There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been
confirmed experimentally. An inconsistent theory predicts anything.
Imagine one is looking for a way to test, directly or indirectly, the
principle of constancy of the speed of light, and bumps into the
following typical relativist assertion:

"In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
enclosing any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good
accuracy (the higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in
general). A direct consequence of this is that in GR the speed of
light is LOCALLY c, but over non-local distances it need not be c (and
indeed it's easy to find situations where a long-distance measurement
obtains values other than c)."

Needless to say, the only reasonable behaviour for the experimentalist
is to abandon any attempt to test the untestable. Yet a few years
later the same experimentalist is looking for a way to determine,
directly or indirectly, the ratio of the periphery of a rotating disc
and its diameter. This time he bumps into this:

"As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk),
geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get whatever answer you want
by defining differently what you mean by "circumference of the
rotating disk"."

From now on, on hearing the word "relativity", our experimentalist
will fall into deep depression.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message om...
There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been

.... understood by imbeciles like Pentcho Valev?
Well put!

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been

... understood by imbeciles like Pentcho Valev?
Well put!

You're a bitter old man and a fool.
--
Dirk Science:
1) Make up a myth
2) Use the myth to assist your feeble mind
3) Find a mechanism
4) Decree, with no justification, that the mechanism can track the myth
5) Watch the mechanism function
6) Use the operation of the mechanism as proof that the myth is real.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is nothing sillier than

busboys pretending to discuss physics.

-E

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
| There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been
| confirmed experimentally. An inconsistent theory predicts anything.
| Imagine one is looking for a way to test, directly or indirectly, the
| principle of constancy of the speed of light, and bumps into the
| following typical relativist assertion:
|
| "In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
| enclosing any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good
| accuracy (the higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in
| general). A direct consequence of this is that in GR the speed of
| light is LOCALLY c, but over non-local distances it need not be c (and
| indeed it's easy to find situations where a long-distance measurement
| obtains values other than c)."
|
| Needless to say, the only reasonable behaviour for the experimentalist
| is to abandon any attempt to test the untestable. Yet a few years
| later the same experimentalist is looking for a way to determine,
| directly or indirectly, the ratio of the periphery of a rotating disc
| and its diameter. This time he bumps into this:
|
| "As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk),
| geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get whatever answer you want
| by defining differently what you mean by "circumference of the
| rotating disk"."
|
| From now on, on hearing the word "relativity", our experimentalist
| will fall into deep depression.
|
| Pentcho Valev

Now that you are one of the few that understand that, Pentcho,
it is time to move on into this century instead of dwelling on the last.
I have to disagree with you that geometry is ambiguous, though.
It is only the person trying to propose a dodgy theorem that
is ambiguous.
Of course, you may simply wish to get into argument
with the contributors to this newsgroup to sharpen your debating skills in
a ridiculous game of one-up-manship, or an attempt at understanding
psychology in wondering why so many hysterics are infatuated with
relativity, but if your real interest is physics this group can provide
very little to enhance it. Certainly not Roberts, whom you've quoted
without reference; he is ignorant of logic and as ambiguous as can be.
The way forward is to appreciate that only one of these possibilities
exist in Nature.
1) The velocity of light is relative to the medium, if there IS a medium.
2) The velocity of light is relative to the observer (relativity and
subjective)
3) The velocity of light is relative to the source in the absence of a
medium.
The only logical choices are 1) and 3), and the proof lies in the
variation of light from stars.
We have various types, including flare stars, cepheids, eclipsing variables
and recurrent novae, all of which can be explained by Keplerian orbits
and the simple principle that the velocity of light is c+v. This is not
a new idea, it goes back to Ritz, but it has the one difficulty that
it is intuitive to believe what we see, and an invariant velocity of
light is essential to that belief.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Androcles

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been
confirmed experimentally.

You are joke who obviously does not understand the basics of science. No
theory can be proven experimentally - all we can say is that it is in accord
with experimental evidence.

Bill

An inconsistent theory predicts anything.
Imagine one is looking for a way to test, directly or indirectly, the
principle of constancy of the speed of light, and bumps into the
following typical relativist assertion:

"In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
enclosing any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good
accuracy (the higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in
general). A direct consequence of this is that in GR the speed of
light is LOCALLY c, but over non-local distances it need not be c (and
indeed it's easy to find situations where a long-distance measurement
obtains values other than c)."

Needless to say, the only reasonable behaviour for the experimentalist
is to abandon any attempt to test the untestable. Yet a few years
later the same experimentalist is looking for a way to determine,
directly or indirectly, the ratio of the periphery of a rotating disc
and its diameter. This time he bumps into this:

"As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk),
geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get whatever answer you want
by defining differently what you mean by "circumference of the
rotating disk"."

From now on, on hearing the word "relativity", our experimentalist
will fall into deep depression.

Pentcho Valev

"Androcles" wrote in message ...
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
| There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been
| confirmed experimentally. An inconsistent theory predicts anything.
| Imagine one is looking for a way to test, directly or indirectly, the
| principle of constancy of the speed of light, and bumps into the
| following typical relativist assertion:
|
| "In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
| enclosing any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good
| accuracy (the higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in
| general). A direct consequence of this is that in GR the speed of
| light is LOCALLY c, but over non-local distances it need not be c (and
| indeed it's easy to find situations where a long-distance measurement
| obtains values other than c)."
|
| Needless to say, the only reasonable behaviour for the experimentalist
| is to abandon any attempt to test the untestable. Yet a few years
| later the same experimentalist is looking for a way to determine,
| directly or indirectly, the ratio of the periphery of a rotating disc
| and its diameter. This time he bumps into this:
|
| "As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk),
| geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get whatever answer you want
| by defining differently what you mean by "circumference of the
| rotating disk"."
|
| From now on, on hearing the word "relativity", our experimentalist
| will fall into deep depression.
|
| Pentcho Valev

Now that you are one of the few that understand that, Pentcho,
it is time to move on into this century instead of dwelling on the last.
I have to disagree with you that geometry is ambiguous, though.
It is only the person trying to propose a dodgy theorem that
is ambiguous.
Of course, you may simply wish to get into argument
with the contributors to this newsgroup to sharpen your debating skills in
a ridiculous game of one-up-manship, or an attempt at understanding
psychology in wondering why so many hysterics are infatuated with
relativity, but if your real interest is physics this group can provide
very little to enhance it.


I agree, but then why do you propose a meaningful discussion below?
Not on this forum. Moortels are profane but they are really good at
contaminating and eventually destroying any such attempt.
Pentcho


Certainly not Roberts, whom you've quoted
without reference; he is ignorant of logic and as ambiguous as can be.
The way forward is to appreciate that only one of these possibilities
exist in Nature.
1) The velocity of light is relative to the medium, if there IS a medium.
2) The velocity of light is relative to the observer (relativity and
subjective)
3) The velocity of light is relative to the source in the absence of a
medium.
The only logical choices are 1) and 3), and the proof lies in the
variation of light from stars.
We have various types, including flare stars, cepheids, eclipsing variables
and recurrent novae, all of which can be explained by Keplerian orbits
and the simple principle that the velocity of light is c+v. This is not
a new idea, it goes back to Ritz, but it has the one difficulty that
it is intuitive to believe what we see, and an invariant velocity of
light is essential to that belief.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Androcles

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
om...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
...
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| om...
| | There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been
| | confirmed experimentally. An inconsistent theory predicts anything.
| | Imagine one is looking for a way to test, directly or indirectly, the
| | principle of constancy of the speed of light, and bumps into the
| | following typical relativist assertion:
| |
| | "In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
| | enclosing any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good
| | accuracy (the higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in
| | general). A direct consequence of this is that in GR the speed of
| | light is LOCALLY c, but over non-local distances it need not be c (and
| | indeed it's easy to find situations where a long-distance measurement
| | obtains values other than c)."
| |
| | Needless to say, the only reasonable behaviour for the experimentalist
| | is to abandon any attempt to test the untestable. Yet a few years
| | later the same experimentalist is looking for a way to determine,
| | directly or indirectly, the ratio of the periphery of a rotating disc
| | and its diameter. This time he bumps into this:
| |
| | "As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk),
| | geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get whatever answer you want
| | by defining differently what you mean by "circumference of the
| | rotating disk"."
| |
| | From now on, on hearing the word "relativity", our experimentalist
| | will fall into deep depression.
| |
| | Pentcho Valev
|
| Now that you are one of the few that understand that, Pentcho,
| it is time to move on into this century instead of dwelling on the last.
| I have to disagree with you that geometry is ambiguous, though.
| It is only the person trying to propose a dodgy theorem that
| is ambiguous.
| Of course, you may simply wish to get into argument
| with the contributors to this newsgroup to sharpen your debating skills
in
| a ridiculous game of one-up-manship, or an attempt at understanding
| psychology in wondering why so many hysterics are infatuated with
| relativity, but if your real interest is physics this group can provide
| very little to enhance it.
|
|
| I agree, but then why do you propose a meaningful discussion below?

For the benefit of lurkers, of course.



| Not on this forum. Moortels are profane but they are really good at
| contaminating and eventually destroying any such attempt.

True enough they contaminate, but that doesn't mean you need to
descend to their level and capitulate. A simple kill-file will filter the
noise.

Androcles.

| Pentcho
|
|
| Certainly not Roberts, whom you've quoted
| without reference; he is ignorant of logic and as ambiguous as can be.
| The way forward is to appreciate that only one of these possibilities
| exist in Nature.
| 1) The velocity of light is relative to the medium, if there IS a
medium.
| 2) The velocity of light is relative to the observer (relativity and
| subjective)
| 3) The velocity of light is relative to the source in the absence of a
| medium.
| The only logical choices are 1) and 3), and the proof lies in the
| variation of light from stars.
| We have various types, including flare stars, cepheids, eclipsing
variables
| and recurrent novae, all of which can be explained by Keplerian orbits
| and the simple principle that the velocity of light is c+v. This is not
| a new idea, it goes back to Ritz, but it has the one difficulty that
| it is intuitive to believe what we see, and an invariant velocity of
| light is essential to that belief.
| http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
| Androcles

Pentcho Valev wrote:
There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been
confirmed experimentally.

Sure there is -- it is silly for people who know nothing about physics
to talk about it as if they did.


An inconsistent theory predicts anything.

Sure. But we know that SR is as consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and
as consistent as is real analysis. So you are not talking about SR. From
your context, it is quite clear that you do not know what you are trying
to talk about.


"In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
enclosing any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good
accuracy (the higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in
general). A direct consequence of this is that in GR the speed of
light is LOCALLY c, but over non-local distances it need not be c (and
indeed it's easy to find situations where a long-distance measurement
obtains values other than c)."

Needless to say, the only reasonable behaviour for the experimentalist
is to abandon any attempt to test the untestable.

Again you make a silly remark based on a complete and utter lack of
knowledge about physics. The actual behavior of reasonable
experimentalists is to UNDERSTAND General Relativity, and CALCULATE how
large its effects are for a given experimental situation. For an
enormous number of interesting experiments these effects are negligible,
and the experimentalist is fully justified in comparing results to SR.
This happen, for instance, for all table-top optical experiments, and
all high-energy elementary particle experiments. There is also a
suitable limit of GR that applies to any experiments within the realm of
classical mechanics.


Yet a few years
later the same experimentalist is looking for a way to determine,
directly or indirectly, the ratio of the periphery of a rotating disc
and its diameter. This time he bumps into this:

"As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk),
geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get whatever answer you want
by defining differently what you mean by "circumference of the
rotating disk"."

As this quote indicates, the ambiguity is in the WORDS. For any
well-defined experimental measurement the prediction of GR is
unambiguous. But there are many equally-valid measurement techniques
with equally-valid claims to being the "circumference of the rotationg
disk" -- without specifying which you mean by those WORDS that phrase is
ambiguous. shrug


From now on, on hearing the word "relativity", our experimentalist
will fall into deep depression.

Only if your experimentalist is as foolish as you are. Real
experimentalists, of course, are not, and thay actually STUDY GR and
LEARN what it really predicts about their experiments.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| There is nothing sillier than the claim that relativity has been
| confirmed experimentally.
|
| Sure there is -- it is silly for people who know nothing about physics
| to talk about it as if they did.
|
|
| An inconsistent theory predicts anything.
|
| Sure. But we know that SR is as consistent as is Euclidean geometry,
It is silly for people who know nothing about consistency to talk about it
as if they did.
The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
are contradictory.
It is even sillier to ignore it when it is pointed out to them.



and
| as consistent as is real analysis. So you are not talking about SR.

Well, I am, and SR is inconsistent.
Androcles



| From
| your context, it is quite clear that you do not know what you are trying
| to talk about.
From your reply, it is quite clear that you do not know what you are trying
to talk about.



|
|
| "In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
| enclosing any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good
| accuracy (the higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in
| general). A direct consequence of this is that in GR the speed of
| light is LOCALLY c, but over non-local distances it need not be c (and
| indeed it's easy to find situations where a long-distance measurement
| obtains values other than c)."
|
| Needless to say, the only reasonable behaviour for the experimentalist
| is to abandon any attempt to test the untestable.
|
| Again you make a silly remark based on a complete and utter lack of
| knowledge about physics. The actual behavior of reasonable
| experimentalists is to UNDERSTAND General Relativity, and CALCULATE how
| large its effects are for a given experimental situation. For an
| enormous number of interesting experiments these effects are negligible,
| and the experimentalist is fully justified in comparing results to SR.
| This happen, for instance, for all table-top optical experiments, and
| all high-energy elementary particle experiments. There is also a
| suitable limit of GR that applies to any experiments within the realm of
| classical mechanics.
|
|
| Yet a few years
| later the same experimentalist is looking for a way to determine,
| directly or indirectly, the ratio of the periphery of a rotating disc
| and its diameter. This time he bumps into this:
|
| "As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk),
| geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get whatever answer you want
| by defining differently what you mean by "circumference of the
| rotating disk"."
|
| As this quote indicates, the ambiguity is in the WORDS. For any
| well-defined experimental measurement the prediction of GR is
| unambiguous. But there are many equally-valid measurement techniques
| with equally-valid claims to being the "circumference of the rotationg
| disk" -- without specifying which you mean by those WORDS that phrase is
| ambiguous. shrug
|
|
| From now on, on hearing the word "relativity", our experimentalist
| will fall into deep depression.
|
| Only if your experimentalist is as foolish as you are. Real
| experimentalists, of course, are not, and thay actually STUDY GR and
| LEARN what it really predicts about their experiments.
|
|
| Tom Roberts