“This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example. Let me, by way of interjection, refer to a very appropriate legend. Procrustes was a celebrated legendary highwayman of Attica who tied his victims upon an iron bed and, as the case required, either stretched or cut off their legs to adapt them to its length. A Procrustean bed refers therefore to a theory to which facts are arbitrarily adjusted. Relativity is a Procrustean bed. Instead of fitting the theory to the facts, the facts are fitted to the theory. I call for the substantial application of logic and axiomatic procedures to physics. How can the physicists dare to construct theories without the essential and modem tools required for their solid fabrication. The failure of relativity as a physical theory in turn collapses its parent theory, Maxwell's electromagnetism, and this in turn collapses another offspring of electromagnetism, namely, quantum dynamics. To continue with my iconoclastic destruction, let me add that I reject the Michelson-Morley experiment for it was born in bias and enshrined in contradiction. This extensive annihilation of large portions of modem physics creates a vacuum into which we propose to erect my generalized unified field theory developed within the framework of strict axiomatization. We alter Newton's law of universal gravitation by adding two correction terms. These terms have the effect of accounting for(1) the advance of perihelia in quasi-elliptical orbital motion and (2) atomic repulsion. We formulate a modified Gauss-Bush invariant mass, variant charge foundation of electrodynamics, which unlike Maxwell's electromagnetism is compatible with Newtonian dynamics. We give a more logical formulation of the molecular and the kinetic theories of matter in terms of an explicit quantitative formulation of atomic repulsion. We properly reduce my axiomatic formulation of thermodynamics to the kinetic theory of matter. Of the many objections I have to relativity, I have elected to select the following as a crucial defect and concentrate on it. When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques, that the rate of separation of these points is 2c. This is inviolate-this is fact. For that matter, to deny that this is fact is to deny the validity of any or all empirical procedures and hence the rationality of man. It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.” Abstract by Sugar, Alvin C

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:37:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> “This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example. Let me, by way of interjection, refer to a very appropriate legend. Procrustes was a celebrated legendary highwayman of Attica who tied his victims upon an iron bed and, as the case required, either stretched or cut off their legs to adapt them to its length. A Procrustean bed refers therefore to a theory to which facts are arbitrarily adjusted.. Relativity is a Procrustean bed. Instead of fitting the theory to the facts, the facts are fitted to the theory. I call for the substantial application of logic and axiomatic procedures to physics. How can the physicists dare to construct theories without the essential and modem tools required for their solid fabrication. The failure of relativity as a physical theory in turn collapses its parent theory, Maxwell's electromagnetism, and this in turn collapses another offspring of electromagnetism, namely, quantum dynamics. To continue with my iconoclastic destruction, let me add that I reject the Michelson-Morley experiment for it was born in bias and enshrined in contradiction. This extensive annihilation of large portions of modem physics creates a vacuum into which we propose to erect my generalized unified field theory developed within the framework of strict axiomatization. We alter Newton's law of universal gravitation by adding two correction terms. These terms have the effect of accounting for(1) the advance of perihelia in quasi-elliptical orbital motion and (2) atomic repulsion. We formulate a modified Gauss-Bush invariant mass, variant charge foundation of electrodynamics, which unlike Maxwell's electromagnetism is compatible with Newtonian dynamics. We give a more logical formulation of the molecular and the kinetic theories of matter in terms of an explicit quantitative formulation of atomic repulsion. We properly reduce my axiomatic formulation of thermodynamics to the kinetic theory of matter. Of the many objections I have to relativity, I have elected to select the following as a crucial defect and concentrate on it. When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques, that the rate of separation of these points is 2c. This is inviolate-this is fact. For that matter, to deny that this is fact is to deny the validity of any or all empirical procedures and hence the rationality of man. It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.” Abstract by Sugar, Alvin C
Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer sanity."

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:37:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> “This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:37:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> “This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example. Let me, by way of interjection, refer to a very appropriate legend. Procrustes was a celebrated legendary highwayman of Attica who tied his victims upon an iron bed and, as the case required, either stretched or cut off their legs to adapt them to its length. A Procrustean bed refers therefore to a theory to which facts are arbitrarily adjusted.. Relativity is a Procrustean bed. Instead of fitting the theory to the facts, the facts are fitted to the theory. I call for the substantial application of logic and axiomatic procedures to physics. How can the physicists dare to construct theories without the essential and modem tools required for their solid fabrication. The failure of relativity as a physical theory in turn collapses its parent theory, Maxwell's electromagnetism, and this in turn collapses another offspring of electromagnetism, namely, quantum dynamics. To continue with my iconoclastic destruction, let me add that I reject the Michelson-Morley experiment for it was born in bias and enshrined in contradiction. This extensive annihilation of large portions of modem physics creates a vacuum into which we propose to erect my generalized unified field theory developed within the framework of strict axiomatization. We alter Newton's law of universal gravitation by adding two correction terms. These terms have the effect of accounting for(1) the advance of perihelia in quasi-elliptical orbital motion and (2) atomic repulsion. We formulate a modified Gauss-Bush invariant mass, variant charge foundation of electrodynamics, which unlike Maxwell's electromagnetism is compatible with Newtonian dynamics. We give a more logical formulation of the molecular and the kinetic theories of matter in terms of an explicit quantitative formulation of atomic repulsion. We properly reduce my axiomatic formulation of thermodynamics to the kinetic theory of matter. Of the many objections I have to relativity, I have elected to select the following as a crucial defect and concentrate on it. When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques, that the rate of separation of these points is 2c. This is inviolate-this is fact. For that matter, to deny that this is fact is to deny the validity of any or all empirical procedures and hence the rationality of man. It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.” Abstract by Sugar, Alvin C

You are stump stupid about all of this and apparently quite proud of it!

On 9/25/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> “This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of
> science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual
> by an almost childish example. [...]

The author is an idiot. By not immediately following with the "almost
childish example", they have lost all sensible readers who won't bother
to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant screed.

Note also that it is virtually certain that the author is wrong about
this claim, and they are most likely discussing their personal
misconceptions rather than the actual theory. But as they did not
describe that "almost childish example" I cannot know for sure....

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/25/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > “This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of
> > science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual
> > by an almost childish example. [...]
>
> The author is an idiot. By not immediately following with the "almost
> childish example", they have lost all sensible readers who won't bother
> to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant screed.
>
> Note also that it is virtually certain that the author is wrong about
> this claim, and they are most likely discussing their personal
> misconceptions rather than the actual theory. But as they did not
> describe that "almost childish example" I cannot know for sure....
>
> Tom Roberts
He did, but you are so anxious to dismiss it that you wouldn't even read an abstract: Light from two flashlights end to end move apart at 2c:
"A true believer expresses a childish belief in the wisdom of the established authorities. That is the usual appeal to authority instead of to reason.......Of the many objections I have to relativity, I have elected to select the following as a crucial defect and concentrate on it. When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques, that the rate of separation of these points is 2c. This is inviolate-this is fact. For that matter, to deny that this is fact is to deny the validity of any or all empirical procedures and hence the rationality of man. It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c."

On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
>> When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
>> and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
>> that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
>> It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
>> empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
> Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."

um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.

Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...

--
Rich

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
> >> When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
> >> and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
> >> that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
> >> It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
> >> empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
> > Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> > opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
>
> um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
> with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
>
> Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
> them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
>
> --
> Rich
Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
center at the same time t = 1/c. Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is
clearly inertial by the relativistic definition of being in constant rectilinear
motion with respect to the fixed stars, both the constancy principle and the
relativistic addition of velocities imply that the velocity of p2 is therein c after
application of the Lorentz transformations to the positions and times of p2 in
the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest with respect to the fixed
stars. However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c
since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this
time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
irrespective of relative inertial motion"

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> >
> > On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
> > > > When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
> > > > and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
> > > > that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
> > > > It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
> > > > empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
> > >
> > > Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> > > opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
> >
> > um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
> > with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
> >
> > Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
> > them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
> >
> > --
> > Rich
>
> Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with
> relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
> limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
> respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
> Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
> center at the same time t = 1/c.

ou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.

> Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definition
> of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,

Since no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
wrt p1.

> both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that the
> velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
> positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
> with respect to the fixed stars.

Only ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.

> However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c
> since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this
> time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
> make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
> leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
> to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
> systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
> a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
> irrespective of relative inertial motion"

Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
transformation. You're NOT!

Try this:
Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:44:14 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 9/25/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > “This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of
> > > science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual
> > > by an almost childish example. [...]
> >
> > The author is an idiot. By not immediately following with the "almost
> > childish example", they have lost all sensible readers who won't bother
> > to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant screed.
> >
> > Note also that it is virtually certain that the author is wrong about
> > this claim, and they are most likely discussing their personal
> > misconceptions rather than the actual theory. But as they did not
> > describe that "almost childish example" I cannot know for sure....
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> He did, but you are so anxious to dismiss it that you wouldn't even read an abstract: Light from two flashlights end to end move apart at 2c:

That's false. This mistake has been quite common in this over the years.

The only problem relativity (special) has is that its mathematical access barrier
is extremely low (less than Newtonian mechanics even because no calculus is
needed). This attracts the obligatory hordes of Boeotians with the predictable
gobbledygook as the only result.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > >
> > > On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
> > > > > When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
> > > > > and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
> > > > > that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
> > > > > It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
> > > > > empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
> > > >
> > > > Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> > > > opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
> > >
> > > um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
> > > with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
> > >
> > > Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
> > > them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> >
> > Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with
> > relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
> > limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
> > respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
> > Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
> > center at the same time t = 1/c.
> ou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
> > Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definition
> > of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
> Since no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
> wrt p1.
> > both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that the
> > velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
> > positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
> > with respect to the fixed stars.
> Only ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
> at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
> > However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c
> > since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this
> > time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
> > make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
> > leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
> > to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
> > systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
> > a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
> > irrespective of relative inertial motion"
> Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> transformation. You're NOT!
>
> Try this:
> Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
Thank you, but there is no rational science forbidding speeds over the speed of light and no use for a Lorentz transformation.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:53:08 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
> > > > > > When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
> > > > > > and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
> > > > > > that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
> > > > > > It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
> > > > > > empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c..”
> > > > >
> > > > > Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> > > > > opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
> > > >
> > > > um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
> > > > with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
> > > > them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rich
> > >
> > > Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with
> > > relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
> > > limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
> > > respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
> > > Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
> > > center at the same time t = 1/c.
> > ou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
> > > Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definition
> > > of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
> > Since no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
> > wrt p1.
> > > both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that the
> > > velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
> > > positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
> > > with respect to the fixed stars.
> > Only ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
> > at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
> > > However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c
> > > since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this
> > > time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
> > > make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
> > > leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
> > > to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
> > > systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
> > > a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
> > > irrespective of relative inertial motion"
> > Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> > correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> > are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> > room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> > by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> > photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> > speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> > transformation. You're NOT!
> >
> > Try this:
> > Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> > use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
>
> Thank you, but there is no rational science forbidding speeds over the speed of light and no use for a Lorentz transformation.

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:53:08 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
> > > > > > When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
> > > > > > and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
> > > > > > that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
> > > > > > It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
> > > > > > empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c..”
> > > > >
> > > > > Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> > > > > opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
> > > >
> > > > um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
> > > > with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
> > > > them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rich
> > >
> > > Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with
> > > relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
> > > limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
> > > respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
> > > Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
> > > center at the same time t = 1/c.
> > ou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
> > > Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definition
> > > of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
> > Since no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
> > wrt p1.
> > > both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that the
> > > velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
> > > positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
> > > with respect to the fixed stars.
> > Only ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
> > at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
> > > However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c
> > > since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this
> > > time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
> > > make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
> > > leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
> > > to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
> > > systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
> > > a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
> > > irrespective of relative inertial motion"
> > Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> > correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> > are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> > room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> > by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> > photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> > speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> > transformation. You're NOT!
> >
> > Try this:
> > Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> > use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.

> Thank you, but there is no rational science forbidding speeds over the speed of light and no use for a Lorentz transformation.

And your evidence for this claim is what, exactly?

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > >
> > > On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
> > > > > When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
> > > > > and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
> > > > > that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
> > > > > It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
> > > > > empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
> > > >
> > > > Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> > > > opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
> > >
> > > um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
> > > with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
> > >
> > > Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
> > > them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> >
> > Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with
> > relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
> > limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
> > respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
> > Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
> > center at the same time t = 1/c.
> ou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
> > Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definition
> > of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
> Since no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
> wrt p1.
> > both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that the
> > velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
> > positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
> > with respect to the fixed stars.
> Only ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
> at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
> > However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c
> > since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this
> > time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
> > make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
> > leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
> > to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
> > systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
> > a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
> > irrespective of relative inertial motion"
> Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> transformation. You're NOT!
>
> Try this:
> Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer. Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative speeds of 3c. The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is Galilean transformations. Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant. There are only sources and sinks. There is no need for the LT for balls or photons. You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion. Nothing in physics forbids this.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:16:15 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:57:23 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
> > > > > > When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
> > > > > > and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
> > > > > > that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
> > > > > > It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
> > > > > > empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c..”
> > > > >
> > > > > Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> > > > > opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
> > > >
> > > > um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
> > > > with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
> > > >
> > > > Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
> > > > them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rich
> > >
> > > Such courtesy is indeed commendable. According to Schock, it is not in accord with
> > > relativity: "It will now be shown that the assumption is a contradiction in the upper
> > > limit of where it is supposed to hold in relativity. Consider a room at rest with
> > > respect to the fixed stars with a lamp flashing at its center at star time O.
> > > Photons p1 and p2 hit the left and right walls at the common distances l from
> > > center at the same time t = 1/c.
> > ou mean l/c, not 1/c, I presume -- assuming the room is 2l wide.
> > > Since the coordinate system with origin p1 is clearly inertial by the relativistic definition
> > > of being in constant rectilinear motion with respect to the fixed stars,
> > Since no observer can be at rest wrt a photon, you can't have a coordinate system at rest
> > wrt p1.
> > > both the constancy principle and the relativistic addition of velocities imply that the
> > > velocity of p2 is therein c after application of the Lorentz transformations to the
> > > positions and times of p2 in the pl frame according to some selected frame at rest
> > > with respect to the fixed stars.
> > Only ONE valid coordinate system has been specified: that of the room with the lamp
> > at its center. So the Lorentz transformation is invoked in vain.
> > > However, the calculated velocity instead turns out to be (2.l)/t = 2.c
> > > since the Lorentz formulas are unusable with zero denominators and so this
> > > time change is nothing. That is, the distortions of the moving frame needed to
> > > make the relativistic rules consistent have here become meaningless and so
> > > leave the rules inconsistent. The only way out of the contradictions seems to be
> > > to deny that inertial systems moving at a velocity whose value is c are inertial
> > > systems. However, such a move is against the explicit intention of Einstein that
> > > a photon should seem to have a velocity value of c from an adjacent photon
> > > irrespective of relative inertial motion"
> > Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> > correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> > are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> > room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> > by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> > photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> > speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> > transformation. You're NOT!
> >
> > Try this:
> > Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> > use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
> There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer. Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative speeds of 3c. The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is Galilean transformations. Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant. There are only sources and sinks. There is no need for the LT for balls or photons. You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion. Nothing in physics forbids this.

I looked up the definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and your picture was there...

On 26-Sept-23 1:37 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> When the points of light A and B move
> in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left and B to the
> right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory
> techniques, that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.

From the perspective of an observer in the laboratory, this is
certainly true, and special relativity does not say otherwise. That you
would think this is some kind of obvious refutation of special
relativity shows just how little you know about it.

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> > correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> > are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> > room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> > by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> > photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> > speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> > transformation. You're NOT!
> >
> > Try this:
> > Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> > use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
>
> There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.

You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.

> Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative
> speeds of 3c.

Vacuous assertion.

> The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is Galilean
> transformations.

Refuted assertion.

> Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.

Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
if you want to understand reality.

> There are only sources and sinks.

I am a source, you are a sink.

> There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.

Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.

> You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.

No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c.

> Nothing in physics forbids this.

Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)

I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
so here it comes right down your gullet:

From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
+u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:

u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)

u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c

As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c.. Your appeal
to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> > > correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> > > are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> > > room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> > > by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> > > photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> > > speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> > > transformation. You're NOT!
> > >
> > > Try this:
> > > Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> > > use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
> >
> > There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.
> You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.
> > Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative
> > speeds of 3c.
> Vacuous assertion.
> > The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is Galilean
> > transformations.
> Refuted assertion.
> > Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.
> Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
> if you want to understand reality.
> > There are only sources and sinks.
> I am a source, you are a sink.
> > There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.
> Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.
> > You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.
> No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c.
> > Nothing in physics forbids this.
> Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)
>
> I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
> so here it comes right down your gullet:
>
> From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
> +u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:
>
> u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
>
> u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
> u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
> u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
> u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c
>
> As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c. Your appeal
> to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.
I appreciate the opportunity to see if relativity can defend itself from someone who will try to defend it by reasoning (in addition to the usual pooh-poohing of skepticism).

The photons are two different IRFs. Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.

Anything can move faster than c relative to something else because relative speeds are additive.

u'= (-1 +1)/ (1 + 1/c^2)= 0

Yet the photons move apart at 2c.

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 11:44:09 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On September 25, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> “The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.
> >> When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a source S, A to the left
> >> and B to the right, we must conclude, using the simplest accepted laboratory techniques,
> >> that the rate of separation of these points is 2c.
> >> It is sheer insanity, then, for anyone to present us with a theory that contradicts this basic
> >> empirical fact, a theory which requires that this velocity be c.”
> > Both Schock and Alvin Sugar agree on emphasizing that denying the light of two flashlights facing
> > opposite directions placed end to end have light beams with a relative velocity of 2c is "sheer insanity."
>
> um, yes, two light beams, moving in opposite directions, indeed separate
> with speed 2c. In accord with relativity.
>
> Which makes Messrs. Shock and Sugar a pair of nitwits. As for anyone who cites
> them... well, I'm too diplomatic to comment...
>
> --
> Rich
I have almost as high an estimate of you and relativity as you of me.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> > > > correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> > > > are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> > > > room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> > > > by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> > > > photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> > > > speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> > > > transformation. You're NOT!
> > > >
> > > > Try this:
> > > > Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> > > > use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
> > >
> > > There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.
> > You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.
>
> > > Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative
> > > speeds of 3c.
> > Vacuous assertion.
> > > The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is Galilean
> > > transformations.
> > Refuted assertion.
> > > Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.
> > Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
> > if you want to understand reality.
> > > There are only sources and sinks.
> > I am a source, you are a sink.
> > > There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.
> > Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.
> > > You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.
> > No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c.
> > > Nothing in physics forbids this.
> > Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)
> >
> > I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
> > so here it comes right down your gullet:
> >
> > From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
> > +u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:
> >
> > u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
> >
> > u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
> > u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
> > u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
> > u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c
> >
> > As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c. Your appeal
> > to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.
> I appreciate the opportunity to see if relativity can defend itself from someone who will try to defend it by reasoning (in addition to the usual pooh-poohing of skepticism).
>
> The photons are two different IRFs. Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.
>
> Anything can move faster than c relative to something else because relative speeds are additive.
>
> u'= (-1 +1)/ (1 + 1/c^2)= 0
>
> Yet the photons move apart at 2c.

Yet neither photon ever exceeds c. Nothing can exceed c.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:10:27 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> The photons are two different IRFs.

No, photons are not IRF's. IRF's are IRF;s, not photons. This is just a matter of understanding the meaning of those words <sigh>.
One could *imagine*, 'attach' an IRF to a photon as a gedanken, but if you want to analyze relativity, relativity
says/implies that there are no such IRF;
(because physically, an IRF is a system that's extended in size and which has mass, and mass can not travel at the SoL (SR) )

> Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.

Something moving in uniform linear motion does not make *it* an IRF.
Do you know what an IRF means??

> Yet the photons move apart at 2c.

The *distance* between them is changing at a rate of 2c; their closing speed is 2c.
Learn to use the appropriate language, else you will remain confused and sound like an idiot.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:

> ...Nothing can exceed c.

I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go faster than c.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > ...Nothing can exceed c.
>
> I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go faster than c.

Nothing with mass can exceed c...

On 27-Sept-23 8:12 am, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:44:14 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 9/25/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> “This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of
>>>> science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual
>>>> by an almost childish example. [...]
>>>
>>> The author is an idiot. By not immediately following with the "almost
>>> childish example", they have lost all sensible readers who won't bother
>>> to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant screed.
>>>
>>> Note also that it is virtually certain that the author is wrong about
>>> this claim, and they are most likely discussing their personal
>>> misconceptions rather than the actual theory. But as they did not
>>> describe that "almost childish example" I cannot know for sure....
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>> He did, but you are so anxious to dismiss it that you wouldn't even read an abstract: Light from two flashlights end to end move apart at 2c:
>
> That's false. This mistake has been quite common in this over the years.
>
> The only problem relativity (special) has is that its mathematical access barrier
> is extremely low (less than Newtonian mechanics even because no calculus is
> needed). This attracts the obligatory hordes of Boeotians with the predictable
> gobbledygook as the only result.
>
> --
> Jan

I believe he's thinking in terms of the distance between the wavefronts
in the frame of the torches.

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 23:19:49 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> > > > > correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> > > > > are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> > > > > room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> > > > > by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> > > > > photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> > > > > speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> > > > > transformation. You're NOT!
> > > > >
> > > > > Try this:
> > > > > Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> > > > > use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
> > > >
> > > > There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.
> > > You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.
> >
> > > > Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative
> > > > speeds of 3c.
> > > Vacuous assertion.
> > > > The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is Galilean
> > > > transformations.
> > > Refuted assertion.
> > > > Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.
> > > Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
> > > if you want to understand reality.
> > > > There are only sources and sinks.
> > > I am a source, you are a sink.
> > > > There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.
> > > Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.
> > > > You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.
> > > No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c..
> > > > Nothing in physics forbids this.
> > > Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)
> > >
> > > I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
> > > so here it comes right down your gullet:
> > >
> > > From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
> > > +u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:
> > >
> > > u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
> > >
> > > u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
> > > u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
> > > u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
> > > u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c
> > >
> > > As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c. Your appeal
> > > to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.
> > I appreciate the opportunity to see if relativity can defend itself from someone who will try to defend it by reasoning (in addition to the usual pooh-poohing of skepticism).
> >
> > The photons are two different IRFs. Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.
> >
> > Anything can move faster than c relative to something else because relative speeds are additive.
> >
> > u'= (-1 +1)/ (1 + 1/c^2)= 0
> >
> > Yet the photons move apart at 2c.
> Yet neither photon ever exceeds c. Nothing can exceed c.

Of course it can, learn your GR shit.