My Statement on Special Relativity

My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest
in mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded with
knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning strikes arguments.

Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.

The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.

In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic, and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the statements of SRT.

GRT is another matter which I will not be looking into, it works, it is not complete, that is for someone else to deal with.

So what are my concerns?

1. The 'constancy of speed of light' was derived from a out of bounds interpretation of the Maxwell Equations, which were meant for an Ether frame of refence.

2.The mutual time dilation effect that results in the Twin Paradox, mutual time dilation, hints at absolute motion, and invisible and unmeasurable physical effects about the moving frame.

3.The statement that reality is limited by the speed of light, and not only that, but subsequent calculations have to take into account, forensically, the limitation of the speed of light although subsequent measurements, taken at leisure in hindsight, do not have to follow this limitation.

4.The absurdity of the light clock which violates the second postulate.

My position is not that "Einstein was wrong" or "Relativity is Wrong" I seek no fame in this area, and it is a huge mistake to make these claims that instantly transport the reader into crank territory.

Mine is simply an essay incorporating the Physics and Mathematics I have learned, and hopefully a guide to those who are encountering the same problems.

There is no threat, simply a list of 'common misconceptions' from the point of view of the scientific establishment, and perhaps a good exercise to summarily dismiss these, with reasons.

There are, however, some factual issues that will be brought to the fore, which will be useful.

There is the outside chance that in writing out my objections I will come to see the light. Nothing is impossible.

On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> Mine is simply an essay incorporating the Physics and Mathematics I have learned, and hopefully a guide to those who are encountering the same problems.
>

You are lying, Gehan. You are the same old crank you were when you joined the group. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.

> There is the outside chance that in writing out my objections I will come to see the light. Nothing is impossible.

The only thing that comes to light is your crackpottery, Gehan. You will never change

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:58:00 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Mine is simply an essay incorporating the Physics and Mathematics I have learned, and hopefully a guide to those who are encountering the same problems.
> >
> You are lying, Gehan. You are the same old crank you were when you joined the group. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
> > There is the outside chance that in writing out my objections I will come to see the light. Nothing is impossible.
> The only thing that comes to light is your crackpottery, Gehan. You will never change

I plan to ask God about absolute space and time, and if His knowledge is limited by the speed of light.

Isaac Asimov (May God Have Mercy on His Soul) once suggested in an essay that Christ's second coming was delayed by the finite speed of light. He brought religion into it, not me.

I suggest everyone else put out a short statement on their stand, so we can know what assumptions are behind it all.

I take it you are a 100% supporter of everything Einstein wrote, including his known errors, or what?

On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:12:20 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:58:00 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 6:33:38 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Mine is simply an essay incorporating the Physics and Mathematics I have learned, and hopefully a guide to those who are encountering the same problems.
> > >
> > You are lying, Gehan. You are the same old crank you were when you joined the group. Your only consolation is that you will die this way.
> > > There is the outside chance that in writing out my objections I will come to see the light. Nothing is impossible.
> > The only thing that comes to light is your crackpottery, Gehan. You will never change

> I take it you are a 100% supporter of everything Einstein wrote, including his known errors, or what?

I am a 100% mocker of cranks like you , Gehan.

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

> My Statement on Special Relativity
>
> My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> Relativity and General Relativity.
>
> In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> strikes arguments.

You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
<https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.

> Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> dissenters from the theory.

That's what you get in usenet groups.
Ignore them, don't become another one.
Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.

> The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
>
> In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> statements of SRT.

That's your problem, work at it,

Jan

hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
instead of taking space and time seperately
and Lorentz-transforming between them.

A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download.
<https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 14:18:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My Statement on Special Relativity
> >
> > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> > mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> > and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> > in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> > Relativity and General Relativity.
> >
> > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> > Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> > with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> > strikes arguments.
> You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
> It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
> > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> > then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> > not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> > dissenters from the theory.
> That's what you get in usenet groups.
> Ignore them, don't become another one.
> Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
> > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> > every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
> >
> > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> > and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> > statements of SRT.
> That's your problem, work at it,
>
> Jan
>
> hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
> instead of taking space and time seperately
> and Lorentz-transforming between them.

And - for innocent kiddies - in the meantime
in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of
idiots "improper" GPS and TAI keep measuring
improper t'=t in improper seconds.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26 PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My Statement on Special Relativity
> >
> > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> > mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> > and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> > in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> > Relativity and General Relativity.
> >
> > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> > Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> > with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> > strikes arguments.
> You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
> It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.

Yes, that is the one.

> > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> > then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> > not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> > dissenters from the theory.
> That's what you get in usenet groups.
> Ignore them, don't become another one.
> Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.

I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well. I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
Even critics are welcome if they are rational.

> > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> > every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
> >
> > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> > and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> > statements of SRT.
> That's your problem, work at it,
>
> Jan
>

Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered. In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
with one another.

One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the symmetry'.. Wikipedia says it is not necessary.
Two solutions to a problem is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up with a solution?
The landscape is not very pretty.

> hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
> instead of taking space and time seperately
> and Lorentz-transforming between them.
>
> A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
> You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download.
> <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My Statement on Special Relativity
> >
> > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> > mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> > and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> > in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> > Relativity and General Relativity.
> >
> > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> > Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> > with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> > strikes arguments.
> You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
> It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
> > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> > then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> > not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> > dissenters from the theory.
> That's what you get in usenet groups.
> Ignore them, don't become another one.
> Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
> > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> > every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
> >
> > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> > and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> > statements of SRT.
> That's your problem, work at it,
>
> Jan
>
> hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
> instead of taking space and time seperately
> and Lorentz-transforming between them.
>
> A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
> You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download.
> <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>

I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".

mathpages

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My Statement on Special Relativity
> > >
> > > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> > > mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> > > and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> > > in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> > > Relativity and General Relativity.
> > >
> > > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> > > Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> > > with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> > > strikes arguments.
> > You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> > <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
> > It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
>
> Yes, that is the one.
>
> > > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> > > then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> > > not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> > > dissenters from the theory.
> > That's what you get in usenet groups.
> > Ignore them, don't become another one.
> > Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> > who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
>
> I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well.

That is something else altogether. Writing well,
and reasoning well, is no substitute for understanding.

> I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
> Even critics are welcome if they are rational.
>
> > > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> > > every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
> > >
> > > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> > > and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> > > statements of SRT.
> > That's your problem, work at it,
> >
> > Jan
> >
>
> Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered.

Again, that's your problem.

> In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
> with one another.

There is no office for the official explanation of relativity.

> One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the
> symmetry'. Wikipedia says it is not necessary. Two solutions to a problem
> is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up
> with a solution?

There never was a problem to begin with.
The correct answer is in Einstein 1905,

Jan

On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 20:51:05 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My Statement on Special Relativity
> > > >
> > > > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> > > > mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> > > > and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> > > > in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> > > > Relativity and General Relativity.
> > > >
> > > > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> > > > Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> > > > with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> > > > strikes arguments.
> > > You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> > > <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
> > > It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
> >
> > Yes, that is the one.
> >
> > > > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> > > > then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> > > > not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> > > > dissenters from the theory.
> > > That's what you get in usenet groups.
> > > Ignore them, don't become another one.
> > > Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> > > who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
> >
> > I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well.
> That is something else altogether. Writing well,
> and reasoning well, is no substitute for understanding.
> > I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
> > Even critics are welcome if they are rational.
> >
> > > > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> > > > every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
> > > >
> > > > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> > > > and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> > > > statements of SRT.
> > > That's your problem, work at it,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> >
> > Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered.
> Again, that's your problem.
> > In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
> > with one another.
> There is no office for the official explanation of relativity.
> > One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the
> > symmetry'. Wikipedia says it is not necessary. Two solutions to a problem
> > is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up
> > with a solution?
> There never was a problem to begin with.
> The correct answer is in Einstein 1905,

Poor idiot mystician was mumbling inconsistently and
other poor idiots mysticians have bought it.

>
> Jan

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[-]
> > hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
> > instead of taking space and time seperately
> > and Lorentz-transforming between them.
> >
> > A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
> > You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download.
> > <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>
>
> I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".

Yes, Kevin Brown. I've seen the outside of it,
and the first paragraphs, starting with Kant.
It seemed to heavy-going for me, with its philosophical leanings.
And one can't read everything. Perhaps I should have another look.

Thanks anyway,

Jan

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:51:05 PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My Statement on Special Relativity
> > > >
> > > > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> > > > mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> > > > and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> > > > in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> > > > Relativity and General Relativity.
> > > >
> > > > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> > > > Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> > > > with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> > > > strikes arguments.
> > > You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> > > <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
> > > It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
> >
> > Yes, that is the one.
> >
> > > > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> > > > then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> > > > not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> > > > dissenters from the theory.
> > > That's what you get in usenet groups.
> > > Ignore them, don't become another one.
> > > Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> > > who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
> >
> > I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well.
> That is something else altogether. Writing well,
> and reasoning well, is no substitute for understanding.
> > I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
> > Even critics are welcome if they are rational.
> >
> > > > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> > > > every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
> > > >
> > > > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> > > > and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> > > > statements of SRT.
> > > That's your problem, work at it,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> >
> > Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered.
> Again, that's your problem.

I should say, there is a refusal to answer some of my questions.

> > In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
> > with one another.
> There is no office for the official explanation of relativity.
> > One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the
> > symmetry'. Wikipedia says it is not necessary. Two solutions to a problem
> > is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up
> > with a solution?
> There never was a problem to begin with.
> The correct answer is in Einstein 1905,
>
> Jan

If you can say "Einstein was wrong" then that will be that.

Wikipedia:

########
Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason".[6] Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference.[7] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[8] However, it has been proven that neither general relativity,[9][10][11][12][13] nor even acceleration, are necessary to explain the effect, as the effect still applies if two astronauts pass each other at the turnaround point and synchronize their clocks at that point.

########

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:23:37 PM UTC+5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My Statement on Special Relativity
> > >
> > > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> > > mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> > > and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> > > in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> > > Relativity and General Relativity.
> > >
> > > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> > > Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> > > with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> > > strikes arguments.
> > You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> > <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
> > It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
> > > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> > > then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> > > not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> > > dissenters from the theory.
> > That's what you get in usenet groups.
> > Ignore them, don't become another one.
> > Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> > who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
> > > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> > > every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
> > >
> > > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> > > and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> > > statements of SRT.
> > That's your problem, work at it,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
> > instead of taking space and time seperately
> > and Lorentz-transforming between them.
> >
> > A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
> > You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download..
> > <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>
> I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".
>
> mathpages

I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
"legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

It will break ChatGPT and anything else they throw at it, let's see. Computers do not lie. Garbage in Garbage out.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:23:37 PM UTC+5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My Statement on Special Relativity
> > >
> > > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an interest in
> > > mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied Physics at High School
> > > and also having taken an University course in Physics, as well as a course
> > > in Astronomy, there has been some exposure to the concepts of Special
> > > Relativity and General Relativity.
> > >
> > > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe and Dr.
> > > Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being instantly rewarded
> > > with knowledge, I became confused at the train, tracks and lightning
> > > strikes arguments.
> > You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> > <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/0486445194>
> > It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
> > > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I think, and
> > > then joined this forum. Despite many years of discussion and study, I have
> > > not resolved the questions I have had, and in fact encountered several
> > > dissenters from the theory.
> > That's what you get in usenet groups.
> > Ignore them, don't become another one.
> > Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> > who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
> > > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be used in
> > > every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have different uses.
> > >
> > > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason, logic,
> > > and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot accept some of the
> > > statements of SRT.
> > That's your problem, work at it,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
> > instead of taking space and time seperately
> > and Lorentz-transforming between them.
> >
> > A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
> > You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download..
> > <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>
> I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".
>
> mathpages

I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
"legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

It will break ChatGPT and anything else they throw at it, let's see. Computers do not lie. Garbage in Garbage out.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
> "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

On 4/28/2023 9:53 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
>> "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
>
> Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

Two beams of light traveling in opposite directions on identical but
opposite trajectories? Each is traveling at c. What is their relative
velocity?

In as long as the life of the universe has been, statistically that has
to have happened more than once.

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 06:35:10 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 9:53 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
> >> "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
> >
> > Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...
> Two beams of light traveling in opposite directions on identical but
> opposite trajectories? Each is traveling at c.

Even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this
nonsense for long and his GR shit had to
withdraw from it.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
> > "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
> Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...

I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of the speed of light' or Special Relativity.

If I did I would then be doing something I believe is irrational.

Remember that Einstein also held on to his beliefs regardless, "God does not play dice with the Universe".

Being a scientist does not mean being subservient to the common view, even the accepted view, if one does not see the sense of it.
There are other eminent scientists with me on this.

Least we can do is clear up the contradictory explanations. Event that is difficult. How can the Twin Paradox have more than one solution?

On 4/29/2023 12:06 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
>>> "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
>> Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...
>
> I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of the speed of light' or Special Relativity.
>
> If I did I would then be doing something I believe is irrational.
>
> Remember that Einstein also held on to his beliefs regardless, "God does not play dice with the Universe".
>
> Being a scientist does not mean being subservient to the common view, even the accepted view, if one does not see the sense of it.
> There are other eminent scientists with me on this.
>
> Least we can do is clear up the contradictory explanations. Event that is difficult. How can the Twin Paradox have more than one solution?

So is the universe absolute or statistical?

My bet is on statistical. Ask the questions stated above in the
context of a statistical universe.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:06:46 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It lost credibility when the author started saying that it was
> > > "legal" to add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
> > Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...
> I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of the speed of light' or Special Relativity.

Your only consolation is that you are already insane. You have always been a hard core crank, Gehan. Live with it! And stop lying that you are taking courses.

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:51:05?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My Statement on Special Relativity
> > > > >
> > > > > My interest in the Theory of Special Relativity stems from an
> > > > > interest in mechanical things, and in physic. Having studied
> > > > > Physics at High School and also having taken an University course
> > > > > in Physics, as well as a course in Astronomy, there has been some
> > > > > exposure to the concepts of Special Relativity and General
> > > > > Relativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the early 2000s or so I purchased a book entitled "The Universe
> > > > > and Dr. Einstein" which I started to read. Instead of being
> > > > > instantly rewarded with knowledge, I became confused at the train,
> > > > > tracks and lightning strikes arguments.
> > > > You must mean this one, by Lincoln Barnett.
> > > > <https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Dr-Einstein-Lincoln-Barnett/dp/04864451
94>
> > > > It may be a bit dated, from 1948, but there is nothing wrong with it.
> > >
> > > Yes, that is the one.
> > >
> > > > > Joining a Relativity Group in 2003, I joined Yahoo Groups, I
> > > > > think, and then joined this forum. Despite many years of
> > > > > discussion and study, I have not resolved the questions I have
> > > > > had, and in fact encountered several dissenters from the theory.
> > > > That's what you get in usenet groups.
> > > > Ignore them, don't become another one.
> > > > Having been here for some time it should be obvious to you by now
> > > > who are the kooks, and who you should pay attention to.
> > >
> > > I can tell which ones I agree with, who write well, reason well.
> > That is something else altogether. Writing well,
> > and reasoning well, is no substitute for understanding.
> > > I do not bother with complex mathematics which can mislead me.
> > > Even critics are welcome if they are rational.
> > >
> > > > > The theories are used in working calculations, but also cannot be
> > > > > used in every instance, like a spanner and a screwdriver they have
> > > > > different uses.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the interests on holding on to established methods of reason,
> > > > > logic, and proper application of physics and reason, I cannot
> > > > > accept some of the statements of SRT.
> > > > That's your problem, work at it,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks but it looks like some of my questions cannot be answered.
> > Again, that's your problem.
>
> I should say, there is a refusal to answer some of my questions.
>
> > > In addition to that, several official explanations do not agree
> > > with one another.
> > There is no office for the official explanation of relativity.
> > > One example: Twin Paradox: Einstein says 'acceleration breaks the
> > > symmetry'. Wikipedia says it is not necessary. Two solutions to a problem
> > > is very suspect, to me at least, and why did it take so long to come up
> > > with a solution?
> > There never was a problem to begin with.
> > The correct answer is in Einstein 1905,
> >
> > Jan
>
> If you can say "Einstein was wrong" then that will be that.

It would, but he wasn't,

Jan

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:23:37?PM UTC+5, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:18:26?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[-]
> > > hint: modern treatments start with the space-time view,
> > > instead of taking space and time seperately
> > > and Lorentz-transforming between them.
> > >
> > > A classic little book is Taylor and Wheeler, Spacetime Physics.
> > > You can buy it, but it is also available from Taylor as a free download.
> > > <https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/>
> > I like Brown's "Reflections on Relativity".
>
> I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It
> lost credibility when the author started saying that it was "legal" to add
> velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.

Who cares about yet another pop-sci one?
In all walks of human life, if you want to learn something really well
you should study the masters, not some third-rate imitation.
That applies for musical instrument playing, grandmaster chess,
painting, and yes, physics.
In some fields there are masterclasses for it.

And yes, for relativity Wheeler undoubteldly was one of the masters, [1]

Jan

[1] Wheeler's own masterclass was in Copenhagen,
with Niels Bohr and all the others.
There never has been a better one.

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04?AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28?PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It
> > > lost credibility when the author started saying that it was "legal" to
> > > add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
> > Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it
> > is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can
> > exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...
>
> I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of
> the speed of light' or Special Relativity.

Too bad for your sanity. Was it ever there, to begin with?

Jan
(just wondering)

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:54:39 PM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:53:04?AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:35:28?PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I purchased "Relativity for the Enthusiast" or something like that. It
> > > > lost credibility when the author started saying that it was "legal" to
> > > > add velocities, c+v etc as these are closing speeds.
> > > Firstly, you need to know exactly what "closing speeds" means... and it
> > > is almost certainly NOT what you think it is. In the end, nothing can
> > > exceed c, the speed of light... go read a dang textbook...
> >
> > I cannot hold on to my sanity and rationality and accept the 'constancy of
> > the speed of light' or Special Relativity.
> Too bad for your sanity. Was it ever there, to begin with?
>
> Jan
> (just wondering)

Catch 22. All we need is a rule on my sanity and rationality, when it comes to Relativity: either I am irrational and insane, or Special
Relativity is irrational and insane.

Look at the situation here:

Einstein proposes a solution to the Twin Paradox.

Einstein's solution is not necessary. Wikipedia says. It is correct, but not necessary?

Did Einstein make any mistakes at all?

Why is this taboo?

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com asked:

> Did Einstein make any mistakes at all?

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-einstein-got-wrong/

> Why is this taboo?

It isn't. Many scientists have spent their lives trying to prove einstein wrong. AFAIK, all have failed... so far...