Some Contradictory Claims of SR. [Physics]

Prev: 9-11 Kooks - * Hates US * still afraid to post one single thing in his physically impossible claims that he wants to defend -- he can't and he won't because they're all lies
Next: Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Background Radiation proves Atom Totality and dismisses Big Bang Chapt 3 #149; ATOM TOTALITY

From: Inertial on 13 Jun 2010 03:12

"Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4c14822b$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
> Inertial wrote:
>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4c147c04$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>>> Inertial wrote:
>>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>>> news:4c142d47$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote:
>>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays
>>>>>>> younger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special properties!
>>>>>>
>>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ?
>>>>
>>>> Why does it need to 'know' anything .. it just does what it does.
>>>
>>> With the help of the absolute frame.
>>
>> A frame is just a point of view (and which doesn't ahve any special
>> properties, so does not 'exist' as such).. it cannot DO anything
>>
>>> Which is fairly well described in General Relativity,
>>
>> Nope .. you clearly don't understand GR or SR. Get an education first
>
> And you learned there that "it just does what it does" about the photon.

You asked how it knows how to move that fast. It doesn't KNOW anything ..
it's a photon. Ask sensible questions.

> Nein danke.

You get what you ask for

From: eric gisse on 13 Jun 2010 03:14

Hayek wrote:

> Inertial wrote:
>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4c142d47$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote:
>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays
>>>>> younger.
>>>>
>>>> There are no absolute frames with special properties!
>>>>
>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ?
>>
>> Why does it need to 'know' anything .. it just does what it does.
>
> With the help of the absolute frame. Which is fairly
> well described in General Relativity, [...]

Making things up is a poor way to win an argument.

From: eric gisse on 13 Jun 2010 03:15

Hayek wrote:

> Inertial wrote:
>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4c147c04$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>>> Inertial wrote:
>>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>>> news:4c142d47$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote:
>>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays
>>>>>>> younger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special properties!
>>>>>>
>>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ?
>>>>
>>>> Why does it need to 'know' anything .. it just does what it does.
>>>
>>> With the help of the absolute frame.
>>
>> A frame is just a point of view (and which doesn't ahve any special
>> properties, so does not 'exist' as such).. it cannot DO anything
>>
>>> Which is fairly well described in General Relativity,
>>
>> Nope .. you clearly don't understand GR or SR. Get an education first
>
> And you learned there that "it just does what it does"
> about the photon.

Relativity is not a theory of light.

[...]

From: Hayek on 13 Jun 2010 04:14

Inertial wrote:
> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4c147cfb$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 6/12/10 7:58 PM, Hayek wrote:
>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote:
>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin
>>>>>> stays younger.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special
>>>>> properties!
>>>>>
>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ?
>>>
>>> Light doesn't make a choice--
>>
>> Right, it does not have a choice.
>
> Well derrrr .. how can it make choices? It is light
> .. not a sentient being.
>
>>> it only exists propagating at the cosmic speed
>>> limit.
>>
>> And what makes "the cosmic speed limit" ?
>
> The way the universe is. Either there is no limit,
> or there is a finite limit. I suspect that if there
> were no limit.
>
>> The masses surrounding the photon.
>
> No .. the local speed of light is always the same at
> any point you choose.

But if we compare loci, we see that there is a
difference, as in Shapiro delay. And then it turns out
that mass influences the speed of light. It is only
logical that the mass of the universe influences the
speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

Quote by Einstein

"In the second place our result shows that, according to
the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacum, which
constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in
the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take
place when the velocity of propagation of light varies
with position. Now we might think that as a consequence
of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the
dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only
conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot
claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold
only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of
light)." � Albert Einstein (The General Theory of
Relativity: Chapter 22 � A Few Inferences from the
General Principle of Relativity)
UNQUOTE

Le me put it just another way :

You agree that a clock runs faster on top of the hill
than in the valley.

Well, apply einstein :
My solution was really for the very concept of time,
that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there
is an inseparable connection between time and the
velocity of light. -- Albert Einstein.

So if the clock runs faster on top of the hill, then the
light speed is faster at the top of the hill, both seen
from the valley, of course.

And yet another way :
The Earth does a minute amount of frame dragging.

But which frame gets dragged ? The frame of the
universe, being again in some way referential and
preferential.

Uwe Hayek.

--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.

From: Inertial on 13 Jun 2010 04:46

"Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4c149356$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
> Inertial wrote:
>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4c147cfb$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/10 7:58 PM, Hayek wrote:
>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote:
>>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin
>>>>>>> stays younger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special
>>>>>> properties!
>>>>>>
>>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ?
>>>>
>>>> Light doesn't make a choice--
>>>
>>> Right, it does not have a choice.
>>
>> Well derrrr .. how can it make choices? It is light
>> .. not a sentient being.
>>
>>>> it only exists propagating at the cosmic speed
>>>> limit.
>>>
>>> And what makes "the cosmic speed limit" ?
>>
>> The way the universe is. Either there is no limit,
>> or there is a finite limit. I suspect that if there
>> were no limit.
>>
>>> The masses surrounding the photon.
>>
>> No .. the local speed of light is always the same at
>> any point you choose.
>
> But if we compare loci, we see that there is a
> difference, as in Shapiro delay. And then it turns out
> that mass influences the speed of light. It is only
> logical that the mass of the universe influences the
> speed of light.

No .. the speed is still c at every point.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

That does not disagree with what I said

> Quote by Einstein
>
> "In the second place our result shows that, according to
> the general theory of relativity, the law of the
> constancy of the velocity of light in vacum, which
> constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in
> the special theory of relativity and to which we have
> already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
> validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take
> place when the velocity of propagation of light varies
> with position. Now we might think that as a consequence
> of this, the special theory of relativity and with it
> the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the
> dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only
> conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot
> claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold
> only so long as we are able to disregard the influences
> of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of
> light)." � Albert Einstein (The General Theory of
> Relativity: Chapter 22 � A Few Inferences from the
> General Principle of Relativity)
> UNQUOTE

Not really relevant, but fine

> Le me put it just another way :
>
> You agree that a clock runs faster on top of the hill
> than in the valley.

Yes it does.

> Well, apply einstein :
> My solution was really for the very concept of time,
> that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there
> is an inseparable connection between time and the
> velocity of light. -- Albert Einstein.

And that ensures that light is always c

> So if the clock runs faster on top of the hill, then the
> light speed is faster at the top of the hill, both seen
> from the valley, of course.

That is not local. I said the local speed of light is always c. That some
observer elsewhere where time runs differently will measure a different
speed for remote light is irrelevant.

So again .. your argument is moot

> And yet another way :
> The Earth does a minute amount of frame dragging.
>
> But which frame gets dragged ? The frame of the
> universe, being again in some way referential and
> preferential.

Nope. It can be useful (as can any frame that is relevant to a given
analysis).