essential formal properties, shows a pronounced
relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of
Euclidean geometrical space. 1 In order to give due
prominence to this relationship, however, we must
replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary
magnitude

sqrt -1

ct proportional to it. Under these conditions,
the natural laws satisfying the demands of the
(special) theory of relativity assume mathematical
forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly
the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates.>>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

He says directly below that ONE WAY to see the
relationship between Minkowski space and Euclidean space is to make
the substitution below. Never mind the fact that Euclidean 4-space
just is not an accurate model for our reality. Never mind that
countless authors are FINE showing the relationship between Minkowski
space and Euclidean space WITHOUT this imaginary number gimmick.

You cited Taylor and Wheeler as one but one but on consulting
the reference it is yet another of your hallucinations.

<<if you know about complex numbers you will notice that
the space part enters as if it were imaginary

R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2

where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be
the essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime
geometry - that space enters in with the
imaginary factor i relative to time. >>
"The Speed of Light" --NRAO
Reference: See "Spacetime Physics" by E.F. Taylor and J.A. Wheeler
(W.H. Freeman, LoC 65-13566).http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html

If one of these says spatial and temporal intervals
can be interchanged

*without restriction*

Where did I say that? A timelike spacetime interval will never be
spacelike. This does not mean however that a timelike spacetime
interval does not have spatial components, and that those spatial
components (and the time component) differ from frame to frame.
Likewise for spacelike intervals.

You are free to demonstrate that to us in the
quantum realm where the terms time-like and
space-like carry the appropriate mathematical
rigour.

You are just sprinkling fariy dust otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation


There is indeed a restriction, just not where you think it is.

You are reading minds now? Why does that come
as no surprise to me?

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html



you can use it to show the errors in Fitzpatrick's
lectures then excerpt the passage for us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spacehttp://mathworld.wolfram....

You'll note there is not a SINGLE reference to an imaginary component
in any of those representations of the metric.

No... I won't note that.
It is stupid science. Like searching for an
equation and calling it false if Google can't
hit it.





and in particular here is a lovely piece that points out why the
imaginary number rendition is a "red herring"

http://ynglingasaga.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/meaning-of-the-minkowski...

The word *energy* does not even appear in that article so
the author is certaintly not explaining anything about
Einstetin's basis for an inertial reference frame.

Nice chaff-throwing.

Then your tin-god threw the chaff.
Read Einsten's "General results of the Theory"
(Bartleby)




You have a bad habit, Sue, of lining up your favorite sources and
asserting their authoritativeness, rather than in being more widely
read to see if there is a more balanced view.

If you need a fountain of youth in your equations
I can understand why you don't like them.

They are my favorite sources for good reason.
The mathematical and physical absurdities that
you seem to worship don't result from their
equations.

There are no mathematical or physical absurdities in relativity at
all. Where do you think there are absurdities?

For starters, that statement is in coflict with the
author's own statements about his theory. But more importantly
it reveals your absolute dedication as an advocate
and defender of it.

<< For example, if you're doing an experiment,
you should report everything that you think might
make it invalid -- not only what you think is right
about it: other causes that could possibly explain
your results; and things you thought of that you've
eliminated by some other experiment, and how they
worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell
they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation
must be given, if you know them. You must do the best
you can -- if you know anything at all wrong, or
possibly wrong -- to explain it. If you make a theory,
for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you
must also put down all the facts that disagree with it,
as well as those that agree with it. >> --R.P. Feynman
"Cargo cult Science"
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html






<< Pseudoscience often contradicts itself,
even in its own terms.
Such logical contradictions are simply ignored
or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be
surprised when Chapter 1 of a book on dowsing
says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because
only "live" wood can channel and focus the
"earth-radiation" that makes dowsing possible,
whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers
use metal or plastic rods. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...


Sue...

Strich 9

.

Relevant Pages

  • Sarfatti Star Gate Chronicles March 21, 2009
    ... Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity are all about ... you are weightless in an inertial frame in Einstein’s theory. ... inward attractive gravity force of magnitude acting on a freely- ... “Think of assembling meter sticks and clocks into a cubical lattice ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Message from Cahill that Relativity is wrong
    ... vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. ... specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian ... we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. ... "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Message from Cahill that Relativity is wrong
    ... vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. ... specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian ... we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. ... "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Message from Cahill that Relativity is wrong
    ... vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. ... specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian ... we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. ... "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simple Sagnac
    ... The use I made of relativity ... we know that acceleration, ... frame, or a "momentarily comoving reference frame". ... I didn't mean "a single clock is out of sync ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)