🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip crap]

> History shows that philosophers provided the irrational
> ideas, which physicists then incorporated into their theories.
[snip more crap]

> And even today, the Second Law remains
> so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification.
[snip still more crap]

> So how come the
> speed of light always stays the same?
[snip manure pit of crap]

idiot

Lorentz invariance.  Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any
finite lightspeed, Lorentz invariance requires the bound on the
relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer in
1 or 2 cannot exceed

(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]

This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of
motion.  For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, 

u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))

<http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/waves02/feb0402/sld011.htm>
  tranverse Doppler effect

idiot

Proper length and proper time are defined as the length of an object
and the amount of time that passes in a comoving frame.

A time-like vector in Minkowski space-time selects a preferred frame
(coordinate system) in which the t-axis points along the vector and
spatial coordinates are orthogonal to it.  In this special coordinate
system, the t-component of the vector is called its proper length (or
proper mass-energy when talking of a 4-momentum vector).

OTOH, a light-like vector points along one of the directions contained
in the light cone.  The light cone is unvariant under all Lorentz
transformations. Thus, a light-like vector is simply unable to pick a
preferred coordinate system.   We cannot make any "proper"
measurements of a photon's 4-momentum.

Define "proper energy" as for any object:  the length of the energy
momentum four-vector - that is, the mass-energy.  EM waves (photons)
have no mass, so E = pc.  The length of the four-vector is zero.  In a
comoving frame (if such a thing could meaningfully exist) said light
would have no energy or frequency.

idiot

> The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple
> objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's
> theory of relativity.
[snip shitload of crap]

   1) GPS.
   2) Relativistic effects on orbital clocks,

<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html>
<http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/>
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>

   3) idiot

> Supporters of relativity theory
> have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting
> their opponents out of professional discourse."
[snip rest of crap]

> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev@yahoo.com

boring idiot

-- 
Uncle Al 
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ 
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) 
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm