Author 
Message 
Eric Gisse science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:41 am Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



hanson wrote:
[snip]
I would read and reply to the content of your messages if they didn't
look like a textual trainwreck.
When your posts don't resemble the USENET version of a Jackson Pollock
painting, I will reply. 

Back to top 


hanson science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 793

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:59 am Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137663660.396080.199700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  I would read and reply to the content of your messages if they didn't
look like a textual trainwreck. When your posts don't resemble the
USENET version of a Jackson Pollock painting, I will reply.
[hanson] 
Eric, but you did read it... ahahaha ... yet, I have never asked you
to reply (that's only your paranoid mentation which makes you
assume that) but if you are compelled to do so anyway you may
do so, because one current (minor) issues you face is that you
are losing the game with Schoenfeld which is now

 SCHOENFELD 4 : GISSE 0 

.... because you just fantasized in your habitual fanaticism with
your [(1/2)^1/2]^2... ahahaha... So, have Schoenfeld show you
why you turned the game from 3:1 to 4:1 into Schoenfeld's
favor with this new selfinflicted wound you did to yourself...
ahahahaha.... ahahaha.... and now, let's get back to the life
sustaining issues that you should concern yourself with:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com>, do listen to your idol Einstein's
admonition when he said in the 1920s that you "shouldn't search at
the same, now well lit places, where he had been working"....
..... but instead, you disobeyed him and wrote in your message
news:1137663660.396080.199700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
news:1137486205.709795.114400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
news:1137464612.100829.134170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
news:1137465395.133261.172570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Eric Gisse wrote:
[snip]
R^2 = (r/2GM  1)exp(r/2GM)cosh(t/4gm)
[snip]
Should be cosh^2.
[hanson]
ahaha... so, you correct yourself rather often, don't you... ahaha..
like here, where I reminded you of this:
[Eric]
[1] I actually made two typos. Can you spot the second one?
They don't affect my argument or conclusion, but they might make you
wonder what I was talking about for a second.
[2] [rest of your barelylucidasusual rambling snipped]
[hanson] 
[1] ahaha... sloppy, sloppy!... so, you have correct yourself constantly,
don't you... ahaha... and then instead of apologizing you try to weasel...
hoping that others help you to get off the hook.... Not bad!.. ahahaha....
[2] ahahaha... [snip]...not so fast!... Contemplate again what you did
not want hear. Here it is again for your benefit:
ahaha... so, you correct yourself rather often, don't you... ahaha..
like here, where I reminded you of this:
Quote:  The reason why Gisse must be suspected as the Judas
of relativity is because he is "in between jobs" and he got
caught by Schoenfeld in a lie when Gisse tried to spread
the falsity that Einstein relativity uses a geometry that, in Eric
Gisses's own words, says: tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x). See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a013e6a599b7de3
[... yet "Eric Gisse" maintained:]
I never said that.
[hanson] 
...... hahahaha.... Eric, but Schoenfeld said you did so, and
so you should take that up with him instead of whining to me.
.... But then again, I guess you [said in a moment of lucidity
that you] are used to looking like a moron if the quality of your
posting is any indication.... ahahaha... ahahaha.....
.... because Eric. the issue, and the only one that is of issue,
is that the love of your life, Einstein, said in 1954 to Besso
already long before you existed and played your Judas game:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."  A.E.
Quote: 
So, Eric, you should have arrived now at the threshold where you 
should begin to ask yourself some questions pertaining the
real world, not relativistically but absolutely from your pov,
the chief one being "when will you learn how to get a job?"...
I wish you luck in your endeavor to become a gainfully employed
and happy citizen, instead of a constantly "learning" and unhappy
one, telling others what's right and what's wrong yet you having
less money in your pocket then they do..... ahahaha...
Don't waste what's between your ears on flights of fancy on/with
things that were in vogue a century ago.... Listen to your idol
Albert's admonition when he said in the 1920s that you "shouldn't
search at the same, now well lit places, where he had been working".
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
Quote: 
BTW what have you done here, Eric: 
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b0694a085308dee0
is that another one of your "I never said that".... ahahaha
 kk57v5  Lhasa/dep  01.19.06.16:45. Singapora/arr 23:55
z'ya Blue Moon Lounge: Early AM local  "alphacharlytango" 

Back to top 


Traveler science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 782

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:18:43 GMT, HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Quote:  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:40:20 +1000, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Hexenmeister wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Hexenmeister wrote:
Ever notice how the DHR's with the Ph.Ds (ha ha, not from my alma mater)
Nieminem, Roberts like to pick on lightweights like Spaceman?
That's cos he's smarter than you, and a better conversationalist.
Oh, I see. You want idle chitchat and gossip, you are not interested in
mathematics or physics.
A strange thing to say, since you're the one who's avoided the discussions
of physics in the past.
If you
want discussion, say something interesting!
Sure. Your inabilty to rationally answer to this is mildly interesting.
tau = (tvx/c²)/sqrt(1v²/c²)
tau = (tuy/c²)/sqrt(1u²/c²)
tau = (twz/c²)/sqrt(1w²/c²)
xi = (xvt)/sqrt(1v²/c²)
eta = (yut)/sqrt(1u²/c²)
zeta= (zwt)/sqrt(1w²/c²)
What you wrote above is just plain wrong. Try:
0.1 Notation
r denotes a position vector; a number can be appended to distinguish
between two different position vectors, eg r1, r2. The components of
the position vector will, in general, differ between reference frames.
t denotes a time as measured in a given reference frame.
d_ij is the Kronecker delta.
Coordinates are specified by x, y, z or x1, y1, z1 etc when necessary.
The reference frame in which position vectors and times will
be specified when necessary by a "subscript" letter eg r_a, r1_a,
t_a, or (t,r)_a. Coordinates are x_a, y_a, z_a.
The scalar product of two vectors a and b is denoted by a.b
The product of two scalars, or of two matrices, is denoted by a b
The transpose of a matrix a is written as aT
Vectors are written as matrices with a single column when
used in matrix expressions; ie a is a column vector,
aT is a row vector.
Where a matrix is written in terms of its elements, the notation
[ a b c; d e f; g h i ] will be used to avoid problems with
nonfixedwidth fonts. Here, a b c are the elements of the first row,
d e f the elements of the 2nd row etc.
Periods are left off ends of sentences where they could cause
confusion with mathematical notation (see above).
1. Rotations in 3D space
Consider a 3D Euclidean space with a Cartesian coordinate system such
that the distance between two points r1 and r2 is
ds = sqrt( (r1  r2).(r1  r2) )
Note that the scalar product is, in terms of coordinates,
r1.r2 = g_11 x1 x2 + g_22 y1 y2 + g_33 z1 z2
where g_11, g_22, g_33 are the diagonal elements of the metric tensor g.
For a Cartesian coordinate system, we have g = d_ij
Note that we can write this as a matrix product:
r1.r2 = r1T g r2
which, in a Cartesian coordinate system, is r1.r2 = r1T r2
If we consider two Cartesian coordinate systems with coincident origins,
we can ask what linear transformations of coordinates result in
distances being invariant.
Such a transformation must be of the form:
x_b = a_11 x_a + a_12 y_a + a_13 z_a + c_1
y_b = a_21 x_a + a_22 y_a + a_23 z_a + c_2
z_b = a_31 x_a + a_32 y_a + a_33 z_a + c_3
or, more compactly, we can write this as a matrix equation
r_b = A r_a + C
Since we have specified that the origins are coincident, we have
C = (0,0,0); the transformation must be homogeneous.
If we have r_a = r1_a  r2_a, the distance between the points specified
by positions vectors r1_a and r2_a must be the same in both coordinate
systems. Therefore
ds^2 = ds_a^2 = ds_b^2
= r_b.r_b
= (A r_a).(A r_a)
= (A r_a)T (A r_a)
= rT_a AT A r_a
which, since this must also equal r_a.r_a, means that
AT A = I
ie the matrices are orthogonal, and
inv(A) = AT
Therefore, the square of the determinant of A is
A^2 = 1
We can further note that 3x3 matrices with A^2 = 1 form a group under
matrix multiplication, termed O(3)  the threedimensional orthogonal
group.
We can identify two distinct classes of transformations in O(3):
A = +1, which are pure rotations, and A = 1, which are rotations
combined with a reflection.
That these transformations form a group means that:
1. The result of one rotation/reflection followed by another
rotation/reflection can be obtained by a single rotation/reflection.
2. If we replace pairs of rotation/reflection transformations by
equivalent single transformations, the order in which we do so does
not matter. (Note that this is associativity, not commutativity!)
3. There is a rotation/reflection which leaves the coordinates unchanged.
4. For any rotation/reflection, there is an inverse transform that
restores things to the original state.
If we exclude reflections (ie we restrict ourselves to pure rotations
with A = +1, which we will call proper rotations), these conditions
are still satisfied, so proper rotations also form a group, denoted
SO(3). Since all proper (ie reflectionfree) rotations must form a
continuous group containing the identity transformation, this provides
a general way of identifying the subgroup we are interested in  it
must contain I. Euler's theorem states that all 3D orthogonal
transformations with A = +1 are rotations.
1.1 Rotations in ndimensional space
We will make a diversion into ndimensional rotations, to see how we can
parameterise rotations, and actually write down the elements of a
rotation matrix.
Note that the considerations in the above section apply equally to
dimensions other than 3  SO(1), SO(2), SO(4) etc are the groups of
proper rotations in 1, 2, and 4 dimensions.
1.1.1 1D
Since in 1D, we have A = A_11, the only 1D rotation matrix is [1].
1.1.2 2D
The transformation A has 4 matrix elements, but the orthogonality
relations provide 3 equations relating these, so only one free
parameter is required to describe a rotation. Therefore, we can give
a single element of SO(2), and generate all other elements by raising
it to a power. That is, given G, an element of SO(2), G^a is also an
element. We can proceed by choosing an "infinitesimal generator" S such
G = exp(S)
Thus, we have
G^a = exp(  a S )
Noting that A = exp(Tr(S)), the requirement that A = 1 means that
Tr(S) = 0. Since inv(A) = exp(S), and inv(A) = AT, we must have
ST = S, so S is antisymmetric. Since this requires all diagonal
elements to be zero, we also have Tr(S) = 0
The matrix
S = [ 0 1; 1 0 ]
is a suitable infinitesimal generator, since any 2x2 antisymmetric
matrix can be written as the product a S
S has an interesting property:
S^2 = [ 1 0; 0 1], S^3 = [ 0 1; 1 0 ] = S, S^4 = S^2 = I
Therefore, if we write the series expansion for exp(aS), all of the
higher powers of S can be reduced to S and S^2. Using this, we find
exp(aS) =  sin(a) S  cos(a) S^2
Since S^2 = I, we can write any 2D rotation matrix as
R = [ cos(a) sin(a); sin(a) cos(a) ]
in which we can immediately recognise our (originally abstract)
parameter a as the angle of rotation.
1.1.3 3+D
The same considerations apply. We need only write a set of infinitesimal
generators which are a basis set in terms of which any antisymmetric
matrix can be written. A suitable basis is:
S_1 = [ 0 1 0; 1 0 0; 0 0 0 ]
S_2 = [ 0 0 1; 0 0 0; 1 0 0 ]
S_3 = [ 0 0 0; 0 0 1; 0 1 0 ]
and we can write any antisymmetric matrix as
S = a_1 S_1 + a_2 S_2 + a_3 S_3
We can proceed as for 2D (with somewhat more difficulty!) and write
down the 3D rotation matrix in terms of the 3 parameters a_i (left
as an exercise for the reader!)
The astute reader might note that the top left 2x2 block of S_1 is
exactly the same as our 2D S, and must behave in the same way, so
S_1^3 = S_1, S_1^4 = S_1^2 etc. The same also applies for S_2 and
S_3. In the simple case where two of the three parameters a_i are
zero, we obtain transformations which we can easily recognise as
rotations about the x, y, and z axes, with the nonzero parameter
being the angle of rotation.
The extension to dimensions higher than 3 is elementary, although
writing down the elements of R explicitly in terms of a_i becomes
progressively more painful.
2. The Lorentz transformations
The mathematics of rotations gives us a simple mechanism to derive
the Lorentz transformations.
Consider a 4D coordinate system with metric tensor
g_00 = 1, g_11 = 1, g_22 = 1, g_33 = 1
A length interval is then
ds = sqrt( rT g r )
Homogenous linear transformations which leave this invariant must
satisfy AT g A = g, and since g is nonzero, we must have A^2 = 1
Restricting ourselves to proper rotations, we have A = 1
Since we have a metric tensor not equal to I, we must explicitly
include it when writing down our generator and infinitesimal generators.
We now require (g S) to be antisymmetric (we actually required this
for rotations in Cartesian systems, but since (g S) = (I S) = S, we
didn't write it down.
Thus, a suitable basis set for the infinitesimal generators is:
S_1 = [ 0 1 0 0; 1 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 ]
S_2 = [ 0 0 1 0; 0 0 0 0; 1 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 ]
S_3 = [ 0 0 0 1; 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0; 1 0 0 0 ]
S_4 = [ 0 0 0 0; 0 0 1 0; 0 1 0 0; 0 0 0 0 ]
S_5 = [ 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 1; 0 0 0 0; 0 1 0 0 ]
S_6 = [ 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 1; 0 0 1 0 ]
Clearly, if we have a_1 = a_2 = a_3 = 0, our transformations are 3D
rotations of the last 3 coordinates, leaving the first coordinate
unchanged.
Since we now have S_1^3 = S_1 and S_1^4 = S_1^2, if we have only a_1
nonzero, we obtain
R = [ cosh(a_1) sinh(a_1) 0 0; sinh(a_1) cosh(a_1) 0 0; 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 ]
and similarly for having only a_2 or a_3 nonzero.
We now have the Lorentz transformations and a general recipe for
writing any Lorentz transformation in terms of 6 parameters, of
which 3 specify a 3D rotation of the last 3 coordinates. Now it
is time to intoduce some physics.
3. Lorentz transformations in physics
To make use of the above mathemachinery, we note that we can specify
an event  a combination of a position vector and a time  as a 4D
vector (at,r) = (at,x,y,z) where a is a scale factor so that at and
x (and y and z) have the same units. Since x has units of length, and
t has units of time, the scale factor a has units of velocity.
We adopt the postulate that the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial reference frames (the Principle of Relativity).
This requires us to specify what is meant by
an inertial reference frame: a reference frame in which an object acted
on by zero force is either stationary or moves in a straight line at
constant speed. This means that dr/dt is independent of time in all
reference frames, where r(t) is the position of the forcefree object.
If the object is inertial in any single reference frame, it will be
inertial in any reference frame related to the first by a linear
transformation. Therefore, the Lorentz transformations relate
inertial reference frames.
We adopt a further postulate: that the Maxwell equations correctly
describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves in free space in
all inertial reference frames. Directly from this, we see that the
speed of light in free space, c, must be the same in all in inertial
reference frames.
Therefore, c is a good choice of scale factor, since it must be the
same in all inertial reference frames, so we write our 4coordinates
as (ct,r). It is worth noting that if we postulate instead that
either (a) we can use the same scale factor in all inertial reference
frames or (b) that there is a speed that is the same in all inertial
reference frames, we reach the same point, but without having identified
our scale factor as the speed of light in free space. In that way,
we could obtain a result that would be undisturbed by falsification of
the Maxwell equations (eg by measurement of a nonzero photon mass).
However, we will be content to use the historical postulate.
If we consider two event: the launching of a pulse of light, with
4coordinates (ct1,r1), and its reception (ct2,r2), if the speed of
light is to be the same in all inertial reference frames, we must
have sqrt((r2  r1).(r2  r1))/(t2  t1) = c in all frames. Therefore,
sqrt((r2r1).(r2r1)) = ct2  ct1
(r2r1).(r2r1) = (ct2  ct1)^2
(ct2  ct1)^2 + (r2r1).(r2r1) = 0
If we write (ct,r) = (ct2,r2)  (ct1,r1), the left hand side of the
above expression is
(ct,r).(ct,r) = (ct,r)T g (ct,r)
Therefore, a linear transformation under which the scalar product
invariant under a metric g_00 = 1, g_11 = g_22 = g_33 = 1 is
invariant results in the speed of light being the same in all
inertial reference frames.
The Lorentz transformations obtained in section 2 are the
transformations which meet these requirements, and therefore must
be the correct transformations relating coordinates (ct,r) in
different reference frames, if the Principle of Relativity is valid,
and the Maxwell equations are correct.
The parameters (a_4,a_5,a_6) are those required to specify a spatial
rotation. What are the other three parameters (a_1,a_2,a_3)?
Since the space origins (r = 0) of different reference frames only
need to coincide at t = 0, clearly the reference frames can be
in relative motion.
As measured in frame a, the origin of frame b moves at a constant
velocity B = dr_a/d(ct_a). Since B is constant, and the 4origins are
coincident, B = r_a/(ct_a), where (ct_a,r_a) = Lba (ct_b,0,0,0)
Noting the Lorentz transformation resulting from only a_1 being
nonzero, the velocity in such a case would be (tanh(a_1),0,0),
and (0,tanh(a_2),0) and (0,0,tanh(a_3)) when a_2 and a_3 are
the only nonzero parameters, we must have
(a_1,a_2,a_3) = B atanh(B) / B
for the transformation from a to b (the transformation above was
from b to a) and we are done!
A perfect example of the way in which physics has been hijacked by Einsteiniana
for 100 years.
The above is a totally unnecessary waste to time.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

ahahaha... You mean that, after Nieminen spent all his precious time
to type his wonderful (in his eyes) post, being careful to remove all
the typos, grammatical and mathematical errors, this is all the thanks
he gets from you? You are a mean and cruel human being, Wilson.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... And some misguided souls want to
moderate sci.physics? Thanks for the laughs. ahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm 

Back to top 


Spaceman science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1143

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:CmHzf.17241$Zo.2794@trnddc07...
 [] Dr. Prof. James Driscoll [], I think that you have done much
 more than most of the highbrowed NG "educators" here for
 the benefit of the physics enthusiasts and for the pedagogic
 promulgation of science. You are a clever & extraordinarily
 patient man, James, and I am quite sure that your are not as
 "janitorial" as you do portray yourself to be. There are too
 many little "slipups" which show that you let out more than you
 should, like the latest one where you caught Gisse with the  T^2.
 (Schoenfeld, thanks for pointing it out). James, the instruction
 tactics or educational practices which you try out and hone here
 in s.p., for your lectures, must benefit your real life students
 enormously.  My kudos to you!
 Take care, James! BTW, you are great fun to boot!... ahahaha...
 hanson
Thanks!
I also must conclude it is great fun to have you here also.
I still want to be the janitor, he is always the one cleaning up
the big messes that the physicists make, and he learns a lot more
from looking at the stuff left over after the explosion, unlike the poor
guy that blew up in the explosion and created the mess to begin with.
:)
:) 

Back to top 


glbrad01 science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:2ojqs11lvn0f5h84kr08sckt24q09ftjn2@4ax.com...
Quote:  On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:08:26 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:o9aos156i6cq0o4l2plrmjd40057ja47qm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:41:52 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Yes. Oneway light speed = c+v.
OK assuming that you are correct. Please explain the following: We have
three observers A,B and C moving relative to a source "S" at Va, Vb and
Vc.
Are you saying that the source "S" emits light at (c+Va), (c+Vb) and
(c+Vc)???
The source emits light at c relative to itself. The light is therefore
traveling at (c+Va), (c+Vb) and (c+Vc) wrt the other bodies.
ROTFLOL......you are an idiot. BTW where the equations of your theory?
Ken, there is no single 'absolute EM FoR'. It IS possible that local EM
FoRs do
exist although there is little known evidence for that.
Light leaving a remote star has only one reference for its speed...its
source.
Can you suggest another?

"Can you suggest another?" Yes, its own universal integral, its constant.
It has two variable dimensions, wavelength and frequency. Its third
dimension is invariable ("the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, ergo,
constant in the timeless infinity of Universe as one representative of its
overall, nakedly singular [collapsed] horizon. That is the hardest, lowest
dimensional, universal constancy that all other [universal] constants will
anchor to (upon)). Altogether regarding light, it itself is invariably a
3dimensional subject, fractally indivisible. It isn't solely
1dimensionally its "invariance" of its velocity in a "vacuum" (foreground
entity of the 'collapsed horizon' (background remote)).
GLB 

Back to top 


Henri Wilson science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:59:49 GMT, "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com>
wrote:
Quote: 
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:2ojqs11lvn0f5h84kr08sckt24q09ftjn2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:08:26 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:o9aos156i6cq0o4l2plrmjd40057ja47qm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:41:52 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
Yes. Oneway light speed = c+v.
OK assuming that you are correct. Please explain the following: We have
three observers A,B and C moving relative to a source "S" at Va, Vb and
Vc.
Are you saying that the source "S" emits light at (c+Va), (c+Vb) and
(c+Vc)???
The source emits light at c relative to itself. The light is therefore
traveling at (c+Va), (c+Vb) and (c+Vc) wrt the other bodies.
ROTFLOL......you are an idiot. BTW where the equations of your theory?
Ken, there is no single 'absolute EM FoR'. It IS possible that local EM
FoRs do
exist although there is little known evidence for that.
Light leaving a remote star has only one reference for its speed...its
source.
Can you suggest another?
"Can you suggest another?" Yes, its own universal integral, its constant.
It has two variable dimensions, wavelength and frequency. Its third
dimension is invariable ("the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, ergo,
constant in the timeless infinity of Universe as one representative of its
overall, nakedly singular [collapsed] horizon. That is the hardest, lowest
dimensional, universal constancy that all other [universal] constants will
anchor to (upon)). Altogether regarding light, it itself is invariably a
3dimensional subject, fractally indivisible. It isn't solely
1dimensionally its "invariance" of its velocity in a "vacuum" (foreground
entity of the 'collapsed horizon' (background remote)).
GLB

........and do you preach any other religions?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm 

Back to top 


Henri Wilson science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:25:53 0500, Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
Quote:  On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:18:43 GMT, HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:40:20 +1000, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au
wrote:

religious crap snipped.
Quote: 
(a_1,a_2,a_3) = B atanh(B) / B
for the transformation from a to b (the transformation above was
from b to a) and we are done!
A perfect example of the way in which physics has been hijacked by Einsteiniana
for 100 years.
The above is a totally unnecessary waste to time.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
ahahaha... You mean that, after Nieminen spent all his precious time
to type his wonderful (in his eyes) post, being careful to remove all
the typos, grammatical and mathematical errors, this is all the thanks
he gets from you? You are a mean and cruel human being, Wilson.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... And some misguided souls want to
moderate sci.physics? Thanks for the laughs. ahaha...

I think he did a CtrlC somewhere and CtrlV here.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm 

Back to top 


Heckuva Job science forum beginner
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 9

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



Bilge wrote:
Quote:  double precision, sockpuppet pansy:
Bilge wrote:
big magician, dumbshit sockpuppet:
Bilge wrote:
MobyDikc:
Hey all,
This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
Is there anything like an antirelativity alliance, so even if
antirelativists disagree with their ideas, they can still
collectively
agree that relativity is wrong?
Sure. Try the natural philosophy alliance. Their idea of science
and yours fit like a glove.
thats becus yo just don know physics like we do
I consider that a plus.
yo don understan
Sure I do. You are an idiotic, bedwetting pantywaist.

i nevere wet a bed in my life
please stop sending other pepoles papers other places
Quote: 
let me put it in morse, ask your supervisor to translate that for yo
 .... .  ... ... . .. .. ... .  . .. ...  ..
 . . .  . .. .... . ... .. .. ... ... .. .
. . . .. 
 .... . . ...   .. .. . .. .. .. . ..  .. . . 
.... . ..  ...  ... .  .. ...  . . . 
 ..  .
Translate what? That looks just like everything else you write.
Also, if you could please reply with a reference to your favorite
website or theory here, if there isn't already one, a list of
antirelativity research can be created.



Back to top 


markwh04@yahoo.com science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 137

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:44 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:  On 13 Jan 2006 11:30:03 0800, "MobyDikc" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote:
This is for the cranks and crackpots who reject relativity.
That is a contradiction of terms.

Actually, it's redundant.
Quote:  Anyone who rejects [sic] Einstein's nonsense...

.... particularly since it has nothing to do with "Einstein's nonsense".
The correct characterization is Lorentz's, Poincare's, Wheeler's,
Dirac's, Feynmann's, Minkowski's, Robb's, (add in hundreds of other
entries, particularly those who have daytoday dealings with the
thousands of particle collision events that are catalogued on a regular
basis at various sites throughout the world) ... all their "nonsense".
This personalizing things as some supposed invention is a lone person
is, itself, the shibboleth of the antiscientific (= anti20th/21st
century physics) crackpot and of other Luddites and neoLuddites from
an Industrial era that has been long past for more than 30 years now,
and antiSemites (why else would all this be heaped on a single man,
other than that he was a Jew?) 

Back to top 


kenseto science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:44 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:5hhts1hushqrg0fi95t61itb2vlmp6g7s6@4ax.com...
Quote:  On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:06:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:nauqs1hva0q5q64rcdcmhmsj8djjjgrrpl@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:15:39 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:2ojqs11lvn0f5h84kr08sckt24q09ftjn2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:08:26 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com
wrote:
Ken, there is no single 'absolute EM FoR'. It IS possible that local
EM
FoRs do
exist although there is little known evidence for that.
Light leaving a remote star has only one reference for its
speed...its
source.
Can you suggest another?
So your light can change speed during transit dependent on which
observer
it
is heading toward?
BTW where is your equations that agree with current experimental
results
and
observations?? Don't have any? I thought so.:)
Idiot. Do you know anything at all about basic mechanics?
Lets see who is the idiot:
1. Light is c wrt the source.
2. Light is (c+Va) when heading toward A.
3. Light is (c+Vb) when heading toward B.
4. Light is (c+Vc) when heading toward C.
5. It is irrelevant if A, B or C is moving toward or away from the
source.
Light speed is as stated above in items 1, 2 and 3..
Ken Seto
Obviously V can be + or .

Just as I said: you only make assertions with nothing to back you up. When
experiments show that your assertions are wrong then you just merely dismiss
it by saying that it is full of errors.
Ken Seto 

Back to top 


Eric Gisse science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



hanson wrote:
[textual trainwreck snipped]
I find it really amusing that you take everything Schoenfeld says at
face value without even taking the time to see if he is full of it. 

Back to top 


hanson science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 793

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:27 am Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> cranked himself in message
news:1137710521.904045.252500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
over hanson and his qaurrel with Schoenfeld which is by now:

 SCHOENFELD 5 : GISSE 0 

..... and because Eric is fantasizing in his habitual fanaticism
over his ***invention*** that [(1/2)^1/2]^2 = (1/2)... ahahaha...
instead of concerning himself seriously with his life sustaining
issues:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com>, do listen to your idol Einstein's
admonition when he said in the 1920s that you "shouldn't search at
the same, now well lit places, where he had been working"....
..... but instead, you disobeyed him and wrote in your message
news:1137663660.396080.199700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
news:1137486205.709795.114400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
news:1137464612.100829.134170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
news:1137465395.133261.172570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:  Eric Gisse wrote:
[snip]
R^2 = (r/2GM  1)exp(r/2GM)cosh(t/4gm)
[snip]
Should be cosh^2.
[hanson]
ahaha... so, you correct yourself rather often, don't you... ahaha..
like here, where I reminded you of this:
[Eric]
[1] I actually made two typos. Can you spot the second one?
They don't affect my argument or conclusion, but they might make you
wonder what I was talking about for a second.
[2] [rest of your barelylucidasusual rambling snipped]
[hanson] 
[1] ahaha... sloppy, sloppy!... so, you have correct yourself constantly,
don't you... ahaha... and then instead of apologizing you try to weasel...
hoping that others help you to get off the hook.... Not bad!.. ahahaha....
[2] ahahaha... [snip]...not so fast!... Contemplate again what you did
not want hear. Here it is again for your benefit:
ahaha... so, you correct yourself rather often, don't you... ahaha..
like here, where I reminded you of this:
Quote:  The reason why Gisse must be suspected as the Judas
of relativity is because he is "in between jobs" and he got
caught by Schoenfeld in a lie when Gisse tried to spread
the falsity that Einstein relativity uses a geometry that, in Eric
Gisses's own words, says: tanh(x)=cosh(x)/sinh(x). See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a013e6a599b7de3
[... yet "Eric Gisse" maintained:]
I never said that.
[hanson] 
...... hahahaha.... Eric, but Schoenfeld said you did so, and
so you should take that up with him instead of whining to me.
.... But then again, I guess you [said in a moment of lucidity
that you] are used to looking like a moron if the quality of your
posting is any indication.... ahahaha... ahahaha.....
.... because Eric. the issue, and the only one that is of issue,
is that the love of your life, Einstein, said in 1954 to Besso
already long before you existed and played your Judas game:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."  A.E.
Quote: 
So, Eric, you should have arrived now at the threshold where you 
should begin to ask yourself some questions pertaining the
real world, not relativistically but absolutely from your pov,
the chief one being "when will you learn how to get a job?"...
I wish you luck in your endeavor to become a gainfully employed
and happy citizen, instead of a constantly "learning" and unhappy
one, telling others what's right and what's wrong yet you having
less money in your pocket then they do..... ahahaha...
Don't waste what's between your ears on flights of fancy on/with
things that were in vogue a century ago.... Listen to your idol
Albert's admonition when he said in the 1920s that you "shouldn't
search at the same, now well lit places, where he had been working".
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
Quote: 
BTW what have you done here, Eric: 
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b0694a085308dee0
is that another one of your "I never said that".... ahahaha


Back to top 


Der alte Hexenmeister science forum Guru
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2053

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:06 am Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:uh0Af.48024$he.938@trnddc03...
Quote:  "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> cranked himself in message
news:1137710521.904045.252500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
over hanson and his qaurrel with Schoenfeld which is by now:

 SCHOENFELD 5 : GISSE 0 


Correction.

 SCHOENFELD 5 : GISSE 0 

 WINN 1 : DORK BROUHAHA 0

Hexenmeister 

Back to top 


hanson science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 793

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:AK1Af.166066$vl2.49500@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote:  "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:uh0Af.48024$he.938@trnddc03...
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> cranked himself in message
news:1137710521.904045.252500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
over hanson and his qaurrel with Schoenfeld which is by now:

 SCHOENFELD 5 : GISSE 0 

[Andro]
Correction.

 SCHOENFELD 5 : GISSE 0 

 WINN 1 : DORK BROUHAHA 0

Hexenmeister
[hanson] 
ahahaha... Hexenmeister's score board for Zauber Lehrlinge?
Years back, I remember a bible beating Robert Winn whos'e
mind became weak whenever he heard the holy word 'f***'....
ahahaha..
He made a big deal about it and did saffahh greatly.... ahaha...
but I have no idea who Dork Brouhaha is, unless you refer to
the used toilet brush salesman Dork van de Dirtmotel...
Sorry, that I missed that show.
Was it as funny as Gisse's grand discovery that when you
square root (n) and then square that root you get the original (n)
back, especially when n = (1/2)?... ahaha... Reminded me of
Gisse makeing arithmetic push ups: ...rt sq .. rt sq .. rt sq..
.... up down .. up down .. up down .. up down ..
Take care, Hexer, and root out ***geriatric physics***...
ahahaha.. ahahahanson 

Back to top 


Eric Gisse science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Antirelativist Alliance



hanson wrote:
Quote:  "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:AK1Af.166066$vl2.49500@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:uh0Af.48024$he.938@trnddc03...
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> cranked himself in message
news:1137710521.904045.252500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
over hanson and his qaurrel with Schoenfeld which is by now:

 SCHOENFELD 5 : GISSE 0 

[Andro]
Correction.

 SCHOENFELD 5 : GISSE 0 

 WINN 1 : DORK BROUHAHA 0

Hexenmeister
[hanson]
ahahaha... Hexenmeister's score board for Zauber Lehrlinge?
Years back, I remember a bible beating Robert Winn whos'e
mind became weak whenever he heard the holy word 'f***'....
ahahaha..
He made a big deal about it and did saffahh greatly.... ahaha...
but I have no idea who Dork Brouhaha is, unless you refer to
the used toilet brush salesman Dork van de Dirtmotel...
Sorry, that I missed that show.
Was it as funny as Gisse's grand discovery that when you
square root (n) and then square that root you get the original (n)
back, especially when n = (1/2)?... ahaha... Reminded me of
Gisse makeing arithmetic push ups: ...rt sq .. rt sq .. rt sq..
... up down .. up down .. up down .. up down ..
Take care, Hexer, and root out ***geriatric physics***...
ahahaha.. ahahahanson

It isn't my fault you don't understand how to multiply powers. Lots of
people here just don't understand first year mathematics, which manages
to both surprise and not surprise me.
sqrt(x) = x^1/2
(x*1/2)^2 = (x^1/2)*(x^1/2) = x^(1/2 + 1/2) = x
If you feel otherwise, prove it. Mathematically. Anything less is
cowardace. 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:00 am  All times are GMT

