In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham

wrote
on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:57:36 GMT
:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| The Reason for Time Dilation
| [...]
|
| Things are rather more complicated.
Things are rather more simple, and you are rather more simple-minded.


And the postulates of a logical theory are ... ?

We know the three postulates of SR (two of which are
explicitly stated, the third of which is usually stated
as a definition):

1. Invariant lightspeed.
2. The same physical laws/rules/properties apply to
all inertial reference frames.
3. In a TWLS (A to B) with the second mirror (B) moving,
the light takes the same amount of time
traveling from A to B as it does traveling
from B to A, as observed by A.[*]

Since SR is clearly "wrong", according to you, I want to
know what is "right".
[*] B has a slightly different opinion but can't observe
directly the A - B path anyway.

--
#191,
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i 1000000; i++) sleep(0);

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:57:36 GMT
| :
|
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ...
| | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | The Reason for Time Dilation
| | [...]
| |
| | Things are rather more complicated.
| Things are rather more simple, and you are rather more simple-minded.
|
|
| And the postulates of a logical theory are ... ?
|
| We know the three postulates of SR (two of which are
| explicitly stated, the third of which is usually stated
| as a definition):
|
| 1. Invariant lightspeed.
| 2. The same physical laws/rules/properties apply to
| all inertial reference frames.
| 3. In a TWLS (A to B) with the second mirror (B) moving,
| the light takes the same amount of time
| traveling from A to B as it does traveling
| from B to A, as observed by A.[*]
|
| Since SR is clearly "wrong", according to you, I want to
| know what is "right".
|
|[*] B has a slightly different opinion but can't observe
| directly the A - B path anyway.
|
Those are the three postulates of an illogical theory.
If the time for light to travel from A to B is t and the time
for light to travel to B from A is t' then t=t'.

In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham

wrote
on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:55:29 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:57:36 GMT
| :
|
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ...
| | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | The Reason for Time Dilation
| | [...]
| |
| | Things are rather more complicated.
| Things are rather more simple, and you are rather more simple-minded.
|
|
| And the postulates of a logical theory are ... ?
|
| We know the three postulates of SR (two of which are
| explicitly stated, the third of which is usually stated
| as a definition):
|
| 1. Invariant lightspeed.
| 2. The same physical laws/rules/properties apply to
| all inertial reference frames.
| 3. In a TWLS (A to B) with the second mirror (B) moving,
| the light takes the same amount of time
| traveling from A to B as it does traveling
| from B to A, as observed by A.[*]
|
| Since SR is clearly "wrong", according to you, I want to
| know what is "right".
|
|[*] B has a slightly different opinion but can't observe
| directly the A - B path anyway.
|
Those are the three postulates of an illogical theory.
If the time for light to travel from A to B is t and the time
for light to travel to B from A is t' then t=t'.


I want to know what the postulates are for a logical theory.

--
#191,
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news | In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:55:29 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
| ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:57:36 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | | The Reason for Time Dilation
| | | [...]
| | |
| | | Things are rather more complicated.
| | Things are rather more simple, and you are rather more
simple-minded.
| |
| |
| | And the postulates of a logical theory are ... ?
| |
| | We know the three postulates of SR (two of which are
| | explicitly stated, the third of which is usually stated
| | as a definition):
| |
| | 1. Invariant lightspeed.
| | 2. The same physical laws/rules/properties apply to
| | all inertial reference frames.
| | 3. In a TWLS (A to B) with the second mirror (B) moving,
| | the light takes the same amount of time
| | traveling from A to B as it does traveling
| | from B to A, as observed by A.[*]
| |
| | Since SR is clearly "wrong", according to you, I want to
| | know what is "right".
| |
| |[*] B has a slightly different opinion but can't observe
| | directly the A - B path anyway.
| |
| Those are the three postulates of an illogical theory.
| If the time for light to travel from A to B is t and the time
| for light to travel to B from A is t' then t=t'.
|
|
| I want to know what the postulates are for a logical theory.

What theory would you like?
Evolution?
Plate tectonics?
Kreb's Cycle?
Recombinant DNA?

Ockham wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| The Reason for Time Dilation
| [...]
|
| Things are rather more complicated.
Things are rather more simple, and you are rather more simple-minded.

YA Androcles AICMFP

In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham

wrote
on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:30:13 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news | In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:55:29 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
| ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:57:36 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | | The Reason for Time Dilation
| | | [...]
| | |
| | | Things are rather more complicated.
| | Things are rather more simple, and you are rather more
simple-minded.
| |
| |
| | And the postulates of a logical theory are ... ?
| |
| | We know the three postulates of SR (two of which are
| | explicitly stated, the third of which is usually stated
| | as a definition):
| |
| | 1. Invariant lightspeed.
| | 2. The same physical laws/rules/properties apply to
| | all inertial reference frames.
| | 3. In a TWLS (A to B) with the second mirror (B) moving,
| | the light takes the same amount of time
| | traveling from A to B as it does traveling
| | from B to A, as observed by A.[*]
| |
| | Since SR is clearly "wrong", according to you, I want to
| | know what is "right".
| |
| |[*] B has a slightly different opinion but can't observe
| | directly the A - B path anyway.
| |
| Those are the three postulates of an illogical theory.
| If the time for light to travel from A to B is t and the time
| for light to travel to B from A is t' then t=t'.
|
|
| I want to know what the postulates are for a logical theory.

What theory would you like?
Evolution?
Plate tectonics?
Kreb's Cycle?
Recombinant DNA?


A theory on light's propagation.

--
#191,
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:30:13 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
| news | | In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:55:29 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message
| | ...
| | | In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
| | |
| | | wrote
| | | on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:57:36 GMT
| | | :
| | |
| | | "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | | | The Reason for Time Dilation
| | | | [...]
| | | |
| | | | Things are rather more complicated.
| | | Things are rather more simple, and you are rather more
| simple-minded.
| | |
| | |
| | | And the postulates of a logical theory are ... ?
| | |
| | | We know the three postulates of SR (two of which are
| | | explicitly stated, the third of which is usually stated
| | | as a definition):
| | |
| | | 1. Invariant lightspeed.
| | | 2. The same physical laws/rules/properties apply to
| | | all inertial reference frames.
| | | 3. In a TWLS (A to B) with the second mirror (B) moving,
| | | the light takes the same amount of time
| | | traveling from A to B as it does traveling
| | | from B to A, as observed by A.[*]
| | |
| | | Since SR is clearly "wrong", according to you, I want to
| | | know what is "right".
| | |
| | |[*] B has a slightly different opinion but can't observe
| | | directly the A - B path anyway.
| | |
| | Those are the three postulates of an illogical theory.
| | If the time for light to travel from A to B is t and the time
| | for light to travel to B from A is t' then t=t'.
| |
| |
| | I want to know what the postulates are for a logical theory.
|
| What theory would you like?
| Evolution?
| Plate tectonics?
| Kreb's Cycle?
| Recombinant DNA?
|
|
| A theory on light's propagation.

The postulates for a logical theory on light's propagation.

1) Light exists.

2) Where there is light there is *always* a source for the light.

3) Light obeys Euclid's postulates.
(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html).

4) Objects exist.

5) Objects reflect and/or absorb light according to Euclidean
geometrical rules.

6) Light obeys Newton's three postulates of motion, the first
two of which are Galileo's.

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
The Reason for Time Dilation

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He realized that if the length of a moving object contracted, time
had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant. If the
parallel dimension of a moving object has been contracted as per the
Lorentz contraction hypothesis, time dilation restores the speed of
light to 300000000m/sec by the reciprocal factor of the length
contraction.

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec would
according to the Lorentz transformation (gamma = sqrt(1-200000km/
sec^2/300000km/sec^2) = 0.74535599) shrink to 74.535599m (100*gamma).
At rest, light will cover 100m in 100m/300000000m/sec =
0.000000333333sec. To cover 74.535599m in 0.000000333333 seconds, the
speed of light would only be 223607021km/sec (74.535599m/
0.000000333333sec). However, the time dilation factor of 1.3416408 (1/
gamma) restores the speed of light to 300000000km/sec (223607021km/
sec x 1.3416408). With the artifice of time dilation the speed of
light remains constant.

Peter Riedt

And this is supposed to be news for us? Do you have some point to make
here?

On Jan 26, 6:32*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Spirit of Truth wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote:
with your "explanation" the speed of light
must INCREASE in transverse directions.

No, in keeping with the above the math would make the length in the
transverse direction become larger

That does not agree with the PoR. If transverse lengths expanded, then
two relatively-moving observers could hold up a meterstick transverse to
their relative motion, and both observers could compare their lengths at
the instant when the two sticks move past each other; the two observers
would have to come to different conclusions about their relative
lengths, which is impossible for such a comparison made at the same time
and place.

Bravo Roberts! Clearly you know what REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM is. However
your sillier brothers Einsteinians do not know Roberts Roberts and
continue to destroy human rationality by teaching that a long train
can be trapped inside a short tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

and also a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Why don't you organize a conference inside Einstein criminal cult
Roberts Roberts where you will be able to give lessons to sillier
brothers? For instance:

First International Conference
"Einsteinians and Human Rationality"
Organizer: Tom Roberts
The purpose of the conference is to bring together physicists and
philosophers and to provide a forum where different aspects of the
destruction of human rationality caused by Einstein criminal cult can
be discussed. We especially wish to encourage submissions on new ways
of making money now that theoretical science no longer exists.

Pentcho Valev

In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham

wrote
on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:14:54 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
|
| wrote
| on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:30:13 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
| news | | In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:55:29 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message
| | ...
| | | In sci.physics.relativity, Ockham
| | |
| | | wrote
| | | on Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:57:36 GMT
| | | :
| | |
| | | "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | | | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | | | The Reason for Time Dilation
| | | | [...]
| | | |
| | | | Things are rather more complicated.
| | | Things are rather more simple, and you are rather more
| simple-minded.
| | |
| | |
| | | And the postulates of a logical theory are ... ?
| | |
| | | We know the three postulates of SR (two of which are
| | | explicitly stated, the third of which is usually stated
| | | as a definition):
| | |
| | | 1. Invariant lightspeed.
| | | 2. The same physical laws/rules/properties apply to
| | | all inertial reference frames.
| | | 3. In a TWLS (A to B) with the second mirror (B) moving,
| | | the light takes the same amount of time
| | | traveling from A to B as it does traveling
| | | from B to A, as observed by A.[*]
| | |
| | | Since SR is clearly "wrong", according to you, I want to
| | | know what is "right".
| | |
| | |[*] B has a slightly different opinion but can't observe
| | | directly the A - B path anyway.
| | |
| | Those are the three postulates of an illogical theory.
| | If the time for light to travel from A to B is t and the time
| | for light to travel to B from A is t' then t=t'.
| |
| |
| | I want to know what the postulates are for a logical theory.
|
| What theory would you like?
| Evolution?
| Plate tectonics?
| Kreb's Cycle?
| Recombinant DNA?
|
|
| A theory on light's propagation.

The postulates for a logical theory on light's propagation.

1) Light exists.

2) Where there is light there is *always* a source for the light.

3) Light obeys Euclid's postulates.
(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html).

4) Objects exist.

5) Objects reflect and/or absorb light according to Euclidean
geometrical rules.

6) Light obeys Newton's three postulates of motion, the first
two of which are Galileo's.


OK. What's your position on Maxwell's equations?

--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com