On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:47:23 PM UTC+5, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 8:55:58 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:21:32 AM UTC+5, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 5:00:18 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 9:14:22 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 11:14:51 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > The only reason why relativity wants the 1- V^2/C^2 is because it wants to claim that light does not share the velocity of the source. Everything in the universe shares the velocity of the source.
> > > > > Now you have gone full troll. The only reason 1/(1- V^2/C^2) is there is YOUR STUPID assertion that the velocity of light should include the velocity of its source, you dim-witted knuckle-dragger. This is what is known as proof by contradiction. You assume that relativistic velocity addition is false. I demonstrate that your assumption leads to a contradiction. Logically, this negates your assumption and shit-cans your argument. But you can't handle defeat, so now the fact that a relativistic looking factor is a result of your lunacy, you want to shift the blame to relativity. In relativity, the velocity of light is the same with or without the velocity of the source. You cooked your own goose. And since you feel compelled to lie about it, there is no point for this conversation to continue. Adios, MF!
> > > > No, there is no need for the 1/(1-V^2/C^2) which is relativity and not part of ordinary ballistic calculations of additive velocity. Relativity is completely unnecessary. It wasn't necessary for atomic bombs, for sagnac, for GPS or for anything but to confuse physics for 100 years.
> > > LIAR! The factor you disown is a result of your own assertion that the speed of light can add (or subtract) the velocity of its source. In relativity, this is not possible, so in relativity, there is NO FACTOR at all. The velocity of light is c, regardless of the velocity of its source. It's one thing to misrepresent relativity, which you do constantly. It is another to contradict yourself and then lie about it.
> >
> > The velocity of light is c,
> > Relative to what
> Relative to any coordinate system. That's the thing about lightspeed. It is c for all observers, regardless of their state of motion. Mathematically, the Proper velocity of lightspeed is infinite. Do you need to ask "infinite relative to what"? It is infinite relative to you, and the limit of its cosine projection is c relative to you. When you add 0 to a number, the result is the same number. When you add a number to infinity, the result is the same infinity. This is counter-intuitive, but a logical property of infinity, nonetheless.

> Relative to any coordinate system

Can anything have a specific velocity relative to any coordinate system.

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:52:33 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:47:23 PM UTC+5, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 8:55:58 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:21:32 AM UTC+5, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 5:00:18 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 9:14:22 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 11:14:51 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > The only reason why relativity wants the 1- V^2/C^2 is because it wants to claim that light does not share the velocity of the source. Everything in the universe shares the velocity of the source.
> > > > > > Now you have gone full troll. The only reason 1/(1- V^2/C^2) is there is YOUR STUPID assertion that the velocity of light should include the velocity of its source, you dim-witted knuckle-dragger. This is what is known as proof by contradiction. You assume that relativistic velocity addition is false. I demonstrate that your assumption leads to a contradiction. Logically, this negates your assumption and shit-cans your argument. But you can't handle defeat, so now the fact that a relativistic looking factor is a result of your lunacy, you want to shift the blame to relativity. In relativity, the velocity of light is the same with or without the velocity of the source. You cooked your own goose. And since you feel compelled to lie about it, there is no point for this conversation to continue. Adios, MF!
> > > > > No, there is no need for the 1/(1-V^2/C^2) which is relativity and not part of ordinary ballistic calculations of additive velocity. Relativity is completely unnecessary. It wasn't necessary for atomic bombs, for sagnac, for GPS or for anything but to confuse physics for 100 years.
> > > > LIAR! The factor you disown is a result of your own assertion that the speed of light can add (or subtract) the velocity of its source. In relativity, this is not possible, so in relativity, there is NO FACTOR at all. The velocity of light is c, regardless of the velocity of its source. It's one thing to misrepresent relativity, which you do constantly. It is another to contradict yourself and then lie about it.
> > >
> > > The velocity of light is c,
> > > Relative to what
> > Relative to any coordinate system. That's the thing about lightspeed. It is c for all observers, regardless of their state of motion. Mathematically, the Proper velocity of lightspeed is infinite. Do you need to ask "infinite relative to what"? It is infinite relative to you, and the limit of its cosine projection is c relative to you. When you add 0 to a number, the result is the same number. When you add a number to infinity, the result is the same infinity. This is counter-intuitive, but a logical property of infinity, nonetheless.
> > Relative to any coordinate system
>
> Can anything have a specific velocity relative to any coordinate system.

Lightspeed is the only thing that has the same velocity relative to any (inertial) coordinate system, that can be reached by way of a Lorentz transformation.

On 5/12/23 1:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the
> MMX. [...]

Sure. The MMX is consistent with many different theories:
A. all "ballistic light" theories, such as you mention
(without naming them)
B. all aether theories in which the aether is fully dragged
by the earth
C. Special Relativity
D. all theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR (within their more limited domains)

But the MMX is not the only experiment ever performed. When ALL of the
experiments are considered, only SR remains (within its domain).

> You don't need any relativity. It's useless.

This is just plain false. It's just that YOU do not understand the
experimental record, or basic physics. Your thoughts are bounded by the
paltry limits of your knowledge. There are entire fields of
modern physics that rely in essential ways on relativity:
* High Energy Physics (aka elementary particle physics)
* Accelerator Physics
* Gravitational Physics
* Cosmology
There are literally thousands of experiments that are consistent with
the predictions of SR and GR, many of which directly refute the other
theories listed above.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics and the experimental record
before attempting to write about them.

Tom Roberts

On 5/12/23 1:27 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> You "experts" can't even agree on whether length contraction is
> physical or not.

The problem is that "physical" is not well defined -- what do YOU mean
by that word (be specific)?

Consider a rod of length L at rest in inertial frame S, aligned along
the x axis. An inertial frame S' moving relative to S with speed v along
the x axis will measure its length to be L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That
is what is meant by "length contraction" [#].

It OUGHT to be obvious that measurements by moving observers cannot
possibly affect the rod itself. So in that sense, "length contraction"
is not "physical" -- the rod is not affected [#].

[#] I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in scare
quotes because these are very poor names for the actual
phenomena -- nothing ever "dilates" or "contracts", it is
only measurements that do so.

And yet, there are physical situations in which "length contraction"
must be included in the model:
* differential cross-sections measured in fixed-target and
collider experiments cannot be reconciled without it.
* the magnetic force from a current-carrying wire on a
charged particle nearby can be computed from Coulomb's
law and the "length contraction" of the electrons in the
wire drifting at a few cm/sec.
* ... surely there are others ...

Note the world we inhabit is observed to obey Einstein's first postulate
(locally). The only way to construct theories consistent with that
postulate and the experimental record is via Local Lorentz Invariance
(LLI) [@] -- that inherently has "length contraction" as a direct
consequence.

[@] This is a mathematical theorem, and is not merely
a limit of our current knowledge.

Theoretically, "time dilation" is directly analogous to "length
contraction" -- both are direct consequences of geometrical projections
between relatively-moving inertial frames. There are many direct
measurements of "time dilation".

Bottom line: rather than taking a crackpot's attitude of focusing on the
meaning of a wishy-washy word like "physical", consider what the theory
actually predicts, and how those predictions are confirmed by experiments.

> "numbers that agree" is not good enough for me.

Hmmmm. You need to learn how science actually works. We perform
experiments that generate numbers, we analyze the physical situations of
those experiments using our physical theories, and derive corresponding
numbers from their predictions. So numbers that agree is all there is to
experimental tests of physical theories.

Yes, it is important to understand how those experiments work. It is
also important to understand how those theories are constructed, as that
is by far the best way to develop future theories. But to do that, look
at the "bottom line" above.

> Let me put it this way. If I tell you why your model is valid or
> not, from fundamental mathematics, are you interested or not?

It is too late for that, as far as SR is concerned: the math of SR has
been proven to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is
real analysis. So for you to show "from fundamental mathematics" that SR
is invalid, you must also show that major portions of mathematics are
similarly self-inconsistent. From your postings around here, you are
WOEFULLY unprepared to do that.

Whether SR corresponds accurately to the world we inhabit is NOT in the
realm of "fundamental mathematics", is is an experimental issue. To
date, no experiment has refuted SR within its domain.

> Maybe it isn't the job of a physicist to look for an answer to
> "Why?", but if one is handed to him isn't he obligated to consider
> it?

If you understood the difference between world and model, you would not
ask such a silly question, and would understand the reason that such
"why?" questions are beyond the scope of science.

[Hint: science develops models of the world. Such models
discuss and explain how the world works, but simply
cannot address "why" the world is as it is.]

> So, enough of your opinions. Is length contraction physical or not?

I repeat: what do YOU mean by "physical" (be specific)? -- your question
cannot be answered until YOU define YOUR terms.

The rest of us do not care how you define terms, we work with the
physical theories we have, and don't care about the wishy-washy meanings
of such words.

> Relativity requires [...] And you claim there are no problems.

Oh, there most definitely is a problem here: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT
"LENGTH CONTRACTION" ACTUALLY IS. The problem is not in SR, but in your
misunderstandings.

> [... further nonsensical speculations based on that
> misunderstanding]

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 19 May 2023 at 19:27:17 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/12/23 1:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the
> > MMX. [...]
>
> Sure. The MMX is consistent with many different theories:
> A. all "ballistic light" theories, such as you mention
> (without naming them)
> B. all aether theories in which the aether is fully dragged
> by the earth
> C. Special Relativity
> D. all theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
> from SR (within their more limited domains)
>
> But the MMX is not the only experiment ever performed. When ALL of the
> experiments are considered, only SR remains (within its domain).

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
improper t'=t in improper seconds.

> > You don't need any relativity. It's useless.
> This is just plain false. It's just that YOU do not understand the
> experimental record, or basic physics. Your thoughts are bounded by the
> paltry limits of your knowledge. There are entire fields of
> modern physics that rely in essential ways on relativity:
> * High Energy Physics (aka elementary particle physics)
> * Accelerator Physics
> * Gravitational Physics
> * Cosmology
> There are literally thousands of experiments that are consistent with
> the predictions of SR and GR, many of which directly refute the other
> theories listed above.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
improper t'=t in improper seconds.

On Friday, 19 May 2023 at 20:24:49 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/12/23 1:27 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > You "experts" can't even agree on whether length contraction is
> > physical or not.
>
> The problem is that "physical" is not well defined -- what do YOU mean
> by that word (be specific)?
>
> Consider a rod of length L at rest in inertial frame S, aligned along
> the x axis. An inertial frame S' moving relative to S with speed v along
> the x axis will measure its length to be L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That
> is what is meant by "length contraction" [#].
>
> It OUGHT to be obvious that measurements by moving observers cannot
> possibly affect the rod itself. So in that sense, "length contraction"
> is not "physical" -- the rod is not affected [#].
>
> [#] I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in scare
> quotes because these are very poor names for the actual
> phenomena -- nothing ever "dilates" or "contracts", it is
> only measurements that do so.
>
> And yet, there are physical situations in which "length contraction"
> must be included in the model:
> * differential cross-sections measured in fixed-target and
> collider experiments cannot be reconciled without it.
> * the magnetic force from a current-carrying wire on a
> charged particle nearby can be computed from Coulomb's
> law and the "length contraction" of the electrons in the
> wire drifting at a few cm/sec.
> * ... surely there are others ...
>
> Note the world we inhabit is observed to obey Einstein's first postulate
> (locally).

The world you inhabit, the world of your moronic
delusions - sure. But in the meantime in the real
world, forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper
clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in improper
seconds.
> It is too late for that, as far as SR is concerned: the math of SR has
> been proven to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry

Having some valid math of second sort doesn't
prevent your Shit from being inconsistent, however.
This inconsistency was proven many times on this
NG, and the only thing you and your fellow idiots
can do about it is - pretending you didn't notice.