Prof Reza Sanaye

Terminology is not determined by the percentage NOR by the number of ordinary people who do/do not comply with them . .. ..

Ah , Truth is so irritating to you ?? !!

Democrats themselves are in bad need of reformation towards the Left. All throughout this last presidential election, Democrats were able to show of themselves the greatest-ever recorded ability to quench the not-very-hidden desire inside their party to shed off those elements striving to return Democrats back to those policies that are not paid for by the Wall Street & by the Corporate America . .. . . .The present president is not gonna go far in preventing the not-very-far-from-now total collapse of the extremely biased capitalistic system in the US of A.

Deism is mostly regarded to be belief in (an) impersonal God(s). Theism is the more personalistic version of deism. There is no reason to deem only one of them as the best antonym to atheism . .. .. . What does not insult the dignity of most of Western Adults, is applied in some of the most outrageous adventures--thus causing manifestation to a number of the most basic drives of human beings. Now you are an action-in-the-making as an exemplar of Human Dao for the Sun, Dear Friend . . . .. .

I hope you are not blinded this way . . . . .

I feel sorry for "goddists" when (modern) physics cannot help them carve out their own god from somewhere in the Universe . . . . .

quote : "A Lorentz transformation is a relationship between inertial frames; if one of the frames is not inertial, or if spacetime in between the frames isn’t flat, then the relationship will be more complicated. Note also that Special Relativity encompasses not just inertial frames, but any situation so long as the respective region of spacetime is approximately flat." But you know full well that it is not deemed approximately flat. quote: "The Pioneer “anomaly” has nothing to do with relativity, it’s simply due to uneven heat loss from the probe. There is no mystery here." If the Pioneer anomaly has a gravitational origin, it would, according to the equivalence principle, distort the motions of the planets in the Solar System. Since no anomalous motion of the planets has been detected, it is generally believed that the Pioneer anomaly can not originate from a gravitational source in the Solar System. However, this conclusion becomes less obvious when considering models that either imply modifications to gravity at long range or gravitational sources localized to the outer Solar System, given the uncertainty in the orbital parameters of the outer planets. Following the general assumption that the Pioneer spacecraft move geodesically in a spherically symmetric spacetime metric, we derive the metric disturbance that is needed in order to account for the Pioneer anomaly. We then analyze the residual effects on the astronomical observables of the three outer planets that would arise from this metric disturbance, given an arbitrary metric theory of gravity. link : https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602089 This paper discusses the likelihood of whether the Pioneer anomaly is due to „mundane‟ systematic errors/effects or indicative of new or unappreciated physics. The main aim of this paper is to argue that recent publications suggesting that the anomaly is previously overlooked thermal recoil forces, which is in stark contrast to the earlier consensus (1998- 2010), are open to questioning. link : https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.0537.pdf Radio-metric Doppler tracking data received from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft from heliocentric distances of 20–70 AU has consistently indicated the presence of a small, anomalous, blue-shifted frequency drift uniformly changing with a rate of ∼ 6 × 10−9 Hz/s. Ultimately, the drift was interpreted as a constant sunward deceleration of each particular spacecraft at the level of aP = (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2. This apparent violation of the Newton’s gravitational inverse-square law has become known as the Pioneer anomaly; the nature of this anomaly remains unexplained. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of the physical properties of the anomaly and the conditions that led to its detection and characterization. We review various mechanisms proposed to explain the anomaly and discuss the current state of efforts to determine its nature. link : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5255541/

I am afraid you are not quite right . . . . . ..

You cannot be an Atheist. Much as you cannot be a Deist. Unfortunately , many people regard atheism or deism to be opposite logical poles. While , in fact , they are dipoled psychological characteristics. Discrepancy of terminology has pushed many to nominate themselves even further ahead of their emotional characteristics !

Sir ! You are very clearly saying : {Quote} : "that is centuries" . . .. .

If we still cannot distinguish Galilean understanding of Relativity from Prof Einstein's take of it , I have to say we are in Big Big Trouble . . . . . . . .

I should hardly think so . . . .

Many thanks for affirming and confirming me , , ,, ,, ,,, , , ,, Quote : "His first Postulate extends this to non-mechanical ones." { end of quote } by "His" you certainly mean Mr Einstein's . . . ... I am ( like you ) asserting that Prof Einstein was working on a number of Postulates[ and self-asseverated axioms ] , , ,, ,,That's it . .. . . .. .

First , ( and foremost ! ) : My Respectable lady ; Relativity and the Principle of Relativity does NOT go way back centuries before Einstein. I am sorry to let you know that you cannot possibly "legitimize" a hotchpotch of assumptions by Dr Einstein [ in the format of Relativity ] by according it with a background of centuries-old-established literature. If it was that ancient , then what did Prof Albert Einstein really manage to do ?? ! Second : You ask me : "2) So what particular relativity did you have in mind ?" My reply : Albert Einstein's Relativity Third : Please do not hesitate (as some sort of priming , at least ) ; to have a look at : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283225134_Einstein's_variable_speed_of_light_and_his_enforced_wrong_synchronization_method Regards, Reza

Quote from Studiot : "I hope Dr Swanson will comment of your thoughts about the H-K experiment and many subsequent repeats, some of which I believe he has participated in. This terrority is his kingdom. " { End of Quote//Emphasis mine } I am eagerly waiting for Dr Swanson to opine on it all .. . .. ..

Truth or falsity of part(s) of physics have nothing to do with the [proofs of] existence\non-existence of (a) God. We cannot in any way transcend from Physicalism of objects-in-themselves to an omnipotent , omniscient God.

During daily scheduled airlines, Hafele and Keating flown cesium beam nuclear times in October 1971 twice around the world, once eastwards and once westwards. The gravity time dilation and the movie time dilation are considerable - and indeed they are of comparable magnitude in this experiment. The effects of time dilation were predicted and calculated as follows: Predicted: Time difference in ns between the ground base main clock and the average time as registered by the 4 clocks going west & east : Eastward Westward Gravitational 144 +/- 14 179 +/- 18 Kinematic -184 +/- 18 96 +/- 10 Predicted global -40 +/- 23 275 +/- 21 Observed: -59 +/- 10 273 +/- 21 the gravitational time dilation might be different due to lower flight trajectory in the eastward flight...but somebody should clarify.. Why should the dilation of cinematic time in both directions be so different? In both instances the aircraft flew to the Earth at around the same velocity as the atomic clock... 1) no idea how these contributions G and K were isolated 2) no idea how the clock on the plane which has larger speed than the clock on Earth can possibly be not dilated but have faster pace in the westward journey and is instead dilated in the eastward. When it comes to modelling : A non-systematic Pioneer anomaly can be successfully modeled with its tacit violation, both of the theory of the weak equivalence of general relativity (re: 'low' mass bodies only) and of the Newtonian inverse square law. Those theoretical obstacles and different obstructive limits, including the low level of the pre-Saturn anomaly in Pioneer 11, have not been (to date) persuasively modelled. As for the philosophy of science behind it all : Lorentz Transformations are proclaimed to be non-orbital and only in certain parts of orbital motion. These mistakes can only be published without proof as normal if people are brainwashed and impacted by lack of studies! Anyone who argues such oxymoron must show where the smallest amount of space in the Special Relativity has been specified in which a section is declared a segment of a straight line and the application of LT to that segment only has been restricted. Cannot be found anywhere ! If you conclude that the Lorentz transformation does not apply to the entire curve, that means that there is no particular relativity and that is the end of the story. In any event, special relativity loses. The synchronization of clocks is fun to be looked at and examined even more closely as it is crystal-clear that in his 1905 paper on special relativity, the religious Charisma hero, Dr Albert Einstein, used a misleading synchronization process.

Now this is an obvious misbehavior in the game . . . You Ladyship knows full well that you urgently asked me for a reply to/discussion of your own statements AND that I did exactly the same thing .. . .

I am glad that "interlocutor" Studiot is conversant with Bergson's discourse. I am , however , sorry that (s)he is in the thinking groove that whoever lived many years ago , even one-and-a-half centuries ago , must needs be wrong as compared with anybody who outlasted him. Are Newton and Leibnitz , and their calculus , wrong simply because they belonged to centuries ago ?? !! The Cartesian/Euclidian analogy is totally out of order here. I am very grateful that (Lady) Studiot has gone to the length of searching through Professor Berkson's important writing(s) , too. This is a direct proof of her care for what she wishes to (dis)prove. Lady Studiot accuses not only me but also Prof Henri Bergson of not being able to understand her statement(s) ; she writes : Quote : "I don't think that either Bergson or yourself understand what I meant by " without an underlying coordinate system", particularly as Bergson used 'duration' differently." [ end of quote ) In point of fact , it is Prof Bergson's differing understanding of Duree\Duration that distinguishes him as the forerunner in marking time as a non-Mathesis , outside-of-coordinances thing-in-itself , not at all capable of being amalgamated so awkwardly with space to give birth to an extremely contra-intuitionistic pre"assumption famed by the name of Spacetime. A chain of linked invariants itself makes an Absolute as far as phenomenological and epi-phenomenological differences in between Time and Space are concerned. I am also very thankful indeed to (Lady) Studiot for bringing into this present constructive discussion the weakest , least defensible segment of Prof Einstein's argumentation methodology : that is to say , the dilation !! and contraction !! of Time (as a result of his maintaining the light speed constant )......... REZA SANAYE

Very Dear Moderator Many many thanks for your hint. I feel now quite free to open and distend this topic in even better format (elsewhere) .......

Spacetime is a concept mostly arising from the theory of Relativity. Phenomenologically speaking , either time does NOT exist ( almost implied within QM ) or there is an essence or entity or whatever truly existing by the name of "time" which fundamentally goes against the grain of Space. Space cannot be intrinsically grafted onto Time to provide for Relativity a hybrid by the name of Spacetime or Timespace. They are two differing entities not even hypothetically mathematically capable of merging together the way Minkowski wanted them to. Even worse was Dr Einstein's arbitrary adopting them into his own theory of Relativity through the artificiality of having a Riemannian ambience. I suggest reading most of the critique made by Prof Henri Bergson on Einsteinian mannerism of dealing with Time and Spacetime. These catastrophic events of going from the flat space of the much laboriously worked-on special theory of relativity to the queer curvature of spacetime in General Relativity are still affecting us in dealing with yet other problematics such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, worm holes, negative energy, etc, etc... pushing us to be coerced into focusing hundreds or even thousands of much-energy-taking articles and books on yet another grotesque being by the name of Quantum Gravity. Then, come in the issues of pair-production threshold for gamma rays and of the photon-production threshold(s) for cosmic rays even when at Planck-Scale effects might be perceived as new paths for modern physics. Here even departures from Lorentz symmetry can take place,, and a very valuable type of particles physics processes to be brought in here are the ones that are totally forbidden in a STANDARD special-relativistic setup. I personally believe there is every reason why we should name all of the abovementioned processes "anomalous". I am doing my best not to go further and further into the noxious consequences of accepting spacetime (curvature). We have even had to dilate and contract time when this hinges onto the fixed speed of light. There many other anomalies, too. But enough of it all FOR NOW.

Ah ! I see you are closer to catching the idea , Sir . . . . . .

So do unconventionalism the First Way ,, , , Hhhhmmmm ??

Covariant or contravariant character apply only to coordinates , to vectors , to tensors , , ,, , , Thank you , Dear Studiot . .. . U are getting closer to what I mean about that . .. .

contravariant tangent fields does mean something , Sir . . . Light speed is not constant , either . . .. .