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: Hayek on 13 Jun 2010 05:02

Inertial wrote:
> "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.

With Newton's Bucket the question is also asked, how
does the water know that it is rotating. It is just a
way of putting the problem.

I wonder why you even consider that I would think that a
photon is sentient.

Uwe Hayek.

>
>> Nein danke.
>
> You get what you ask for

I ask too much, like a sentient poster, maybe ?

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: Hayek on 13 Jun 2010 05:26

Inertial wrote:
> "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.

Loci is the plural of locus, thus we compare points.
We look from one frame to another.
>
>> 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

Let me take out the very relevant part :
"according to the general theory of relativity, the law
of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuum,
[..]cannot claim any unlimited validity"

>
>> 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

You forgot to say "local", this time.

>> 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.
You keep yelling "local, local"
I keep saying "compare frames, compare frames, not
local, not local"
Try to see the complete picture.

> I said the local speed of light is always c.
You forgot it once.

> That
> some observer elsewhere where time runs differently will measure a
> different speed for remote light is irrelevant.

Time and the speed of light are linked. They are both
controlled by the mass distribution around the test point.

Uwe Hayek.

> 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).
>
>

--
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 05:43

"Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4c149eae$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
> Inertial wrote:
>> "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.
>
> With Newton's Bucket the question is also asked, how does the water know
> that it is rotating. It is just a way of putting the problem.
>
> I wonder why you even consider that I would think that a photon is
> sentient.

From the silly question you asked .. that somehow it is up to the photon to
know how fast it is going or that it has any 'choice' in that.

Changes in electric and magnetic fields propagate as fast as the universe
allows that information to be propagated. AS information cannot instantly
cross from one side of the universe to the other .. that it takes finite
time .. means that light speed is finite.

From: Hayek on 13 Jun 2010 05:56

Inertial wrote:
> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4c149eae$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl...
>> Inertial wrote:
>>> "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.
>>
>> With Newton's Bucket the question is also asked, how does the water
>> know that it is rotating. It is just a way of putting the problem.
>>
>> I wonder why you even consider that I would think that a photon is
>> sentient.
>
> From the silly question you asked .. that somehow it is up to the
> photon to know how fast it is going or that it has any 'choice' in that.

It is just silly that you took it literally.
And then even continued to take it literally.

>
> Changes in electric and magnetic fields propagate as fast as the
> universe allows that information to be propagated. AS information
> cannot instantly cross from one side of the universe to the other ..
> that it takes finite time .. means that light speed is finite.

And General Relativity tells you that the masses of the
universe set this speed. If only you would open your
eyes, in stead of blaming your discussion partners that
they have silly ideas about sentient photons.

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: G. L. Bradford on 13 Jun 2010 06:02

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:svudnT7fqqwalInRnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com...
> 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!
>
> Physics FAQ: The Twin Paradox
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

======================

Some relativity?! He diagrams absolute space (he can't even begin to
envision relativity of space), exactly the same space absolute to both! He
doesn't get multi-dimensional (as in a perfect sphere [within] a perfect
sphere [within] a perfect sphere....to infinity inside and outside, but all
in fact one and the same perfect sphere). All he can see to do is stretch
exactly the same 1-dimension of time [alone] twice over!

It is the malleability of space, the relativity of space, that cancels out
the so-called time "asymmetry" of the twins paradox. Einstein wasn't blind
to spatial 'asymmetry'. Baez, and Wormley, among too many others, are
totally blind to the 'symmetrical unity' of space and time within any
independent unit of space and time which may be asymmetrical with another
independent unit of space and time ("symmetrical unity of space and time,"
including the [constant] symmetry, the symmetrical unity, the universality,
of the 'unit' elements of c).

Perfect! Absolutely finite! Absolutely 1-dimensional beings! Incapable of
even reaching 2-dimensional thought, much less 3-d or greater! Absolutely
perfect Orwellians! Right out of '1984'! The stuff of Dark Age (as opposed
to Space Age)!

Baez has the traveler always on a hard tether, an increasingly massive
tether, an unbreakable tether being reeled out into the universe by the
observer, and reeled back in by the same observer who is also always in two
places at once. The traveler is no independent in the universe in this
scenario! Never, ever, independent from the frame and massive -- to ever
more massive -- tethering line -- dictatorial gaze -- of the observer. As I
said not long ago, they can't even see what the actual difference is between
an unobserved real traveler always in the process of breaking down
relativity with distant observers, or building up relativity, and an
observed virtual traveler that can never break down relativity.

No telescope ever reaches out into the universe to do away with all space
and time between real observers and real travelers. No tether holds the
distant traveler's local frame to the observer's frame. And there is no such
thing as an "asymmetry of time" between observer and traveler without the
corresponding 'asymmetry of space' between the two. Expand the time, the
space must be expanded to exactly the same degree. Contract the time, the
space must be contracted to exactly the same degree.

These asses can't see that the unit elements of c are all of symmetrical,
constant, and UNIVERSAL....ACROSS THE BOARD OF [SPACE] AND [TIME]. 'c'
inflates and deflates, contracts and expands, with the contraction and
expansion of the identical unit of space and time. It holds constant within
each and every plane all the way up and down through the scalar planes of
the universe. It not only holds constant broadly horizontally (so to speak)
within each and every plane but also holds constant vertically (so to speak)
in depth plane to plane, to plane, whether scaling up in planes or down in
planes of universe. Thus light will always be propagated at c regardless of
differences in positioning, motion and velocity, and be received at c.

Stupid Baez and his absoluteness of space / relativity of time. His
Orwellian talk of merger to a singularity, and opposed fact of separation
into absolute space and relative time. The balloon balloons together, and
the balloon pops together. It ends up the same space and time for both the
unobserved real observer in his world frame and unobserved real traveler in
his universe frame. The one will say, "This is the space of my local world
external to me and this the time it takes me to cross it." While the other
will laugh, saying, "That space is the space of my local universe external
to me (solar system / galaxy / whatever the 'plane' of universe) and that
time the time it takes me to cross it. We measure the speed of light the
same 'c'. I just occupy more space all at once as my space, the same as
yours, than you do, more time zones all at once as my time zone, the same as
yours, than you. I just happen to seem to be in many more places all at once
than you, though in fact within the space and time of your world view you
occupy just as many places all at once as I do in my universe view."

They talk relativity regarding space. That is all they do regarding space.
And to top it off, they can't see it, thinking that all space belongs in the
one dimension of the [history] parameter (not current time parameter, mind
you, a 0-dimensional point, but HISTORY parameter, a 1-dimensional string).
To Einstein, faster than light travel must have seemed an absurdity. Why
even think about it when the traveler could contract and expand the space
and time of the universe [non-local to him] while never coming closer to c
than 300,000kps, nor ever seeing himself to do it in any global observation
of his universe.

To Baez, among too many others, the observer may be an independent
observer, but the traveler can never be an independent traveler / observer.
Throughout the reference as I scanned it, one thing was abundantly clear,
the traveler's relativity to the observer never, ever, breaks down. Not only
the linking tether reels out, but the observer's eyes reel out right with
that linking tether (almost as that linking tether), staying right on top of
one of the now two OBSERVED travelers (therefore no space, no time, between
the observer and one OBSERVED traveler of now two OBSERVED travelers. To
Baez and Wormley still, there being no such thing as any UNOBSERVED traveler
distantly in advance in both space and time of now [both] of Baez's OBSERVED
travelers). Now the picture that was an unreal distorted picture in the
first place is made doubly unreally distorted. Exactly the same OBSERVATION
of the observer just mirroring the original distortion by light and
extending it.

GLB

=====================