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

> Catch 22. All we need is a rule on my sanity and rationality

Doesn;t come from cranks like you, Gehan.

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

> 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:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.

OK, that settles that,

Jan

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 1:16:32 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> 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...

Paul, establishing Einstein wrong is not the problem here. Quantum theory in any case contradicts with Relativity. I am not interested in proving Einstein wrong, that is in any case an extremely foolish and crank-like position to take which destroys reputations instantly. I am not taking the path of Professor Herbert Dingle, who himself admitted he should have handled the situation differently, simply pretending
to ask for clarifications and being diplomatic. That is a lesson I have learned in these years.

I am simply pointing out what seem to me - I will grant that - irrationality in some of the claims made by Special Relativity. Actually the second postulate is what I cannot accept, and one cannot say Einstein was wrong for accepting the experimental evidence (Fizeau and De Sitter) and trying to harmonize the two. This harmonizing process seems to have some conclusions of its own that seem to be self-contradictory, or rather unwarranted assumptions, akin to saying one cannot travel at the speed of sound because the pilot will not be able to hear the sound of his own voice. We know that is not true.

Even Einstein considered he had made errors. Yet his contributions to science were immense, and I like and admire him.

"This cosmological constant allowed for a stable universe. But sure enough, astronomers in the 1920s confirmed that the universe was expanding. Einstein later called the cosmological constant the “greatest blunder” of his career"

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-made-his-share-errors-here-are-three-biggest-ncna855731

When a system is described in Physics that does not make sense to me, I look further. I have no explanations and no alternate theories and will not come up with one, that is for someone else to do. I am not obligated to come up with another theory.

One example: DeSitters double star experiments:

#######
In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia
######

What does this mean? If you look at the velocities of the light emitted from the surface of the star towards Earth and the velocity of the surface of the star towards Earth, you have have to conclude that the light was emitted at c-v relative to the surface of the star, when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is approaching, and c+v relative to the surface of the star when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is receding.

It is exactly as if there is an Aether in which the Earth is stationary. There is no Aether. I have no explanation for this, but
surely everyone can see the reasoning supporting my conclusion?

Let's settle this one first.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:50:14 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> Quantum theory in any case contradicts with Relativity.

It doesn't, you are showcasing your imbecility

>I am not interested in proving Einstein wrong, that is in any case an extremely foolish and crank-like position to take which destroys reputations instantly.

You are lying, Gehan.

On 4/29/23 9:50 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> One example: DeSitters double star experiments:
>
> ####### In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this [#] was true,
> a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard
> to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light
> emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel
> towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia ######

[#] in this incomplete quote, presumably "this" refers
to the notion that light is emitted with speed c+v from
a moving source.

It appears that gehan used an unstated assumption here, that light
travels with speed c from the double star to earth.

> What does this mean? If you look at the velocities of the light
> emitted from the surface of the star towards Earth and the velocity
> of the surface of the star towards Earth, you have have to conclude
> that the light was emitted at c-v relative to the surface of the
> star, when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is
> approaching, and c+v relative to the surface of the star when the
> light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is receding.

No, you don't "have to" conclude any such thing. What you have to do is
apply RELATIVITY rather than whatever mish-mash you used; in particular,
apply the Lorentz transform, not the Galilean transform. Do that and you
will find that the light is emitted at speed c relative to the locally
inertial frame in which the surface of the star is at rest (independent
of its position in its orbit).

[If one is careful, one can apply the Lorentz composition
of velocities, and obtain the same answer. But based on
his writings around here I doubt very much that gehan
can be careful enough....]

> [... further nonsense ignored]

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 22:16:32 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> 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...

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

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:07:30 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/29/23 9:50 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > One example: DeSitters double star experiments:
> >
> > ####### In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this [#] was true,
> > a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard
> > to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light
> > emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel
> > towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia ######
> [#] in this incomplete quote, presumably "this" refers
> to the notion that light is emitted with speed c+v from
> a moving source.
>
> It appears that gehan used an unstated assumption here, that light
> travels with speed c from the double star to earth.
> > What does this mean? If you look at the velocities of the light
> > emitted from the surface of the star towards Earth and the velocity
> > of the surface of the star towards Earth, you have have to conclude
> > that the light was emitted at c-v relative to the surface of the
> > star, when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is
> > approaching, and c+v relative to the surface of the star when the
> > light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is receding.
> No, you don't "have to" conclude any such thing. What you have to do is
> apply RELATIVITY rather than whatever mish-mash you used; in particular,
> apply the Lorentz transform, not the Galilean transform. Do that and you
> will find that the light is emitted at speed c relative to the locally
> inertial frame in which the surface of the star is at rest (independent
> of its position in its orbit).
>
> [If one is careful, one can apply the Lorentz composition
> of velocities, and obtain the same answer. But based on
> his writings around here I doubt very much that gehan
> can be careful enough....]
>
> > [... further nonsense ignored]
>
> Tom Roberts

The Newtonian universe that Eisntein did his reasoning in, and the first postulate he used, says that the law for emission of light from the surface of the star is the same in each reference frame, that is, light is emitted from the surface of the star with velocity c relative to its surface, in the frame of reference in which the surface of the star is stationary.

You want me to use Relativity to check Relativity? That is circular.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 2:58:33 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:07:30 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 4/29/23 9:50 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > One example: DeSitters double star experiments:
> > >
> > > ####### In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this [#] was true,
> > > a star orbiting in a double-star system would usually, with regard
> > > to us, alternate between moving towards us and away from us. Light
> > > emitted from different parts of the orbital path would travel
> > > towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia ######
> > [#] in this incomplete quote, presumably "this" refers
> > to the notion that light is emitted with speed c+v from
> > a moving source.
> >
> > It appears that gehan used an unstated assumption here, that light
> > travels with speed c from the double star to earth.
> > > What does this mean? If you look at the velocities of the light
> > > emitted from the surface of the star towards Earth and the velocity
> > > of the surface of the star towards Earth, you have have to conclude
> > > that the light was emitted at c-v relative to the surface of the
> > > star, when the light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is
> > > approaching, and c+v relative to the surface of the star when the
> > > light is emitted towards the Earth when the star is receding.
> > No, you don't "have to" conclude any such thing. What you have to do is
> > apply RELATIVITY rather than whatever mish-mash you used; in particular,
> > apply the Lorentz transform, not the Galilean transform. Do that and you
> > will find that the light is emitted at speed c relative to the locally
> > inertial frame in which the surface of the star is at rest (independent
> > of its position in its orbit).
> >
> > [If one is careful, one can apply the Lorentz composition
> > of velocities, and obtain the same answer. But based on
> > his writings around here I doubt very much that gehan
> > can be careful enough....]
> >
> > > [... further nonsense ignored]
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> The Newtonian universe that Eisntein did his reasoning in, and the first postulate he used, says that the law for emission of light from the surface of the star is the same in each reference frame, that is, light is emitted from the surface of the star with velocity c relative to its surface, in the frame of reference in which the surface of the star is stationary.
>
> You want me to use Relativity to check Relativity? That is circular.
Some , if not ALL of the misunderstandings and misconceptions may come from the ERRONEOUS
idea that the Lorentz transformations are relations between measurements in a given inertial reference frame and those made in another one in movement...relative to the first one.
NO way! An atomic clock ticks in both in the exact same way.
A meter stick is the same in both.
What is not the same is...the perception about the other reference frames.
Then...we have to be careful in what we say. Even in a given inertial reference frame, for an example, 2 events considered to be simultaneous...ARE in reality SEEN like that, ONLY IN A LIMITED number of points of space.
In the absolute majority of that particular space they are NOT SEEN to be simultaneous. That means ....all the discussions
regarding the issue have a very very narrow meaning........a certain experimental setup, not more!
Best regards, LL

On April 29, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting in
> a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate
> between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from
> different parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia

de Sitter's arguments against ether, using binary stars,
are not so strong as they seem.

He relies on Doppler analysis, which assumes constant
light speed. And his projections of non-Kepler orbits,
for varying light speeds, depend on observations of
the star orbits. Those estimate position vs. time, for
phenomena a long time ago, hence depend on constant
light speed, to infer the time coordinates.

The strongest support for his arguments is the appeal
to Occam's razor; rejection of relativity entails the
construction of ungainly models. Ptolemy vs.
Copernicus comes to mind -

--
Rich

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On April 29, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting
> > in a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate
> > between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from different
> > parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. -
> > Wikipedia
>
> de Sitter's arguments against ether, using binary stars,
> are not so strong as they seem.
>
> He relies on Doppler analysis, which assumes constant
> light speed. And his projections of non-Kepler orbits,
> for varying light speeds, depend on observations of
> the star orbits. Those estimate position vs. time, for
> phenomena a long time ago, hence depend on constant
> light speed, to infer the time coordinates.
>
> The strongest support for his arguments is the appeal
> to Occam's razor; rejection of relativity entails the
> construction of ungainly models. Ptolemy vs.
> Copernicus comes to mind -

The Sitter's argument becomes unescapable
in the case that the orbiting star
carries a clock that we can observe.
This is just the case for orbiting double pulsars.

As we now know there is no De Sitter v ± c effect
modulating the arrival time of the pulses,
apart from what relativity predicts,

Jan

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:57:45 PM UTC+5, RichD wrote:
> On April 29, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting in
> > a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate
> > between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from
> > different parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. - Wikipedia
> de Sitter's arguments against ether, using binary stars,
> are not so strong as they seem.
>
> He relies on Doppler analysis, which assumes constant
> light speed. And his projections of non-Kepler orbits,
> for varying light speeds, depend on observations of
> the star orbits. Those estimate position vs. time, for
> phenomena a long time ago, hence depend on constant
> light speed, to infer the time coordinates.
>
> The strongest support for his arguments is the appeal
> to Occam's razor; rejection of relativity entails the
> construction of ungainly models. Ptolemy vs.
> Copernicus comes to mind -
>
>
> --
> Rich

I have no access to DeSitter's experiment, only reason and mathematics. It remains to be seen if I can do anything useful with these.
The explanation and description of the Doppler effect is breathtakingly schizophrenic. If you have not figured it out, good luck.

On Thursday, 4 May 2023 at 23:27:03 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On April 29, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > In 1913, Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star orbiting
> > > in a double-star system would usually, with regard to us, alternate
> > > between moving towards us and away from us. Light emitted from different
> > > parts of the orbital path would travel towards us at different speeds. -
> > > Wikipedia
> >
> > de Sitter's arguments against ether, using binary stars,
> > are not so strong as they seem.
> >
> > He relies on Doppler analysis, which assumes constant
> > light speed. And his projections of non-Kepler orbits,
> > for varying light speeds, depend on observations of
> > the star orbits. Those estimate position vs. time, for
> > phenomena a long time ago, hence depend on constant
> > light speed, to infer the time coordinates.
> >
> > The strongest support for his arguments is the appeal
> > to Occam's razor; rejection of relativity entails the
> > construction of ungainly models. Ptolemy vs.
> > Copernicus comes to mind -
> The Sitter's argument becomes unescapable
> in the case that the orbiting star
> carries a clock that we can observe.

Or at least imagine. In physics it's the same.