Is this where Galileo could discuss his thoughts about the ideas of Copernicus?

[done]

Would Galileo be allowed to post his ideas about the works of Copernicus that challenge the views of Aristotle? Or, would he face censors here like he did in his day?

Is this where Einstein would be able to discuss ideas when he began working on them with his wife?

I looked through the site and finally found this place. Before finding this palace, I asked a question in the Special & General Relativity forum.

Doc Al provided some comments that did help me with some difficulty I was having related to Einstein’s paper. I was learning from him until he locked me out.

YellowTaxi posted a link that also helped me learn.



That link has a good animation that has half of the event Albert described. It shows the activity from the ground observers point of view. It needs to show the equal and opposite events from the train observers point of view.

I explain this issue in more detail at my web page.

http://www.complexrelativity.com/ComplexHierarchyofRelativity.html

As I said, I learned from the little bit of discussion I had before I got the Galileo treatment.

As a result of what I learned, I updated my site and addressed how the train passenger could use Red shift to find out he was moving. I also addressed how 1,000 passengers, one on each of 1000 train cars would see different times for the light to arrive. I also addressed how Galileo and Copernicus would show that the train was moving. I also address the conflict of the animation just showing one side of the theory and how they compete with the idea that time is constant c in both frames while it also chases both frame relative to the other.

So, I hope this is a good place for me to discuss learn more about how to accept illusion as good science.

 

[russ_watters]

Moving to feedback pending further moderation.

[edit] Real quick comment here, though. I briefly scanned the thread in question to see what the issues are. It seems to me that your basic problem is that you are overlooking the fact that Relativity has been tested. So the explanations being given aren't of what the others think should happen, they are what does happen. And conversely, what you think should happen is irrelevant. That quite simply isn't how it does work. There isn't anything to argue about!

 

[pervect]

Is this where Einstein would be able to discuss ideas when he began working on them with his wife?

No.

Einstein would have to publish his paper before we would discuss his ideas here.

Note that the intent of PF is not to be on the cutting edge of science. It's general goal is to help students and non-experts understand the mainstream views of science, not to promote "cutting edge" science. We will discuss new theories, but according to our guidelines they must be published somewhere else, first. (The Independent Research or IR forum is a notable exception to these general rules).

Submit your new theory to a peer-reviewed physics journal first - if it is accepted, we'll be happy to discuss it on PF. You can also submit your idea to the IR forum, which does not demand pre-publication in a peer reviewed journal (but does have some requirements for posts to be accepted, see the PF guidelines).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

New theories belong in some other forum than PF.

Or the IR forum https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146

 

[ZapperZ]

If Galileo didn't bother to learn what has already been known back then, or if Einstein didn't spend a lot of time studying classical electrodynamics to actually know why the non-covariant aspect of Maxwell equation was troubling, then yes, no one would pay any attention to them. Yet, they both had intimate knowledge of what they were talking about and didn't just understand them superficially. How come this aspect are never considered?

Do you think your knowledge of the physics that we have today is comparable to what Einstein had with the Physics during his time? Honestly?

Zz.

 

[Doc Al]

Would Galileo be allowed to post his ideas about the works of Copernicus that challenge the views of Aristotle? Or, would he face censors here like he did in his day?

Comparing yourself to Galileo now, eh?

Is this where Einstein would be able to discuss ideas when he began working on them with his wife?

I looked through the site and finally found this place. Before finding this palace, I asked a question in the Special & General Relativity forum.

Doc Al provided some comments that did help me with some difficulty I was having related to Einstein’s paper. I was learning from him until he locked me out.

The reason I closed the thread is that it had become clear that you have an agenda.

YellowTaxi posted a link that also helped me learn.



That link has a good animation that has half of the event Albert described. It shows the activity from the ground observers point of view. It needs to show the equal and opposite events from the train observers point of view.

I explain this issue in more detail at my web page.

<--crank link deleted-->

Your website--and your comments here--just makes it clear that you know nothing of relativity.

As I said, I learned from the little bit of discussion I had before I got the Galileo treatment.

As a result of what I learned, I updated my site and addressed how the train passenger could use Red shift to find out he was moving. I also addressed how 1,000 passengers, one on each of 1000 train cars would see different times for the light to arrive. I also addressed how Galileo and Copernicus would show that the train was moving. I also address the conflict of the animation just showing one side of the theory and how they compete with the idea that time is constant c in both frames while it also chases both frame relative to the other.

So, I hope this is a good place for me to discuss learn more about how to accept illusion as good science.

:rofl: Spoken like a true crank!

As I said, if you're serious about learning a bit of relativity, read the books I recommended. Until then, I advise shutting down your site--you're only embarassing yourself.

 

[done]

Comparing yourself to Galileo now, eh?




Your website--and your comments here--just makes it clear that you know nothing of relativity.


you're only embarassing yourself.

From your comments before I had to go back and reread Albert's paper.

When you made this statement of mine red, I tried but could not figure out what you are implying.

It needs to show the equal and opposite events from the train observers point of view.

What I read in Albert's paper is that the laws of physics are the same for the ground observer and for the train observer. What applies for one applies to the other. To the ground observer the train is moving. To the train observer the ground is moving. To the ground observer, the animation is correct. To the train observer, the animation is backwards.

What is the meaning of making that statement of mine red?

Are you telling me it is not what I thought? If I am wrong about that point, please explain what I am missing.

Don


PS: as for being laughed at, I have been laughed at many times in my 63 years of life until later when some or many of my ideas were implemented.

Without even know any of the people on this forum, I can assure all of them that I have improved their productivity even though I was laughed at when I began talking about my ideas that have been implemented.

 

[Doc Al]

The animation clearly discusses both frames of reference, yet you seem to think it doesn't. You seem to think that since the laws of physics are the same for ground and train observers (which is true), that both observers must see the same thing (which is false). You simply don't accept the fact that the lightning strikes are simultaneous in one frame but not the other, due no doubt to your misunderstanding of the principle that "the speed of light is the same in all frames".

 

[done]

The animation clearly discusses both frames of reference, yet you seem to think it doesn't. You seem to think that since the laws of physics are the same for ground and train observers (which is true), that both observers must see the same thing (which is false). You simply don't accept the fact that the lightning strikes are simultaneous in one frame but not the other, due no doubt to your misunderstanding of the principle that "the speed of light is the same in all frames".

OK, I understand that the speed of light is the same in all frames.

What I think is not really the issue. I am addressing what Albert said in his paper. In that regard, the issue is not what anyone thinks. It is about what Albert said.

Concerning simultaneous events and what Albert said in his paper.

According to Albert's paper, the ground observer and the train observer should see the same things but from their own perspective. To the train obsever, he should see the event as simultaneous but he should think the gound observer would not see it as simultaneous. That is the same but an equal and opposite thing from the ground observer.

It sure sounds like you are saying that Albert is wrong when he says relativity applies to both the train and the ground. But, I do not understand what you are saying.

 

[G01]

What Doc Al is saying is that the train observer and the ground observer do not see the same thing. They don't. Einstein is not wrong, you are misunderstanding his paper. Can you produce the quote you are referring to when you say that Einstein says the train observer should see the same thing as the ground observer. If you show it to us, maybe we can find exactly what you are misunderstanding and help you get it straight.

 

[Doc Al]

OK, I understand that the speed of light is the same in all frames.

Based on what you've posted on your website and on PF, I don't believe that you do.

What I think is not really the issue. I am addressing what Albert said in his paper. In that regard, the issue is not what anyone thinks. It is about what Albert said.

Concerning simultaneous events and what Albert said in his paper.

According to Albert's paper, the ground observer and the train observer should see the same things but from their own perspective. To the train obsever, he should see the event as simultaneous but he should think the gound observer would not see it as simultaneous. That is the same but an equal and opposite thing from the ground observer.

This is a completely incorrect interpretation of what Einstein said. Here's what Einstein would say:

(A) If lightning strikes the ends of the train simultaneously according to ground observers, then train observers would not see the strikes as simultaneous.

(B) Conversely, if lightning strikes the ends of the train simultaneously according to train observers, then ground observers would not see the strikes as simultaneous.

Note that these situations are completely symmetric. They had better be, since (according to Einstein and all of physics) the same rules apply to all frames. Note that in Einstein's train example, he is illustrating situation A. Situations A and B are two physically different scenarios: They do not both apply at the same time.

It sure sounds like you are saying that Albert is wrong when he says relativity applies to both the train and the ground. But, I do not understand what you are saying.

I know you don't.

 

[ZapperZ]

If you believe you have something worthwhile, then submit it to the IR forum just like everyone else.

This sub-forum is not meant to discuss physics content.

Zz.