Is Einstein’s Special Theory unavoidable?

On Jun 3, 12:52 am, Marc Fleury wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
“don’t know” wrote:

So are kinetic and total energy, momentum, velocity, distance, time
intervals, temperature, E and B of the em fields and so on. So, why

These are all scalar quantities. So, where does simultaneity apply?
shrug

are you so fixated on the fact that simultaneity is frame dependent?

Dumb ass, you said so already in “it (simultaneity) is frame
dependent” above. Einstein Dingleberries are getting dumber and
dumber from generation to the next. shrug

ouch... no they are not scalar quantities. Just simply not. E/B,
momentum, velocity, are vectorial.

Vectors are scalars. He (Yours Truly) went through that with PD
before. Ask this phd PD) to explain to you (another phd). shrug

On Jun 3, 12:52 am, Marc Fleury wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
“don’t know” wrote:

So are kinetic and total energy, momentum, velocity, distance, time
intervals, temperature, E and B of the em fields and so on. So, why

These are all scalar quantities. So, where does simultaneity apply?
shrug

are you so fixated on the fact that simultaneity is frame dependent?

Dumb ass, you said so already in “it (simultaneity) is frame
dependent” above. Einstein Dingleberries are getting dumber and
dumber from generation to the next. shrug

ouch... no they are not scalar quantities. Just simply not. E/B,
momentum, velocity, are vectorial.

Vectors are scalars. He (Yours Truly) went through that with PD
before. Ask this phd PD) to explain to you (another phd). shrug

On 6/3/11 1:46 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:24 pm, wrote:

So are kinetic and total energy, momentum, velocity, distance, time
intervals, temperature, E and B of the em fields and so on. So, why

These are all scalar quantities.

Koobee, did you know that velocity and momentum are vector quantities?

Perhaps you've never taken a physics class, when physics problem set
were required. Here is some background material for you.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/vectors.html

Here a bit more advance treatment for you.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Vector.html

On Jun 3, 1:21 am, Marc Fleury wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:38 am, abzorba wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Well, the null results of the MMX do not require the constancy in the
speed of light. All there is is the length contraction. shrug

Constancy in the speed of light was first proposed by Voigt in 1887 a
few weeks before the MMX. Voigt’s work was referencing Michelson’s
solo-1881 experiment that also showed null results. shrug

I am basically a simple man. I asked a simple question and provided
some simple illustrations. In the answers given above, there appears
to me to be a lot of obscurantism. Like the two quotes above. I just
don't understand them.

Try the mathematics part of SR --- namely the Lorentz transform.
shrug

again, it is the ALWAYS measured by ****ALL**** observers part that is
a "postulate". And also the source of "paradoxes" that force you to
drop absolute simultaneity. Again from a experiment standpoint, we
have NOT validated that ALL observers see time dilation. We have
validated it for observers mostly at rest with the earth.

Yes, this mutual time dilation has never been observed. So, what is
the point of BELIEVING IN SR? shrug

By
definition of experiments we can run. Until you get your gear moving
at the speed of light, the claim you made in the OP that "experimental
data validates the postulate" is just simply logically wrong. At best,
the available data does not invalidate SR. In other words, the
postulate remains a postulate. Take the time to convince yourself of
that fact, I am personally still working on that part.

Take your time. He (Yours Truly) was in your shoes too. It took Him
sometime to accept the reality. shrug

The MMX class
of experiments being a very interesting point in case. The reference
dropped on you is not gratuitous.

Hmmm... What reference? shrug

LMAO on the frustration about having a coherent discussion on this
forum. Good luck. Most people are absolute dicks in their form.

Like whom? shrug

I
actually block a few, just don't read them in my browser, because I
don't care to read what they have to say, no matter the content given
the form. That being said you will find some people genuinely want to
help.

He supposes that you have all the rights to remain ignorant after He
has unquestionably explained the logical aspects that lead to the
fallacy of SR. It is much easier to shut yourself in your make-
believe world where your mysticism still rules like champions, and you
certainly have all the rights to take that route. shrug

On Jun 3, 7:43 am, PD wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:56 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Well, the null results of the MMX do not require the constancy in the
speed of light. All there is is the length contraction. shrug

You're right, it doesn't REQUIRE the constancy of the speed of light.

Yes. What took you so long to understand that? shrug

However, the constancy of the speed of light, which is determined
through experiment,

What experiments?

does explain the null results of the MMX.

You are now contradicting yourself. You have just agreed with Him
that the null results of the MMX do not require the constancy in the
speed of light. So, how does the constancy in the speed of light
explain the null results of the MMX? shrug

So, what is this relative simultaneity? Consider a series of events
with several observers in various frames of references. Under
relative simultaneity, no observers can agree on a chronological order
to these events. Under absolute simultaneity, all observers will
agree on the chronological order.

That's simply not true.

Yes, it is true. Simultaneity means chronological order of observed
events. shrug

As has been pointed out to you before (and yet
you remain oblivious),

Yes, this nonsense had been regurgitated many times over in the past
before with no backings from the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. shrug

in relativity pairs of events are segregated
into categories: those that can be causally connected (time-like-
separated or null-separated events) and those that cannot be causally
connected (space-like-separated events).

Here we go again. What you call space-like is impossible. It allows
an object to be observed to travel beyond the speed of light. shrug

For time-like-separated
events, all observers will agree on the chronological order.

This is not according to what relative simultaneity means. shrug

For space-
like-separated events, observers will disagree on the chronological
order.

What you call space-like is not possible in real life. shrug

This is a *basic* concept on special relativity, so basic that if this
is not absorbed then it is fair to say you don't have the slightest
idea what relativity actually says.

This is one of the many claims of SR without any backings of the
mathematics. shrug

There is no violation of causality in relativity. None.

Under absolute simultaneity, causality is impossible. shrug

On Jun 3, 10:04*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:43 am, PD wrote:

On Jun 2, 11:56 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Well, the null results of the MMX do not require the constancy in the
speed of light. *All there is is the length contraction. *shrug

You're right, it doesn't REQUIRE the constancy of the speed of light.

Yes. *What took you so long to understand that? *shrug

However, the constancy of the speed of light, which is determined
through experiment,

What experiments?

http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html


does explain the null results of the MMX.

You are now contradicting yourself. *You have just agreed with Him
that the null results of the MMX do not require the constancy in the
speed of light. *So, how does the constancy in the speed of light
explain the null results of the MMX? *shrug

You may perhaps want to learn the difference between a necessary
condition and a sufficient condition.


So, what is this relative simultaneity? *Consider a series of events
with several observers in various frames of references. *Under
relative simultaneity, no observers can agree on a chronological order
to these events. *Under absolute simultaneity, all observers will
agree on the chronological order.

That's simply not true.

Yes, it is true. *Simultaneity means chronological order of observed
events. *shrug

Um, no. Please look up "simultaneity" in the dictionary.


As has been pointed out to you before (and yet
you remain oblivious),

Yes, this nonsense had been regurgitated many times over in the past
before with no backings from the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. *shrug

Come, come. This is obvious from the invariant interval, which is
mathematically equivalent to the Lorentz transform. As I said, KW,
this is *basic* stuff. I can't help it if you've never read anything
on the subject.


in relativity pairs of events are segregated
into categories: those that can be causally connected (time-like-
separated or null-separated events) and those that cannot be causally
connected (space-like-separated events).

Here we go again. *What you call space-like is impossible. *It allows
an object to be observed to travel beyond the speed of light. *shrug

No, it doesn't. If an object could *travel* between space-like-
separated events, they'd be causally connected. Space-like-separated
events are those pairs of events that CANNOT be causally connected.
Again, this is a *basic* concept.


For time-like-separated
events, all observers will agree on the chronological order.

This is not according to what relative simultaneity means. *shrug

SR does not claim that the chronological order will differ for *all*
pairs of events, KW, only space-like-separated pairs of events. Again,
this is a *basic* concept.


For space-
like-separated events, observers will disagree on the chronological
order.

What you call space-like is not possible in real life. *shrug

Of *course* they are. Again, this is a *basic* concept, KW, and if you
don't understand this, then you don't understand one damn thing about
relativity.


This is a *basic* concept on special relativity, so basic that if this
is not absorbed then it is fair to say you don't have the slightest
idea what relativity actually says.

This is one of the many claims of SR without any backings of the
mathematics. *shrug

Then open a book and see how simple it is.


There is no violation of causality in relativity. None.

Under absolute simultaneity, causality is impossible. *shrug

That's simply incorrect, KW. Gad, you've goofed up now.

On Jun 3, 6:34*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 3, 12:52 am, Marc Fleury wrote:









Koobee Wublee wrote:
“don’t know” wrote:
So are kinetic and total energy, momentum, velocity, distance, time
intervals, temperature, E and B of the em fields and so on. So, why

These are all scalar quantities. *So, where does simultaneity apply?
shrug

are you so fixated on the fact that simultaneity is frame dependent?

Dumb ass, you said so already in “it (simultaneity) is frame
dependent” above. *Einstein Dingleberries are getting dumber and
dumber from generation to the next. *shrug

ouch... no they are not scalar quantities. Just simply not. *E/B,
momentum, velocity, are vectorial.

Vectors are scalars.

Oh, good grief. This from the person who natters on about
TRUTH IS LIES
BLACK IS WHITE
KNOWLEDGE IS CONFUSION
or some blather like this.

*He (Yours Truly) went through that with PD
before. *Ask this phd PD) to explain to you (another phd). *shrug

PD wrote in
:

[...]


Vectors are scalars.

He really has gone down hill. He used to try really hard with arguing the
derivation of the field equations with me, now he just spouts lunacy.

Well he was spouting lunacy then too, now that I think about it.


Oh, good grief. This from the person who natters on about
TRUTH IS LIES
BLACK IS WHITE
KNOWLEDGE IS CONFUSION
or some blather like this.

*He (Yours Truly) went through that with PD
before. *Ask this phd PD) to explain to you (another phd). *shrug

On Jun 2, 12:52*am, abzorba wrote:
There appears to be some vociferous dissent on this matter on these
boards, and I wondered whether these dissenters were aware of the
following. Suppose we accept:

1. that all observers see light moving in a vacuum at the same speed,
never faster or slower, and irrespective of the motion of the observer
with respect to the light source,

This is a postulate....never been proven. The speed of light is a
defined constant. To do that physicists define the length of a meter
as 1/299,792,458 light-second. As you can see with this definition of
a meter length the speed of light is always 299,792,458 meters/second.
This is a circular definition....the speed of light is defined by the
speed of light!!!!!
A new theory of relativity called IRT is invented. IRT resolvces all
the paradoxes encountered by SR due to the circular definition for the
speed of light. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics,org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

Ken Seto


and

2. We cannot have straightforward and impossible contradictions in our
universe. For example, we cannot have a scenario in which I see a car
crash into another in front of me, while you, standing alongside me,
see the two miss each other. Now while I help the ambulance people
with the wounded people, you see me just miming the whole thing, with
no wrecked cars, no ambulance, no hurt people and so on.

Now, I was led to believe that if we simply accept 1. (which has been
experimentally verified over and over, and no exception has ever been
reported), and if we accept 2. (and only completely irrational people
could do otherwise) then Einstein’s Special Theory follows as a
NECESSARY consequence.

That is, time MUST appear to slow down in a fast-travelling space
ship, because if it didn’t, then when we see a ray of light move from
the back to the front of the spaceship (it being made of glass) we may
time it as taking an hour. But the astronauts see it as taking a split
second. If there was NO time dilation, then a straightforward
illogical contradiction would ensue. We could communicate with the
astronauts by radio, so how that contradiction would be solved if not
for time dilation?

It would appear that the conclusion Einstein drew about what would
take place when speeds close to that of light were reached, were
simply logical necessities that should be seen by any normal person
who thinks of the matter. The only way out of it is to simply deny
that light has a fixed speed, and who is doing that now? No one.

The other effects, that of the increase in mass and the space
contraction also follow logically. If we accept time dilation, then we
can see an astronaut bang a nail into a piece of wood, except he does
it in slow motion. Suppose he bangs the nail once and this drives it
right in. *But if WE bang a nail into a piece of wood at the same slow
rate as the astronaut does, then we only drive it in a fraction of an
inch. So, for the laws of physics to be the same there as here, the
hammer must have gained more mass. And so on and forth for the other
relativistic effects. Does anyone have an argument with this line of
reasoning, or am I missing something? I’m not a techie, so when you
post *a reply to this, and you will, please…be kind.

Myles (spaced out) Paulsen

On Jun 4, 10:25*am, ken ****o wrote:
snip self-advertisement to crap