Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity



Mike wrote:

On Jul 12, 5:18 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 12, 7:27 am, Mike <elea...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:






On Jul 11, 10:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 11, 3:41 pm, Mike <elea...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 11, 1:28 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 11, 4:07 am, Mike <elea...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 10, 8:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 10, 5:08 pm, Mike <elea...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:49 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

There are no paradoxes in relativity. Relativity is completely self-
consistent. There are puzzles that reveal superficial understanding of
relativity, and they are designed as teaching tools, but there are no
logical contradictions in relativity.

If there are no paradoxes in relativity, call these people and cry
again once more to remove their webpage:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/bugrivet.html#c1

The bug gets squashed either way so there is no paradox. These things
have been explained elswhere so I'm not wasting my time doing so here.

Reference please. I stated a referen ce, whether you loike it or not,
for eah of my statements.

What part of "I'm not wasting my time" did you not understand? Google
"paradox".

Google paradox? Are you denying yourself? You claimed that the vug-
ruvet paradox is solved and that the bug always gets squashed. I
provided a realible reference of a respected university website.

No you didn't. You provided an unreliable reference on a respected
university website. I gave you several other examples.

Stop it, Mike. Get a real reference. No one owes it to you to clean up
the free internet for you so that it is completely reliable and
trustworthy. Sorry. You get what you pay for.

Stop being a crank PD. Petkov and Janis, the authors of the two
references I gave are professors at respectable universities
specialized in the field of Relativity (unlike you).

The other link, hyperphysics, is a well respected resource contributed
by many professors in the field.

if you have problems, contact these people. Cry to them, as usual. Ask
them to remove the content that "offends" you.

Why? They are free internet resources and have mixed quality. I'm not
interested in cleaning up the quality of those resources. Why would I?


You got it wrong. Nobody asked you, at least not me, to clean up any
quality. I asked to read them and try to understand the, If you do not
agree with the content, you are free to contact those professors and
present your objections to them.




I will also contact them and say that a crank by the name PD, doubts
their credentials.

Are you ever going to stop devalueing others to push your agends?

You have not proved you know more or better than them. You are a full-
time usent troll. They are professors.

Read again and learn:

Janis:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

Petkov:http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2006/Petkov.html

You'll note that both the prior references originate from PHILOSOPHY
departments, not physics departments.


The problems of SR, GR and QM are studies in philosophy departments.
If you do not know that. Thes epeople are also competent physicists.

Anyone wallowing in philosphy is automatically not a competent
physicist. Philosophy is what you do when you cannot do science.






Hyperphysics:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/bugrivet.html#c1

For the last one, if you have objections contact:

Carl R. (Rod) Nave

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Georgia State University

And again, you're asking me to be responsible for cleaning up free
internet resources for you. Otherwise you'll take them as gospel. Not
a good idea, Mike.


Cleaning up? Who aid that? I am askign you to read and learn. If you
ahev objections contact the authors. Write a paper if you have
objections and point out their mistakes.



"HyperPhysics is provided free of charge for all classes in the
Department of Physics and Astronomy through internal networks. The
intellectual property rights and the responsibility for accuracy
reside wholly with the author, Dr. Rod Nave."

I think you may have setup yourself for a lot of trouble PD. It is one
thing attacking me with your usual stupidity, I don't really care
since I know what you do, and another calling professors at
respectable universities unreliable sources. You have an agenda for
sure...

Mike, I have a history as a professor at a reputable university as
well.



Just point out then the mistake of prof. Nade and why he thinks
paradox is not resolved. Contatc him, present youyr objections and ask
him to make corrections.

If you cannot do that, these resources stand on their own.

So you want us to believe your internet resources while you
refuse to believe a century of experiment and scientific
literature. Do you realize how silly that sounds?


Mike






Mike

YOu
show an inability to provide a single reference for the solutiobn of
the paradox you claim. Probably you are still looking. Moreover, you
reverse the burden of proof. Even more importantly you present trivial
examples of Kinematics not relevant to the problem at hand.

If you got no references, you have no credibility.

BS, Mike. You want a reference? Read Spacetime Physics, Taylor and
Wheeler.

The tone of your voice is of someone who is policing or thinks of
itslef as an authority. I GOT BAD NEWS FOR YOU. You have no idea of
the problem and you miss all the point, probably both on purpose but
laos from an inability to understand them

It simple, much simplers than you think and Petkov in the reference I
gave puts it in terms of "The vicious circle -- to determine whether
two events are simultaneous we need to know the one-way velocity of
light between them, but to determine the one-way velocity of light we
need to know that the two events are simultaneous"

I will say it even in a more simple way. Einstein commited the formal
fallacy of denying the antecedent when he concluded that simultaneity
is relative. He first showed that if

tB - tA = tA' - tB then the clocks are synched.

He then shows a case where the anteceeant, tB - tA = tA' - tB, is
false. He thne conludes that the clocks are not synched. This is the
formal fallacy of denying the antecedant, or aht is notoriously known
as the inverse error.

However there are more possibilities as to why tB - tA = tA' - tB is
false. A simple one is that the rod is moving, which was actually the
case. That has nothing to do with whether the clcoks are synched. If
the motion is taking into account, one can know why the antecedent is
false.

Next, the experimental predictions of SR are identical to those that
assume absolute simultaneity, like an absolute spacem aether, or light
propagation medium. You seem not to know that and you profess yourself
as an expert. You are obviously not one. TOm Roberts who is close to
an expert, has admitetd this several times.

Relativity of simultaneity is a bogus concept that is a re4sult of a
trivial error by Einstein. It does not affect the physical
significance of SR. It just makes it indistinguishable from a larger
class of theories where relativity of simultaneity is not an issue and
that can be the result, for example, of a speed od source dependence
of one way speed of light.

It's amazing that you cannot produce a single reference for you
"paradox solved" claim.

Good luck

Mike

[snip to save bandwidth]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Quantcast