# Thread: Mac's Final Relativity Thread

1. Originally Posted by James R
... he believes that the speed of light postulate follows logically from the laws of physics postulate. Therefore, he believes that one postulate is enough. ...
Perhaps I will read him as that has long been my POV also. For example, AFAIK, the melting point temperature of lead being the same in all inertial frames is directly the same as C having the same value in all frames. Or stating my POV in different terms:
The handbook of physics needs no revisions as one goes to another frame.

2. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:It's the usual problem. You're too stupid to understand what you read, so you misinterpret it.
Up yours. You have no specific complaint or your complaint doesn't represent my view.

Originally Posted by James R
Also, I guess you read things out of context. Instead of reading whole articles (which you don't do because you can't understand the vast majority of their content), you search the web for quotes that you can present out of context and claim they support your views.
Nothing has been taken out of context and I did read his entire paper. You just miss his points.

He noted that Einstein dropped postulate #2. He suggests we not use the postulates at all. Not that they aren't perhaps what we measure but that they are simply confusion factors. But he clearly is not impressed with Einstein as you are.

Which frankly speaks pretty low of your ability to think for yourself and not just follow the crowd so as not to appear out smarted.

Originally Posted by James R
This tactic, by the way, is not limited to you. Most crackpots do it. Creationists are prime examples. It's called quote mining. When smart people do it, it is dishonest. When people like you do it, it may just be ignorance.
More up yours. None of this personal attack garbage buys you any slack for not resolving the v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t issue. Special Relativity is still shown to be internally inconsistant mathematically, physically and rhetorically by it. Get over it.

[QUOTE=James R;2368160]The first quote here (and I note you leave a lot out) means that this guy would prefer that special relativity be taught using a spacetime metric approach, rather than the approach to deriving it from Einstein's postulates that is often used in introductory texts. The second quote says the same thing.[/quotre]

As I had noted before you.

Originally Posted by James R
Terms like "drop Einstein" DO NOT mean "say that Einstein is wrong and Minkowski is right". How do I know that? I know it because the SIMPLE FACT is that Minkowski and Einstein's formulations of special relativity are EQUIVALENT ways of saying the same thing. Minkowski believed in time dilation, length contraction, the relativity of simultaneity, relativistic velocity addition and all those other things you hate, just like Einstein. He AGREED with everything Einstein ever wrote on relativity.
And as I noted that does not make Minkowski valid either. Einstein correctly poointed out the falicy of SR in that Flat space does not exist in the universe.
So MInkowsky suffers the same techinical flaw. Flat space is a mathematical creation that doesn't exist in physical reality. _ PERIOD.

Now I noted that extending SR into scenarios over light years is well beyond the scope declared by Minkowsky or Einsteins Flat space limits of usefulness.

Originally Posted by James R
I understand it far FAR better than you do. If you think you understand it, please explain to me briefly (a paragraph will do) how Minkowski spacetime can be expressed using imaginary time.
I do not advocate imaginary time. I do advocate an imaginary distance contraction in the mathematics. Nice try but no cigar on your part James R. I say what I believe you don't put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by James R
If you can do that, maybe then we'll have a discussion. The fact is, I don't believe you understand the first thing about what this quote means.
And I don't give a damn what you believe about that. I don't believe, I know you don't have a viable answer to the real issue here zand that is why you are aattempting to divert the attention to personal attacks.

Frankly you aren't as smart as you seem to think you are and I can assure you I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you try to make others think I am.

Originally Posted by James R
Einstein did no such thing. And this guy only wants to use one postulate (that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames) because he believes that the speed of light postulate follows logically from the laws of physics postulate. Therefore, he believes that one postulate is enough.
You do have a short or selective memory don't you. I suppose you deny that Einstein said "Postulate #2 cannot be considered to have an unlimited validity? That it is only valid if gravity can be ignored?

Give me a break. He damn well qualified it downward to being useable but not technically valid.

Originally Posted by James R
It is NOT the case that he believes that the speed of light is NOT constant in all inertial frames. That's just your stupid misunderstanding again.
Only if gravity can be ignored dumbass. Read Einsten's lips. It is not me saying it it was the big guy.

Originally Posted by James R
The remainder of your post is a rehash of material I debunked 5 times already. No need to do it again.
Funny all I have seen you do is recite theory and haven't debunked or resolved anything. It is your self preservtion kicking in distorting your view of what you are saying or doing.

Perhaps you are just to damn dumb to even realize how dumb you are being.

I'll repeat just so you don't keep blowing off the issue for garbage.

.....____TT___...__RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t

Which PROVES RT and TT clocks tick in sync if you declare length contraction and RT's assertion becomes absolutely falsified.

3. Originally Posted by Billy T
Perhaps I will read him as that has long been my POV also. For example, AFAIK, the melting point temperature of lead being the same in all inertial frames is directly the same as C having the same value in all frames. Or stating my POV in different terms:
The handbook of physics needs no revisions as one goes to another frame.
Poor Billy T is just as lost as James R and apparently for the same reasons..

4. MacM:

More useless bluff and bluster from you. As usual you pretend to have known what I had to teach you all along. You seek to revise your previous claims and pretend you had made different claims, because you know you can't argue against my pointing out of your numerous errors.

He noted that Einstein dropped postulate #2.
Einstein never dropped postulate #2. He modified the definition of "inertial frame".

He suggests we not use the postulates at all.
Wrong. He suggests we only need the first postulate, and postulate #2 follows from that.

Not that they aren't perhaps what we measure but that they are simply confusion factors. But he clearly is not impressed with Einstein as you are.
He didn't say how impressed with Einstein he is or isn't. You're putting words into his mouth - again.

And as I noted that does not make Minkowski valid either. Einstein correctly poointed out the falicy of SR in that Flat space does not exist in the universe. So MInkowsky suffers the same techinical flaw. Flat space is a mathematical creation that doesn't exist in physical reality. _ PERIOD.
So you now say that the physicist you quoted is actually wrong along with me. Right?

Why did you quote and rely on somebody you think is wrong?

I do not advocate imaginary time.
You don't know what it is. I doubt you know what complex numbers are or how they can be used in relativity.

You do have a short or selective memory don't you. I suppose you deny that Einstein said "Postulate #2 cannot be considered to have an unlimited validity? That it is only valid if gravity can be ignored?
This is again a misunderstanding on your part. Einstein's point is that inertial frames in a gravitational field are only local and not global.

It is NOT the case that he believes that the speed of light is NOT constant in all inertial frames. That's just your stupid misunderstanding again.
Only if gravity can be ignored dumbass. Read Einsten's lips. It is not me saying it it was the big guy.
Einstein never said the speed of light is not constant in all inertial frames. If he did, produce the quote.

Funny all I have seen you do is recite theory and haven't debunked or resolved anything.
That's because you're incapable of understanding that grade 2 maths doesn't disprove relativity.

5. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

More useless bluff and bluster from you. As usual you pretend to have known what I had to teach you all along. You seek to revise your previous claims and pretend you had made different claims, because you know you can't argue against my pointing out of your numerous errors.

Einstein never dropped postulate #2. He modified the definition of "inertial frame".

Wrong. He suggests we only need the first postulate, and postulate #2 follows from that.

He didn't say how impressed with Einstein he is or isn't. You're putting words into his mouth - again.

So you now say that the physicist you quoted is actually wrong along with me. Right?

Why did you quote and rely on somebody you think is wrong?

You don't know what it is. I doubt you know what complex numbers are or how they can be used in relativity.

This is again a misunderstanding on your part. Einstein's point is that inertial frames in a gravitational field are only local and not global.

Einstein never said the speed of light is not constant in all inertial frames. If he did, produce the quote.

That's because you're incapable of understanding that grade 2 maths doesn't disprove relativity.
Considering that I have correctly quoted others and you have only continued to make false personal attacks without any actual valid physics resolution to the issue I have raised; I'll let Einstein's own words stand for what is actually true here.

Statement by Einstein paraphrased:".............Postulate #2, invariance of light, cannot be taken to have unlimited validity......Special Relativity can be applied if gravity can be ignored"
For you to try and re-cast this as a mere re-stating of the principle is ludricrus.

He states that light is not invariant in a gravity field and puts limits on assuming it is. He by CYA chooses to not state the obvious which is gravity is present in every cubic inch of the universe; hence there is NO FLAT SPACE thererfore no valid Special Relativity.

There can be approximations using Special Relativity if gravity can be ignored.

Your denial of this shows your lack of integrity.

6. Originally Posted by MacM
...He {Einstein} states that light is not invariant in a gravity field and puts limits on assuming it is. He by CYA chooses to not state the obvious which is gravity is present in every cubic inch of the universe; hence there is NO FLAT SPACE thererfore no valid Special Relativity.

There can be approximations using Special Relativity if gravity can be ignored.

Your denial of this shows your lack of integrity.
No. James is 100% correct.** As James said:

You simply do not understand what you read and quote out of context so others cannot tell what Einstein was actually saying, which is clear and consistent with SR if you gave the full quote.

I will not bother to get it but recall that in that same paragraph Einstein specifically refers to gravity curving the path of light rays.* That bending is the “variation” Einstein is referring to, not any conflict with SR. It is why I try to always state the 2nd postulate as the SPEED of light is the same in all frames as gravity does change the velocity, which is a vector.

----------------
*Based on General Relativity calculations, Einstein had predicted this bending of star light passing near the sun during a solar eclipse could actually be observed. One of the two observations first confirming his prediction was made in Brazil. (The other in Southern Africa as best totality was in the South Pacific Ocean that year.)

To more correctly paraphrase Einstein without your misunderstanding and selective quote mining:

“The second SR postulate should not be miss-understood to state that gravity has no effect on light. It does. It will bend its path but not change it speed - that is the same in all inertial frames as the 2nd postulate of SR states.”

** I watch James like a hawk as I delight in catching his errors. Four in about four years! My error rate is at least twice that and some are much more serious. I have never yet found a serious error of Jame’s, but I keep stubbornly looking.

Many posters here make errors in almost every paragraph, but I will not name names. Their errors are hardly worth pointing out so I only do so when (1) the error provides an opportunity to teach something without appearing to be climbing unprovoked on a soap box. OR (2) there is serious danger the poster of the error will mislead new students of physic. This risk is high if the physical truth is very counter intuitive or even seems impossible to "common sense."

MacM's proclaimed version of SR falls into group (2).

7. Originally Posted by Billy T
No. James is 100% correct.** As James said:

You simply do not understand what you read and quote out of context so others cannot tell what Einstein was actually saying, which is clear and consistent with SR if you gave the full quote.
I linked the full quote and it says just what I say it says. NOTHING left off changes or further qualifies the fact that he stated "......Postulate #2 the invariance of light velocity CANNOT be claimed to have unlimited valididy."

Just what about english do you not understand.?

I will not bother to get it but recall that in that same paragraph Einstein specifically refers to gravity curving the path of light rays.* That bending is the “variation” Einstein is referring to, not any conflict with SR. It is why I try to always state the 2nd postulate as the SPEED of light is the same in all frames as gravity does change the velocity, which is a vector.
And just what about curving (a non-inertial move) do you not understand is no longer SR but GR? Shsssh

Originally Posted by Billy T
*Based on General Relativity calculations, Einstein had predicted this bending of star light passing near the sun during a solar eclipse could actually be observed. One of the two observations first confirming his prediction was made in Brazil. (The other in Southern Africa as best totality was in the South Pacific Ocean that year.)
And ? What does all that have to do with the price of beans?

Originally Posted by Billy T
[To more correctly paraphrase Einstein without your misunderstanding and selective quote mining:

“The second SR postulate should not be miss-understood to state that gravity has no effect on light. It does. It will bend its path but not change it speed - that is the same in all inertial frames as the 2nd postulate of SR states.”
Now that you are done bastardizing SR to include curving motion, a non-inertial motion - stick it where the sun doesn't shine because you are full of crap. You are the one that does not understand.

THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GRAVITY FIELD AND HENCE NO PLACE WHERE SR IS TOTALLY VALID. IT MAY (AS EINSTEIN SAID) BE APPLIED ONLY IF GRAVITY IS SUFFICIENTLY WEAK TO BE IGNORED.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[** I watch James like a hawk as I delight in catching his errors. Four in about four years! My error rate is at least twice that and some are much more serious. I have never yet found a serious error of Jame’s, but I keep stubbornly looking.
Self-serving blabber of relativists. I hope you caught all those flip-flops of James R's, I posted links to recently.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[Many posters here make errors in almost every paragraph, but I will not name names. Their errors are hardly worth pointing out so I only do so when (1) the error provides an opportunity to teach something without appearing to be climbing unprovoked on a soap box. OR (2) there is serious danger the poster of the error will mislead new students of physic. This risk is high if the physical truth is very counter intuitive or even seems impossible to "common sense."

MacM's proclaimed version of SR falls into group (2).
More BS from an individual that believes physical things happen without a physical cause.

More BS from an individual that has yet to post a resolution to my falsification proof:

.....____TT___...._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t

When you have something of merit to say come on back otherwise go play with your pecker elsewhere.

8. Originally Posted by Billy T
No. James is 100% correct.** As James said:

You simply do not understand what you read and quote out of context so others cannot tell what Einstein was actually saying, which is clear and consistent with SR if you gave the full quote.
I linked the full quote and it says just what I say it says. NOTHING left off changes or further qualifies the fact that he stated "......Postulate #2 the invariance of light velocity CANNOT be claimed to have unlimited valididy."

Just what about english do you not understand.?

I will not bother to get it but recall that in that same paragraph Einstein specifically refers to gravity curving the path of light rays.* That bending is the “variation” Einstein is referring to, not any conflict with SR. It is why I try to always state the 2nd postulate as the SPEED of light is the same in all frames as gravity does change the velocity, which is a vector.
And just what about curving (a non-inertial frame) do you not understand is no longer SR but GR? Shsssh I do read english and yes I saw what he meant but you don't. I guess I need to explain everything to you. When light curves it is no longer in an inertial path and hence SR DOES NOT APPLY. Dumb ass.

Originally Posted by Billy T
*Based on General Relativity calculations, Einstein had predicted this bending of star light passing near the sun during a solar eclipse could actually be observed. One of the two observations first confirming his prediction was made in Brazil. (The other in Southern Africa as best totality was in the South Pacific Ocean that year.)
And ? What does all that have to do with the price of beans?

Originally Posted by Billy T
[To more correctly paraphrase Einstein without your misunderstanding and selective quote mining:

“The second SR postulate should not be miss-understood to state that gravity has no effect on light. It does. It will bend its path but not change it speed - that is the same in all inertial frames as the 2nd postulate of SR states.”
Now that you are done bastardizing SR to include curving motion, a non-inertial frame - stick it where the sun doesn't shine because you are full of crap. You are the one that does not understand. Just where do you see me claim the "Speed" of light is affected? That is just your distorted version of what I have posted.

THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GRAVITY FIELD AND HENCE NO PLACE WHERE SR IS TOTALLY VALID. IT MAY (AS EINSTEIN SAID) BE APPLIED ONLY IF GRAVITY IS SUFFICIENTLY WEAK TO BE IGNORED.

Of course those of us that are not indoctrinated and blind, that can still think understand that means being applied is just an approximation and not completely valid.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[** I watch James like a hawk as I delight in catching his errors. Four in about four years! My error rate is at least twice that and some are much more serious. I have never yet found a serious error of Jame’s, but I keep stubbornly looking.
Self-serving blabber of relativists. I hope you caught all those flip-flops of James R's, I posted links to recently.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[Many posters here make errors in almost every paragraph, but I will not name names. Their errors are hardly worth pointing out so I only do so when (1) the error provides an opportunity to teach something without appearing to be climbing unprovoked on a soap box. OR (2) there is serious danger the poster of the error will mislead new students of physic. This risk is high if the physical truth is very counter intuitive or even seems impossible to "common sense."

MacM's proclaimed version of SR falls into group (2).
More BS from an individual that believes physical things happen without a physical cause.

More BS from an individual that has yet to post a resolution to my falsification proof:

.....____TT___...._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t

When you have something of merit to say come on back otherwise go play with your pecker elsewhere.

9. Originally Posted by MacM
... Now that you are done bastardizing SR to include curving motion, a non-inertial frame - stick it where the sun doesn't shine because you are full of crap. ...
No your ability to understand is again demonstrated to be very limited. I did NOT say SR applied when light is curved by a strong gravity field. I said you misunderstood Einstein as the invariance of light he spoke of as not being exactly true with gravity was that gravity does cause the VELOCITY of light to change (in direction only, not in SPEED).

Although this bending effect is not detectable on Earth, with the gravity the mass of the sun makes at it surface AND light rays just grazing by the sun it is just barely detectable. (The light path bends by a tiny fraction of a degree.) I.e. SR is an extremely good approximation except in gravity fields millions of times greater than found on Earth.

Yes, all of Newtonian and classical physics like F= ma, is just a very good approximation. That fact does not justify your complete rejection of them even when their errors are undetectably small. I.e. that is not grounds for postulating nonsense like "physical changes" in the moving frame, your postulated need to only measure speeds wrt your so called "common reference frame," or to deny the mathematically derived contraction of space, or the need to revise quantum mechanics THEORY with the speed of the frame, or to claim Bohr's formulae for the size of the hydrogen atom needs to have the frame speed in it, or that clocks really do slow their tick rate in their own frame due to an acceleration which may have ended 10 billion years ago. etc. etc.

I agree, both F = ma and standard SR is not precisely correct, but the error is not easily detected and AFAIK it is Impossible to even detect in even in a gravity field 10 times greater than on Earth. Your total transformation of the "perfect on Earth" SR with entirely different theory is as dumb and ignorant as if you were to throw out F = ma and replace it by F = (a^2 )/ m or some other entirely different false formulation.

Every physicists admits that in STRONG gravity fields SR cannot be used, just as they admit that when the mass "m" has any significant fraction of the speed of light F = ma needs to be replace by a more complex system of equations. ONLY A FOOL WOULD CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT F = MA NEEDS TO BE TOTALLY REJECTED OR THAT SR NEEDS TO BE TOTALY REJECTED.

SUMMARY:
MacM's version of SR is nonsense UNDER ALL CONDITIONS and NEVER even a good approximation.

10. Originally Posted by Billy T
No your ability to understand is again demonstrated to be very limited. I did NOT say SR applied when light is curved by a strong gravity field. I said you misunderstood Einstein as the invariance of light he spoke of as not being exactly true with gravity was that gravity does cause the VELOCITY of light to change (in direction only, not in SPEED).
You are repeating yourself on an issue which is totally false. Try somethingelse.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Although this bending effect is not detectable on Earth, with the gravity the mass of the sun makes at it surface AND light rays just grazing by the sun it is just barely detectable. (The light path bends by a tiny fraction of a degree.) I.e. SR is an extremely good approximation except in gravity fields millions of times greater than found on Earth.
An extremely good approximation is still an approximation. The point still stands and yu are now reduced to quibbeling over just how bad SR really is and nor arguing it is vald perse'.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes, all of Newtonian and classical physics like F= ma, is just a very good approximation. That fact does not justify your complete rejection of them even when their errors are undetectably small.
If you ever read anything I have ever written you would know I hve said repeatedly that SR should not be thrown out with the bath water, that it has utility. My point is and has always been that you should merely understand it is not a correct physical theory and limit it's use to the only area it has any actual value and that is computing affects on an accelerated frame compared to it's inertial rest reference.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I.e. that is not grounds for postulating nonsense like "physical changes" in the moving frame, your postulated need to only measure speeds wrt your so called "common reference frame," or to deny the mathematically derived contraction of space, or the need to revise quantum mechanics THEORY with the speed of the frame, or to claim Bohr's formulae for the size of the hydrogen atom needs to have the frame speed in it, or that clocks really do slow their tick rate in their own frame due to an acceleration which may have ended 10 billion years ago. etc. etc.
Considering that 99% of this paragraph is your own distorted views I'll not waste time correcting you once again. But you are full of crap. I have not and do not suggest what you assert above.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I agree, both F = ma and standard SR is not precisely correct, but the error is not easily detected and AFAIK it is Impossible to even detect in even in a gravity field 10 times greater than on Earth. Your total transformation of the "perfect on Earth" SR with entirely different theory is as dumb and ignorant as if you were to throw out F = ma and replace it by F = (a^2 )/ m or some other entirely different false formulation.
What in the hell are you babbeling about? What perfect theory. I have not suggested a theory. You still think you can just make up stupid shitv and assign it to me just doesn't work.

We ALL have noticed that in several weeks now you have avoided ever respinding with a proper physics reply to the issue raised. Why? Because you can't and you are left with nothing but to try and inflate your own status and mitigate mine.

Sorry it isn't working.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Every physicists admits that in STRONG gravity fields SR cannot be used, just as they admit that when the mass "m" has any significant fraction of the speed of light F = ma needs to be replace by a more complex system of equations. ONLY A FOOL WOULD CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT F = MA NEEDS TO BE TOTALLY REJECTED OR THAT SR NEEDS TO BE TOTALY REJECTED.
Damn and you bitched at me when I have used F = ma. Make up your damn mind.

Originally Posted by Billy T
SUMMARY:
MacM's version of SR is nonsense UNDER ALL CONDITIONS and NEVER even a good approximation.
SUMMARY: Billy T still cannot address the real physics issue and is beside himself about what to do next.

Try this learn about your hero.

************************************************** ******

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity

Article --- 20 things you didn't know about relativity; with my comments on
that article.

20 Things You Didn't Know About... Relativity
Galileo invented it, Einstein understood it, and Eddington saw it.

by Susan Kruglinski

From the Discover March 2008 issue, published online February 25, 2008

1 Who invented relativity? Bzzzt-wrong. Galileo hit on the idea in 1639,
when he showed that a falling object behaves the same way on a moving ship as it does in a motionless building.

2 And Einstein didn't call it relativity. The word never appears in his
original 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," and he hated
the term, preferring "invariance theory" (because the laws of physics look
the same to all observers-nothing "relative" about it).

3 Space-time continuum? Nope, that's not Einstein either. The idea of time
as the fourth dimension came from Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein's
professors, who once called him a "lazy dog."

4 But Einstein did reformulate Galileo's relativity to deal with the
bizarre things that happen at near-light speed, where time slows down and
space gets compressed. That counts for something.

5 Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl published the basic equation E =
mc2 a year before Einstein did.

6 Never heard of Hasenöhrl? That's because he failed to connect the
equation with the principle of relativity. Verdammt!

Added comment:"It means E=mc2 can be derived without Einstein's SR

7 Einstein's full-time job at the Swiss patent office meant he had to hash
out relativity during hours when nobody was watching. He would cram his
notes into his desk when a supervisor came by.

8 Although Einstein was a teetotaler, when he finally completed his theory
of relativity, he and his wife, Mileva, drank themselves under the table-the
old-fashioned way to mess with the space-time continuum.

9 Affection is relative. "I need my wife, she solves all the mathematical
problems for me," Einstein wrote while completing his theory in 1904. By
1914, he'd ordered her to "renounce all personal relations with me, as far
as maintaining them is not absolutely required for social reasons."

Added comment:" That means it was a joint theory; and if earlier comment by his professor is correct about him being lazy, then maybe he did not make much contribution in that joint venture. Which would then mean that Relativity theory came from someone who didn't really know what they were talking about; that could cause a bit of confusion.

10 Rules are relative too. According to Einstein, nothing travels faster
than light, but space itself has no such speed limit; immediately after the
Big Bang, the runaway expansion of the universe apparently left light
lagging way behind.

11 Oh, and there are two relativities. So far we've been talking about
special relativity, which applies to objects moving at constant speed.
General relativity, which covers accelerating things and explains how
gravity works, came a decade later and is regarded as Einstein's truly
unique insight.

12 Pleasure doing business with you, chum(p): When Einstein was stumped by
the math of general relativity, he relied on his old college pal Marcel
Grossmann, whose notes he had studied after repeatedly cutting class years
earlier.

Added comment:" Einstein had to go into joint venture with someone else after dumping his wife.

13 Despite that, the early version of general relativity had a major error,
a miscalculation of the amount a light beam would bend due to gravity.

14 Fortunately, plans to test the theory during a solar eclipse in 1914
were scuttled by World War I. Had the experiment been conducted then, the
error would have been exposed and Einstein would have been proved wrong.

15 The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you're looking at it on
this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general
relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs.

16 In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out
photos that showed the "wrong" outcome.

17 No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action.

18 That changed dramatically in the 1960s, when astronomers began to
discover extreme objects-neutron stars and black holes-that put severe dents
in the shape of space-time.

19 Today general relativity is so well understood that it is used to weigh
galaxies and locate distant planets by the way they bend light.

20 If you still don't get Einstein's ideas, try this explanation
reportedly from The Man Himself: "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute
and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it seems
like a minute. That's relativity."

11. Originally Posted by MacM
5 Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl published the basic equation E =
mc2 a year before Einstein did.

6 Never heard of Hasenöhrl? That's because he failed to connect the
equation with the principle of relativity. Verdammt!

Added comment:"It means E=mc2 can be derived without Einstein's SR
All of your added comments are highly suspect, and this one is actually wrong. After literally 5 seconds of research (I'd never heard of Hasenöhrl either - it probably didn't help that he was on the wrong side in world war 1) I've discovered that the derivation of $E=mc^2$ they provided before SR was but looking at electromagnetic radiation in a cavity using Maxwell's electromagnetism. The point is that Maxwell's equations are completely consistent with SR and in fact were the impetus for people like Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein to investigate relativity because it predicts the invariance of the speed of light.

It's actually incredible that Maxwell and Heaviside and the others that worked on EM came up with a theory that is completely consistent with SR, which means it actually includes the SR postulates. Using the more modern spacetime formalism you can rewrite the 4 Maxwell equations as
$\partial _\mu F^{\nu \mu} =J^\nu \\ \partial_{[ \mu} F_{\nu \lambda ]}=0$

Relativity is a wonderful thing.

12. MacM:

I won't bother commenting on your paraphrasing of Einstein. Since you don't understand a thing he did or said, the chances that you can sum it up accurately in your own words is essentially zero.

13. Originally Posted by MacM
THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GRAVITY FIELD AND HENCE NO PLACE WHERE SR IS TOTALLY VALID. IT MAY (AS EINSTEIN SAID) BE APPLIED ONLY IF GRAVITY IS SUFFICIENTLY WEAK TO BE IGNORED.
I've already proven to you that GR possesses a point by point SR invariance, using veirbeins. Obviously the algebra was a little over your head and you assume anything you don't understand must be wrong.

Tell me, when you are ill, do you go to the doctors? Or do you think they are hacks because you never did medicine?
Originally Posted by prometheus
It's actually incredible that Maxwell and Heaviside and the others that worked on EM came up with a theory that is completely consistent with SR, which means it actually includes the SR postulates.
Not quite. If you have Statements A and B and A implies C, but C does not imply A, then anything you build from B and C will be a 'subtheory' of that built from A and B and so while being consistent will not be equivalent to. EM is a subtheory of SR you might say and is consistent with it but you can't develop SR from it directly, you have to make a leap of logic, ie jumping back from C to A.

14. Originally Posted by prometheus
All of your added comments are highly suspect, and this one is actually wrong. After literally 5 seconds of research (I'd never heard of Hasenöhrl either - it probably didn't help that he was on the wrong side in world war 1) I've discovered that the derivation of $E=mc^2$ they provided before SR was but looking at electromagnetic radiation in a cavity using Maxwell's electromagnetism. The point is that Maxwell's equations are completely consistent with SR and in fact were the impetus for people like Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein to investigate relativity because it predicts the invariance of the speed of light.

It's actually incredible that Maxwell and Heaviside and the others that worked on EM came up with a theory that is completely consistent with SR, which means it actually includes the SR postulates. Using the more modern spacetime formalism you can rewrite the 4 Maxwell equations as
$\partial _\mu F^{\nu \mu} =J^\nu \\ \partial_{[ \mu} F_{\nu \lambda ]}=0$

Relativity is a wonderful thing.
Well a decent post from you.

I'll merely note that there were several others that indicated the relationship between energy and mass . The earliest one was Thomas or Thomson something like that.

SR is just fine as long as you don't try to do what James R and Billy T do which is elevate it to a God like status of physics and give it physical reality where there is none.

15. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

I won't bother commenting on your paraphrasing of Einstein. Since you don't understand a thing he did or said, the chances that you can sum it up accurately in your own words is essentially zero.
Yes we know you actually have no valid points to make and your personal attacks aren't getting the job done.

None of these last several pages of posts address the issue.

16. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I've already proven to you that GR possesses a point by point SR invariance, using veirbeins. Obviously the algebra was a little over your head and you assume anything you don't understand must be wrong.
Your opinion of your posts are a bit elevated over reality.

You seem to forget that I have stated that SR mathematics works. But math may describe reality at times but is does not and cannot create reality.

SR attempts to create reality and it fails. Now the fact that I have proof that SR is invalid (even though you apparently will choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore it) by virtue of:

.....____TT___...._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Tell me, when you are ill, do you go to the doctors? Or do you think they are hacks because you never did medicine?
And you when you are told something that doesn't fit your preconcieved ideas do you actually think abotut it or do you just blow it off because you know you know everything.?

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Not quite. If you have Statements A and B and A implies C, but C does not imply A, then anything you build from B and C will be a 'subtheory' of that built from A and B and so while being consistent will not be equivalent to. EM is a subtheory of SR you might say and is consistent with it but you can't develop SR from it directly, you have to make a leap of logic, ie jumping back from C to A.
And you don't think leaps of logic have been made?

17. Originally Posted by MacM
Well a decent post from you.

I'll merely note that there were several others that indicated the relationship between energy and mass . The earliest one was Thomas or Thomson something like that.

SR is just fine as long as you don't try to do what James R and Billy T do which is elevate it to a God like status of physics and give it physical reality where there is none.
SR is a currently accepted physical theory, just like many others that describe different parts of our universe. You really have a problem with this, but nature doesn't really care about that - you can go on denying SR is physical and nature will go on working in the way that SR predicts long after you and I and everyone else is gone.

That is what physical means - I give you and experiment to do and a prediction from a theory. You do the experiment and see if the theory gives the correct prediction. There has never been an experiment done in the 100+ years since the discovery of SR that has come out with a different result to what SR predicts. End of.

18. Originally Posted by prometheus
SR is a currently accepted physical theory, just like many others that describe different parts of our universe. You really have a problem with this, but nature doesn't really care about that - you can go on denying SR is physical and nature will go on working in the way that SR predicts long after you and I and everyone else is gone.
For as long as you and modern science retain that attitude no real progress will be made to learning the finite details. You can ignore the v = 0.5 issue I have raised but that does not make it go away nor make SR a physical theory. It is only a mathematical theory and the asserted physics are invalid. It only correctly predicts views made from the resting obsefvers vantage point and NO tests have ever been done to demonstrate the asserted reciprocity.

Reciprocity of time dilation and/or length contrction simply do not exist and are not physical.

Originally Posted by prometheus
That is what physical means - I give you and experiment to do and a prediction from a theory. You do the experiment and see if the theory gives the correct prediction. There has never been an experiment done in the 100+ years since the discovery of SR that has come out with a different result to what SR predicts. End of.
If I'm wrong then please post just one test with emperical data in those 100 years you are so proud of that proves length contraction and reciprocity of time dilation.

If you are unable to stipulate a practical method of testing those fratures then SR is invalidated by scientific standards. For a theory to be valid it must be testable.

So lets see you test and prove reciprocity of time dilation.

19. Originally Posted by MacM
... Reciprocity of time dilation and/or length contrction simply do not exist and are not physical... If I'm wrong then please post just one test with emperical data in those 100 years you are so proud of that proves length contraction and reciprocity of time dilation. ...
Your attention is again directed to the fact that the Earth's atmosphere, which is not at rest in rest frame of the cosmic ray muons is contracted to be only a dozen or so meters thick so most make it thru in their brief lifetime (during which even light can travel less than hundred meters.) - You simply chose to deny this confirmed and predicted by SR fact. You then proceed to postulate alternatives which have never been observed or predicted by any theory, such as that radioactive lifetimes are a function of speed.

For earth observers the atmosphere, which is at rest in their frame, is not contracted but the muons which are not at rest in the Earth's frame do exhibit the SR predicted time dilation by living many of the muon decay lifetimes with very few decaying.

SR predicts this reciprocity and IS CONFRIMED by the above observations. - You just reject the theory that predicted these observations and suggested various alternatives you made up which have neither supporting theory nor any empirical confirmations of your postulated idea that radioactive decay lifetimes are a function of isotope or particle speed.

Furthermore, as you reject and drastically modify SR because there is some gravity everywhere in the universe so inertial frames do not exist and SR is only a very good approximation (with no false predictions) I ask you how do you determine:

Which of two frames, A & B, is the one subject to SR effects in MacM’s SR and which is the "rest frame” with no SR effects? Or is there no way to distinguish them so either can be the "rest frame" ? (Reciprocity applies)

Note both are now and have always been accelerated by gravity. Thus, your idea of a "common rest frame" is non-existing nonsense. (Two can play the game by which your reject SR due to gravity being everywhere.) However you replace the SR theory and its confirmed predictions (such as those in the first two paragraphs above) with a hodge-podge of "facts" you claim are "physically real" but lack any confirmation or supporting theory (except for the parts of standard SR you choose to accept.)

A reasonable person would acknowledge that both SR and Newtonian physics (F = ma) are not exactly correct, but are extremely good approximation for use in environments found in our solar system. I.e. there is no need to replace it with a different hodge-podge of unsupported "facts."

Standard SR follows mathematically for two well tested postulates. Where does MacM SR come from? (A dark smelly place only MacM has access to I bet.)

If you cannot tell the principles your SR is derived from (its postulates), then state the laws of "MacM SR" mathematically. All physic has been mathematically stated since Newton wrote (in Latin) his great physic book. The original Latin title translates into English as: "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"* but it is often called The Principles of Mathematics or just The Principles

You seems to have neither mathematics nor principles nor coherent theory nor any supporting evidence for denying any part of standard SR. MacM's version of relativity seem to be just a hodge-podge of claims pulled from a dark smelly place. If that is false, then state its foundation postulates and mathematical results that follow from them, which differ from standard SR.

--------------
*In that era the term "physics" did not exist with its present meaning. What we now call "physics" was called "Natural Philosophy." I have a Ph. D. in physics. Note the name. The adjective follows the noun: Philosophy Doctrate. I.e. universities still keep the original words. Newton essentially DEFINED how physics is correctly done. You don't do it that way with well stated and tested postulates. You lack the ability and education to do it correctly. You pull your "physics" out of a dark smelly place as hodge-podge of "facts" with no math, no theory, and no confirmed measurements (except those of Standard SR.) You should not be surprised that no one even thinks you are doing physics.

Newton's Principles begins with eight definitions – yours with a fart? If not, tell your foundation.

20. Originally Posted by MacM
For as long as you and modern science retain that attitude no real progress will be made to learning the finite details.
You are crazy. In the time since SR was introduced the human race has advanced more than in the previous thousands of years. Of the top of my head and completely at random we have the telephone and mass communications, the microprocessor with which you are able to connect to the internet and type rubbish. Health systems have vastly improved - anesthetics and antibiotics etc etc. In physics we have has quantum mechanics, quantum field theories like QED and QCD that accurately model all of the processes we've been able to produce in the colliders we've manufactured. If you call that no real progress then I honestly don't know what you would call it.

Originally Posted by MacM
You can ignore the v = 0.5 issue I have raised but that does not make it go away nor make SR a physical theory. It is only a mathematical theory and the asserted physics are invalid. It only correctly predicts views made from the resting obsefvers vantage point and NO tests have ever been done to demonstrate the asserted reciprocity.
If you mean I'm ignoring problems that you made up then yes I am. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have studied relativity over the years and you are the only one with this problem. You are either a genius or delusional, and since I've seen the contributors to this thread carefully explain why you are wrong about special relativity my money is firmly on the latter.

Originally Posted by MacM
Reciprocity of time dilation and/or length contrction simply do not exist and are not physical.
Rhetoric.

Originally Posted by MacM
If I'm wrong then please post just one test with emperical data in those 100 years you are so proud of that proves length contraction and reciprocity of time dilation.
Muons. They are produced by cosmic rays and travel through the atmosphere at relativistic speeds. If there was no time dilation / length contraction they would decay before they got to the ground, however, we detect them in particle detectors. From our point of view the time they experience passing is less than we experience because they are in motion relative to us. From their point of view the distance they travel is less than we measure it to be because of length contraction. If there was one without the other there would be a paradox (although JamesR has already shown this to be inconsistent with the 2 postulates). If neither time dilation or length contraction is physical then we would not detect muons at all. Special relativity provides the explanation.

Originally Posted by MacM
If you are unable to stipulate a practical method of testing those fratures then SR is invalidated by scientific standards. For a theory to be valid it must be testable.
Have a look here. Relativity has been tested a lot.

Originally Posted by MacM
So lets see you test and prove reciprocity of time dilation.
As I said, it doesn't matter if you don't buy relativity. Nature does and that's just tough.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•