FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Anti-relativist Alliance
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 12 of 13 [192 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12, 13 Next
Author Message
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:44:41 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:5hhts1hushqrg0fi95t61itb2vlmp6g7s6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:06:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:


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.

What experiments have shown the BaTh to be wrong?

What experiments have shown your aether exists?

Quote:
Ken Seto



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Back to top
hanson
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:59 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137789315.767593.76480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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...
[hanson to Hexer]
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

[Gisse]
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.

[hanson]

ahahahaha... I do not feel otherwise, cowboy, except that you are
an argumentative, juvenile fanatic who can't read. Let me repeat
the above, for your benefit: Of course, if you take any number (x)
and power it by any fraction (1/n) and then rise that result to the
same power of n, you end up with (x)^1 = the initial number x....
ahahaha.. AHAHA... Why are you making such a big deal out this?
.... the more you do this the more you give the impression that
YOU are not sure what you are talking about... ahahaha...
and YOU make the score board look like this:

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------- EVERYBODY 1 : GISSE 0 ---------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Now, Eric leave your affiliation with Geriatric Physics and its
senile disciples behind yourself and march on .....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/28705df8db1c540a
Don't waste what's between your ears on 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".

Listen to the man where he, Einstein, said in 1954 to Besso:

== "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.

Do as the man says, Eric... "Anything less is cowardice"....
You said that. You know it. Do it, Eric.
hanson
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:01 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

hanson wrote:

[snip]

As I thought, you are a coward who will only heckle rather than
participate.
Back to top
Der alte Hexenmeister
science forum Guru


Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2053

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:21 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:cR8Af.3277$Fb3.2484@trnddc08...
Quote:
"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:AK1Af.166066$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?

Well, I don't keep a rigid tally, but there is also

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------- SCHOENFELD 5 : GISSE 0 ---------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|-------- WINN 1 : DORK BROUHAHA 0-----|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|-------- SPACEMAN 1 : DUCKWIT f*** 0-----|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The family man is losing his memory as well as his sanity.

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137769951.423589.228280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137697815.340152.121170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hexenmeister wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137691413.993338.313680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

I see you've lost your ability to read, which came shortly after
losing
your ability to speak coherently.

PD
You are just trolling, cunt. You've lost your argument and now you
are desperately trying to save face by attacking me.

What argument would that be, Androcles?

Forgotten already? You may be suffering with Alzheimer's.
The argument with RB Winn, over whether Einstein meant speed or velocity.
You lost, remember?

Nope, I don't remember that.

Ah.. you ARE suffering from Alzheimer's disease or a similar form of
dementia.
Too much snorting cocaine, perhaps.
Try leaving out the cocaine, family man.


Quote:
I seem to recall you can't distinguish
what Einstein *wrote* (and which you translated at your whim) and what
he *meant* by the use of a term, which also marks the distinction
between reading and comprehension that you have some difficulties with.

Oh dear, hallucinations also. LSD as well, huh?

Quote:
I seem to recall TomGee being very upset at not being able to find the
work "momentum" in Newton's Principia, as well, even though the word is
"clearly defined in common-language dictionaries for all to see." At
the moment, you seem to be suffering from TomGee-ism.

Not at all, duck. Here is what Einstein lied:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm

I've carefully marked his lie in red text.
Yours are too numerous."



Quote:

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...

Dork Brouhaha at new 'piece' = "Dirk Bruere at Neopax".
I think it should be "Dork Brouhaha at Neanderthal".


Quote:

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...

Judge for yourself. I think it is hilarious.

"rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
Quote:
Speed of light won't solve the problem. You have to use velocity of
light. Einstein said that velocity of light was a constant.

The pet family duck replies:
You're *quite* sure he was referring to the vector quantity and not the
scalar magnitude?
You do realize, don't you that this would mean that light could emerge
from a light bulb in only one direction and not in all directions?

PD"

What is the duck going to do? Claim Einstein meant magnitude when
he wrote:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." ?




Reminded me of
Quote:
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

What amazes me is how incredibly stupid some of these people
are, and their egos lead them into thinking they are smart.
David Copperfield can saw in woman in half on stage, but
nobody believes it really happens and he isn't telling about
his smoke and mirrors or the hidden girls legs poking out the
end of the box.
Einstein saws time in half and the fools think it really happens
instead of trying to figure how the trick is done.

I suppose it does sort the wheat from the chaff, but there won't
be enough grain for a loaf of bread in a knowledge starved world.
Hexenmeister.
Back to top
Schoenfeld
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:49 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

hanson wrote:
Quote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137789315.767593.76480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"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...
[hanson to Hexer]
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

[Gisse]
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.

[hanson]
ahahahaha... I do not feel otherwise, cowboy, except that you are
an argumentative, juvenile fanatic who can't read. Let me repeat
the above, for your benefit: Of course, if you take any number (x)
and power it by any fraction (1/n) and then rise that result to the
same power of n, you end up with (x)^1 = the initial number x....
ahahaha.. AHAHA... Why are you making such a big deal out this?
... the more you do this the more you give the impression that
YOU are not sure what you are talking about... ahahaha...
and YOU make the score board look like this:

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------- EVERYBODY 1 : GISSE 0 ---------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

More like:

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------- EVERYBODY 0 : GISSE T ---------------|

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

where T is a real and T^2 is negative...

Quote:
Now, Eric leave your affiliation with Geriatric Physics and its
senile disciples behind yourself and march on .....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/28705df8db1c540a
Don't waste what's between your ears on 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".

Listen to the man where he, Einstein, said in 1954 to Besso:

== "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.

Do as the man says, Eric... "Anything less is cowardice"....
You said that. You know it. Do it, Eric.
hanson
Back to top
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:00 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:26:24 GMT
<48l2t1l3dasjq99m6a7gnql6evir3b6pvs@4ax.com>:
Quote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:44:41 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:


"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:5hhts1hushqrg0fi95t61itb2vlmp6g7s6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:06:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:


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.

What experiments have shown the BaTh to be wrong?

No experiments have ever shown the BaTh to be wrong. Of
course, it's far from clear what BaTh is anyway; it's
so nebulous it's very difficult to shoot at.

(This in contrast to such efforts as Newtonian Ballistic Theory,
or nBaT, which is easily falsified by Sagnac and Pound-Rebka,
or even classical rigid luminiferous aether theory, which is
falsified by MMX.)

Quote:

What experiments have shown your aether exists?

Please. Kenseto's stuff is not aether. It's the E-matrix.
Or something like that. :-)

[.sigsnip]

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Back to top
hanson
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:48 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> cranked himself needlessly in
news:1137808897.490313.4720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
As I thought, you are a coward who will only heckle rather than
participate.

[hanson]

Eric, why is it that you refer to Einstein's citations as "heckling"?
Read it again. Here it is once more for your benefit:

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137789315.767593.76480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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...
[hanson to Hexer]
....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) ... reminded me of Gisse makeing arithmetic
push ups: ...rt sq .. rt sq .. rt sq.. ::: up down .. up down .. up down

[Gisse]
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.

[hanson]

ahahahaha... I do not feel otherwise, cowboy, except that you are
an argumentative, juvenile fanatic who can't read. Let me repeat
the above, for your benefit: Of course, if you take any number (x)
and power it by any fraction (1/n) and then rise that result to the
same power of n, you end up with (x)^1 = the initial number x....
ahahaha.. AHAHA... Why are you making such a big deal out this?
.... the more you do this the more you give the impression that
YOU are not sure what you are talking about... ahahaha...
and YOU make the score board look like this:

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------- EVERYBODY 2 : GISSE 0 ---------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Now, Eric leave your affiliation with Geriatric Physics and its
senile disciples behind yourself and march on .....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/28705df8db1c540a
Don't waste what's between your ears on 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".

Listen to the man where he, Einstein, said in 1954 to Besso:

== "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.

Do as the man says, Eric... "Anything less is cowardice"....
You said that. You know it. Do it, Eric.
hanson
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:27 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

hanson wrote:
Quote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> cranked himself needlessly in
news:1137808897.490313.4720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As I thought, you are a coward who will only heckle rather than
participate.

[hanson]
Eric, why is it that you refer to Einstein's citations as "heckling"?

[snip]

Simply because you repeat them over and over without grasping the
meaning behind them.

You see incompetence and malice where others simply see someone who is
capable of learning. You aren't seeking to learn, you are seeking to
destroy what you cannot understand.
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

Traveler wrote:
Quote:
On 15 Jan 2006 00:46:51 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:


hanson wrote:

[snip]

No wonder you are unable to learn relativity, you can't even read your
source material!

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html

"Einstein proved Newton wrong and has yet to be proved wrong himself."


Hey, Gisse. Did you know that Sir Karl Popper (of falsifiability fame)
called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing ever
happens"? That's right. If you believe in spacetime, you also believe
that there is no change or motion in the universe.

To talk about believing in spacetime is as absurd as to talk about
believing in the tooth fair or leprechauns! To talk about the real
existence of spacetime is to go outside of physics and to go into
metaphysics.

You are confusing the 3d universe that changes in time with the 4d
models of events, which, even if known (by God, I guess), does not.
There is no spacetime model of the universe from its birth to death, so
that ends that. Even Popper knew that! Apparently, your 'friend' Popper
was making a little exaggerated and technically incorrect inside joke
to Einstein, and that's all! No significance at all in physics!


Spacetime is ONLY a mathematical model invented to aid people in
visualizing physical events and the relationships that the laws of
physics claim to exist between them. The rest is pure fantasy existing
in your kaleidoscopic fantasy excursion in red-herring land.

Spacetime is used to represent both real and hypothetical situations.
By removing the geometrical spacetime model from relativity, relativity
goes on, but without a very useful aid to visualization. Because humans
are good at visualizations they like to invent geometries as aids to
their work.

Spacetime is as useful a visualization tool to the physicist as the
flowchart is to the computer scientist. But it makes no more sense to
talk about spacetime being "real" as it does to talk about flowcharts
being "real."

All geometry is the result of human invention. No geometry actually
exists. People need to distinguish between the thing and its many
possible discursive theoretical representations.
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:48l2t1l3dasjq99m6a7gnql6evir3b6pvs@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:44:41 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:


"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:5hhts1hushqrg0fi95t61itb2vlmp6g7s6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:06:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:


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.

What experiments have shown the BaTh to be wrong?

How about:
1. Light can change speed during transit from the source to the detector?
2. How about the double slit experiment....if Bath is right there shoud not
be any light and dark fringes?
3. How about those experiments that shows that the speed of light is
independent of the motion of the source?
Quote:

What experiments have shown your aether exists?

1. The Pound and Rebka experiments.
2. The double slit experiment.
3. All the experiments that supports SRT.
4. The proposed experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

Ken Seto
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:19:07 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:48l2t1l3dasjq99m6a7gnql6evir3b6pvs@4ax.com...
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:44:41 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote:



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.

What experiments have shown the BaTh to be wrong?

How about:
1. Light can change speed during transit from the source to the detector?

that's my H-aether effect.

Quote:
2. How about the double slit experiment....if Bath is right there shoud not
be any light and dark fringes?

This experiment is not relate to the BaTh at all.

Quote:
3. How about those experiments that shows that the speed of light is
independent of the motion of the source?

There aren't any believable ones.

Quote:

What experiments have shown your aether exists?

1. The Pound and Rebka experiments.

That convincingly shows that light speeds up as it falls, like anything else.

Quote:
2. The double slit experiment.

Shows that photons have finite cross-sections...nought to do with 'aether'.

Quote:
3. All the experiments that supports SRT.

Not one exists.

Quote:
4. The proposed experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

They are only proposed....no poit in discussing them

Quote:

Ken Seto



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:00:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote


What experiments have shown the BaTh to be wrong?

No experiments have ever shown the BaTh to be wrong. Of
course, it's far from clear what BaTh is anyway; it's
so nebulous it's very difficult to shoot at.

Not so Ghost. It's quite simple and specific.
Light move initially at c wrt its source.

I have added the condition that its speed may vary slightly over vast distances
of space.

Quote:
(This in contrast to such efforts as Newtonian Ballistic Theory,
or nBaT, which is easily falsified by Sagnac and Pound-Rebka,
or even classical rigid luminiferous aether theory, which is
falsified by MMX.)

What are you talking about Ghost.
Pound -Rebka PROVES the BaTh correct.

If you do the fairly simple sums you will find it gives exactly the observed
bueshift.

I have now provided several reasons why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh.

Quote:
What experiments have shown your aether exists?

Please. Kenseto's stuff is not aether. It's the E-matrix.
Or something like that. Smile

Call it what you like....same stuff really...

Quote:

[.sigsnip]


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:03 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:

[snip]

Quote:

What are you talking about Ghost.
Pound -Rebka PROVES the BaTh correct.

Neither emitter nor reciever were moving in Pound-Rebka.

[snip]
Back to top
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:00 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:44:53 GMT
<qgh5t1tg56hpvnbfsgre9u3a3jt9ud8tpl@4ax.com>:
Quote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:00:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote


What experiments have shown the BaTh to be wrong?

No experiments have ever shown the BaTh to be wrong. Of
course, it's far from clear what BaTh is anyway; it's
so nebulous it's very difficult to shoot at.

Not so Ghost. It's quite simple and specific.
Light move initially at c wrt its source.

It also moves at c wrt its receiver, according to SR.
GR states the same thing though there are some minor
anomalies with respect to measurement, mostly because
of the variability of the ticks between source and
destination. (The anomalies are at most on the order of
10^-15 or so, if my computations are correct.)

Quote:

I have added the condition that its speed may vary
slightly over vast distances of space.

(This in contrast to such efforts as Newtonian Ballistic Theory,
or nBaT, which is easily falsified by Sagnac and Pound-Rebka,
or even classical rigid luminiferous aether theory, which is
falsified by MMX.)

What are you talking about Ghost.
Pound -Rebka PROVES the BaTh correct.

It proves nothing of the sort. At best, it is
consistent with BaTh. I'm not even sure about
that; Newtonian BaT theory is easily shown to
require (1 + 2gh/c^2), but GR asserts (1 + gh/c^2).

Quote:

If you do the fairly simple sums you will find it
gives exactly the observed bueshift.

Already done. What is the observed blueshift?

Quote:

I have now provided several reasons why Sagnac
DOES NOT refute the BaTh.

Sagnac is another matter entirely. Absolute time
theories (including Newtonian Ballistic) cannot explain
it at all. I don't know if BaTh can.

SR doesn't do too badly, though the centripetal force
might throw it for a bit of a loop if one's not careful.

Quote:

What experiments have shown your aether exists?

Please. Kenseto's stuff is not aether. It's the E-matrix.
Or something like that. :-)

Call it what you like....same stuff really...


[.sigsnip]


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm




--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Back to top
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:32 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:

Quote:
That convincingly shows that light speeds up as it falls, like anything
else.

"c" is inherently a velocity neutral velocity: A speed neutral speed. You
just can't picture such a neutral existing. That's all there is to it.

GLB
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 12 of 13 [192 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12, 13 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:35 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts By request "Anti-gravity" Sue... Relativity 0 Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:49 pm
No new posts Anti-relativists in an IOP article - recognise names Phineas T Puddleduck Relativity 11 Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:34 pm
No new posts TURMEL: Saba defends Dempsey's anti-bank class action fraud John Turmel Engineering 1 Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:45 am
No new posts TURMEL: Dempsey's anti-bank class action is a fraud John Turmel Engineering 1 Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:50 am
No new posts Making anti-static carpet spray? mc Chem 24 Sun May 28, 2006 11:59 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0779s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0267s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]