What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?

Cheers, LEO_MMX

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 7:35:03 PM UTC-4, LEO_MMX wrote:
> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
>
> Cheers, LEO_MMX

Sorry about the typo.

Cheers, LEO_MMX

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
>
> Cheers, LEO_MMX
First, the Big Ben paradox. Next, the co-moving loop paradox. Next, the Kepler Paradox. Next, the Lorentz contraction velocity paradox. I have more....

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 7:36:07 PM UTC-4, LEO_MMX wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 7:35:03 PM UTC-4, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> >
> > Cheers, LEO_MMX
> Sorry about the typo.
>
> Cheers, LEO_MMX

By the way, obviously in my own opinion it is Michelson-Morley in general.

Cheers, LEO_MMX

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 7:41:29 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> >
> > Cheers, LEO_MMX
> First, the Big Ben paradox. Next, the co-moving loop paradox. Next, the Kepler Paradox. Next, the Lorentz contraction velocity paradox. I have more....

I said "experiment", not "experiments".

Cheers, LEO_MMX

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:53:42 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 7:41:29 PM UTC-4, patdolan wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> > >
> > > Cheers, LEO_MMX
> > First, the Big Ben paradox. Next, the co-moving loop paradox. Next, the Kepler Paradox. Next, the Lorentz contraction velocity paradox. I have more...
> I said "experiment", not "experiments".
>
> Cheers, LEO_MMX

MMX? Why don't your experimental tastes run towards the muons of Mt. Wilson? That is consider by many to be relativity's most important confirmation..

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
>
> Cheers, LEO_MMX
I think of the 1919 eclipse when they added deflections of stars in opposite directions as if they were deflected in the same direction. If they did it honestly these would have negated each other. It doesn't add up. Charles Lane Poor pointed this out. Usually, I like to refer everything back to the MMX as much as possible to show relativity is not necessary to explain it.

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 9:16:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> >
> > Cheers, LEO_MMX
> I think of the 1919 eclipse when they added deflections of stars in opposite directions as if they were deflected in the same direction. If they did it honestly these would have negated each other. It doesn't add up. Charles Lane Poor pointed this out. Usually, I like to refer everything back to the MMX as much as possible to show relativity is not necessary to explain it.
This is amazing, Laurence. I knew the 1919 eclipse was flawed work. But I did not know about the random bending. I take some home state pride in the fact that in the previous year's eclipse William Wallace Campbell of the Lick Observatory first falsified general relativity right here in Washington State at the small town of Goldendale. I have made a pilgrimage to the very field where the expedition set up its telescopes in 1918. Eddington, besotted with confirmation bias, got word of Campbell's intent to publish his negative findings while still at sea returning from the 1919 expedition. The seasick Eddington dashed off his preliminary results by radio telegram in hopes of forestalling Campbell. It worked. Campbell quailed before the growing tidal wave of media-driven relativity mania. Eddington and Einstein had won the day and vanquished any further inquiry into the validity of relativity, special and general. This forum now stands alone as the world's greatest repository and curator of facts and position papers for the case against relativity.

You might want to check out the amateur Bruns' absolutely "perfect" confirmation of GR during our last total eclipse. Bruns claims 1.75" on the nose--the only person to ever do so. I invited him to this forum to give evidence for his findings, in lieu of his nearly unintelligible software-based method of confirmation. But Dono scared him off.

Am 26.06.2023 um 01:35 schrieb LEO_MMX:
> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
>
> Cheers, LEO_MMX
>
Trains on a track.

E.g. in a dark night on a lonely track two trains are standing next to
each other, both well lit.

Now two passengers in either train look out the window and see the other
train moving slowly, but cannot agree upon which one is moving.

TH

LEO_MMX <ned.marsen@gmail.com> wrote:

> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?

None. Special relativity doesn't depend on any experiment.
It is a natural theoretical development from Maxwell's Equations.

If you want to ask what experimental result convinced Einstein
that he must be must be right track:
that was Fizeau's 'partial ether drag' result,

Jan

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 9:16:06?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03?PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> > >
> > > Cheers, LEO_MMX
> > I think of the 1919 eclipse when they added deflections of stars in
> > opposite directions as if they were deflected in the same direction. If
> > they did it honestly these would have negated each other. It doesn't add
> > up. Charles Lane Poor pointed this out. Usually, I like to refer
> > everything back to the MMX as much as possible to show relativity is not
> > necessary to explain it.
> >
> This is amazing, Laurence. I knew the 1919 eclipse was flawed work.

And how did you 'know' that?
Because you read about it in a book?

Jan

--
"You see, I speak English well. I learn it from a book." (Manuel)

On Tuesday, 27 June 2023 at 10:19:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> None. Special relativity doesn't depend on any experiment.

Sure, the Shit is derived from a postulate of an insane crazie.

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 2:19:26 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
>
> None. Special relativity doesn't depend on any experiment.

IMHO, Jan, all of physics depends on experiments.

> It is a natural theoretical development from Maxwell's Equations.

Maxwell's equations depended experiments by Faraday, Ampere,
etc. Maxwell added a bit to that, which was later confirmed by
experiment.

> If you want to ask what experimental result convinced Einstein
> that he must be must be right track:
> that was Fizeau's 'partial ether drag' result,
>
> Jan

He specifically considered the magnet and conductor, although that
was an inference, not exactly an experiment. He mentioned the MMX
indirectly, and later claimed that "examples of this sort" included the
Fizeau experiment.

ONE experiment that confirms relativity is the electron speed vs. energy.
Another one is the LLREs. Another is the GPS (the first bird up was an
experiment because they switched on the relativistic correction after
observing the drift without it, which confirms GR.

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 2:03:17 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 9:16:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> > >
> > > Cheers, LEO_MMX
> > I think of the 1919 eclipse when they added deflections of stars in opposite directions as if they were deflected in the same direction. If they did it honestly these would have negated each other. It doesn't add up. Charles Lane Poor pointed this out. Usually, I like to refer everything back to the MMX as much as possible to show relativity is not necessary to explain it.
> This is amazing, Laurence. I knew the 1919 eclipse was flawed work. But I did not know about the random bending. I take some home state pride in the fact that in the previous year's eclipse William Wallace Campbell of the Lick Observatory first falsified general relativity right here in Washington State at the small town of Goldendale. I have made a pilgrimage to the very field where the expedition set up its telescopes in 1918. Eddington, besotted with confirmation bias, got word of Campbell's intent to publish his negative findings while still at sea returning from the 1919 expedition. The seasick Eddington dashed off his preliminary results by radio telegram in hopes of forestalling Campbell. It worked. Campbell quailed before the growing tidal wave of media-driven relativity mania. Eddington and Einstein had won the day and vanquished any further inquiry into the validity of relativity, special and general. This forum now stands alone as the world's greatest repository and curator of facts and position papers for the case against relativity.
>
> You might want to check out the amateur Bruns' absolutely "perfect" confirmation of GR during our last total eclipse. Bruns claims 1.75" on the nose--the only person to ever do so. I invited him to this forum to give evidence for his findings, in lieu of his nearly unintelligible software-based method of confirmation. But Dono scared him off.
While Bruns accounts for atmospheric refraction, I do not believe he can account for the additional refraction during an eclipse with its winds. Marmet says, "it has also been demonstrated that
the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of massenergy conservation."

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 1:08:39 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 2:03:17 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 9:16:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > > > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers, LEO_MMX
> > > I think of the 1919 eclipse when they added deflections of stars in opposite directions as if they were deflected in the same direction. If they did it honestly these would have negated each other. It doesn't add up. Charles Lane Poor pointed this out. Usually, I like to refer everything back to the MMX as much as possible to show relativity is not necessary to explain it.
> > This is amazing, Laurence. I knew the 1919 eclipse was flawed work. But I did not know about the random bending. I take some home state pride in the fact that in the previous year's eclipse William Wallace Campbell of the Lick Observatory first falsified general relativity right here in Washington State at the small town of Goldendale. I have made a pilgrimage to the very field where the expedition set up its telescopes in 1918. Eddington, besotted with confirmation bias, got word of Campbell's intent to publish his negative findings while still at sea returning from the 1919 expedition. The seasick Eddington dashed off his preliminary results by radio telegram in hopes of forestalling Campbell. It worked. Campbell quailed before the growing tidal wave of media-driven relativity mania. Eddington and Einstein had won the day and vanquished any further inquiry into the validity of relativity, special and general. This forum now stands alone as the world's greatest repository and curator of facts and position papers for the case against relativity.
> >
> > You might want to check out the amateur Bruns' absolutely "perfect" confirmation of GR during our last total eclipse. Bruns claims 1.75" on the nose--the only person to ever do so. I invited him to this forum to give evidence for his findings, in lieu of his nearly unintelligible software-based method of confirmation. But Dono scared him off.
> While Bruns accounts for atmospheric refraction, I do not believe he can account for the additional refraction during an eclipse with its winds. Marmet says, "it has also been demonstrated that
> the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of massenergy conservation."
Laurence, did you understand Bruns' methodology? I could not. I believe he used a table of coordinates for stars then used stochastic methods to massage his own multiple images captured during the ecplise to arrive at the perfect 1.75". His results seem too softwarey to me.

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 6:16:19 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 1:08:39 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 2:03:17 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 9:16:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-7, LEO_MMX wrote:
> > > > > What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers, LEO_MMX
> > > > I think of the 1919 eclipse when they added deflections of stars in opposite directions as if they were deflected in the same direction. If they did it honestly these would have negated each other. It doesn't add up. Charles Lane Poor pointed this out. Usually, I like to refer everything back to the MMX as much as possible to show relativity is not necessary to explain it.
> > > This is amazing, Laurence. I knew the 1919 eclipse was flawed work. But I did not know about the random bending. I take some home state pride in the fact that in the previous year's eclipse William Wallace Campbell of the Lick Observatory first falsified general relativity right here in Washington State at the small town of Goldendale. I have made a pilgrimage to the very field where the expedition set up its telescopes in 1918. Eddington, besotted with confirmation bias, got word of Campbell's intent to publish his negative findings while still at sea returning from the 1919 expedition. The seasick Eddington dashed off his preliminary results by radio telegram in hopes of forestalling Campbell. It worked. Campbell quailed before the growing tidal wave of media-driven relativity mania. Eddington and Einstein had won the day and vanquished any further inquiry into the validity of relativity, special and general. This forum now stands alone as the world's greatest repository and curator of facts and position papers for the case against relativity.
> > >
> > > You might want to check out the amateur Bruns' absolutely "perfect" confirmation of GR during our last total eclipse. Bruns claims 1.75" on the nose--the only person to ever do so. I invited him to this forum to give evidence for his findings, in lieu of his nearly unintelligible software-based method of confirmation. But Dono scared him off.
> > While Bruns accounts for atmospheric refraction, I do not believe he can account for the additional refraction during an eclipse with its winds. Marmet says, "it has also been demonstrated that
> > the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of massenergy conservation."
> Laurence, did you understand Bruns' methodology? I could not. I believe he used a table of coordinates for stars then used stochastic methods to massage his own multiple images captured during the ecplise to arrive at the perfect 1.75". His results seem too softwarey to me.
There's a lot I didn't understand so well. He normed everything to the 1.75" for one solar radii when they mostly were out at 2.4r. It seemed well done. I just think he never addressed the atmospheric turbulence during eclipses at all. Normal atmospheric refraction obviously doesn't account for that.. Marmet also considers that a crucial disproof.

On 26-June-23 9:35 am, LEO_MMX wrote:
> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
>
> Cheers, LEO_MMX

What is the point of that question?

My answer is probably MMX, but so what? The validity of the theory does
not depend on what first comes to mind when people hear mention of it.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 6:35:03 PM UTC-5, LEO_MMX wrote:
> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 6:35:03 PM UTC-5, LEO_MMX wrote:
> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?

When I was a grad student, I spent several months pursuing
a very pretty woman who worked on de novo computations of
atomic orbitals and molecular orbitals of simple molecules.
Computers back then were zillions of times slower than now,
of course, but she was attempting to accurately compute the
hyperfine structure of their spectra for comparison with
experiment. Central to her efforts was numerical solution of
quantum electrodynamics equations, i.e. relativistic quantum
field theory. I was just looking over her old papers, wistfully
thinking back on what could have been if things had just turned
out a little bit differently.

I don't necessarily think of quantum electrodynamics, necessarily,
when I think of relativity. But QED is definitely one of relativity's
major success stories, and the experimental validation of de novo
calculation of atomic and molecular structure is, for personal
reasons, high on my list.

Am 27.06.2023 um 16:17 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 2:19:26 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> LEO_MMX <ned.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What experiment first comes to mind when you hear the word, "Relativty"?
>>
>> None. Special relativity doesn't depend on any experiment.
>
> IMHO, Jan, all of physics depends on experiments.
>
>> It is a natural theoretical development from Maxwell's Equations.
>
> Maxwell's equations depended experiments by Faraday, Ampere,
> etc. Maxwell added a bit to that, which was later confirmed by
> experiment.
>

Einstein based SRT not on Maxwell, but on a certain variation from
Maxwell's equations developed by the famous German physicist Heinrich Hertz.

As Einstein provided no references whatsoever, it was difficult to
identify the equations used by Einstein in the works of Hertz.

But as far as I can tell, the equations of Hertz differer from what
Einstein called 'Maxwell-Hertz-equations', because Hertz used absolute
derivatives and Einstein partial derivatives (otherwise they are quite
similar).

Hertz and Maxwell were also 'aetherists', while Einstein rejected the
idea of an aether.

TH