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
This is What Einstein Actually Did.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 35 of 37 [553 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Next
Author Message
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:50 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152796128.748335.155640@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152719783.086592.56610@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...


but then you said that the you used the scope to measure the flight time

Yes, I used an instrument to measure (tA'-tA).

Then I used an independent measurement of 2AB.

and you admitted that your procedure is not very accurate.

Of course not. But others, including Michelson, have done the
experiment much more accurately. There are now ample
references to such experiments in this thread.

But none of those references ( including yours) that used the d/t procedure
gave a constant value for light speed.

What the heck does that mean?

You mean if I report that I measure the speed of light
to be 299792000+-500 m/sec, that somehow isn't a
number in your book? It isn't constant? Do my lab
notebooks change when I'm not looking? Not constant
in what sense?

Quote:
You used a scope to measure time and the flight time is by eyeballing. Also
the calibration of the grid on the scope is not known and the error of the
error calculation is not known.

What would make you say either of those things? The scope
calibration is known, the error is known. That's a skill taught
to every lab student. They're supposed to put error bars on
their calculations.

Just because you can't imagine that, doesn't make it impossible.

Quote:
(3) Divide 2AB by (tA'-tA).

That's why you didn't get consistent result for light speed.

I didn't? What makes you say that? Inconsistent with what?
For one thing, I didn't tell you what numbers the students
got, so how can you draw that conclusion? For another,
generally the results were consistent with the published
value.

Have you studied Figure 6 yet and figured out that all the
results in the last 150 years or so are consistent?

- Randy
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:23 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:

Never been done that give a constant value for light speed. If you said
that's because different experiuments have different errorbars then what
theory and assumptions that they used to calculate the errorbars?

For that information, you will have to look up and study in detail the
papers referenced. It simply is not worthwhile to explain that in
detail on a newsgroup. Don't be lazy. Do the work.

Quote:

You used a scope to measure time and the flight time is by eyeballing. Also
the calibration of the grid on the scope is not known and the error of the
error calculation is not known.


Don't be silly. The calibration of the grid on the scope is indeed
known. It is calibrated at the factory, and those specs come in the
manual that comes with the scope and it is easy for the customer to
check those specs with a calibration reference themselves. You can
peruse some samples here: http://www.tek.com/products/oscilloscopes/.

PD
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 14 Jul 2006 10:52:46 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Sorcerer wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > Androcles.
|
| Calculated?

Yes, calculated.


| Now if you have a 4 mile ring,

Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
a cosmic muon and a photon.

Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
difference arises. Unless you want to say what you've said before --
something to the effect of "How the hell do I know what makes them
different? They just ARE different, and that's the boondoggle that
folks should be working hard to figure out, rather than wasting their
time on this relativity crap." Maybe at the same time, they'll figure
out how cosmic muons with a gamma of 5 or 500 can leave the same energy
deposit in a piece of scintillator and yet both be slowed to just under
c by the same piece of scintillator, right?

Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Atmospheric muons originate in elastic collisions and can easily start out at
Quote:
c wrt the Earth's surface.

PD


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:19 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 11 Jul 2006 09:57:17 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 10 Jul 2006 16:48:45 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:48:35 -0400, "AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote:


"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message

It either is the Doppler effect, or it isn't.

This is roughly the theory.

Light leaves its source at speed c, wrt that source. The 'distance between
wavecrests' is absolute.

Light is made up of em waves, each of which travel at c.

Silly claim...

That's your unsupported opinion, Henri, and you know
what those are worth.

Well you could have just as easily said, "EM is made up light waves, each of
which travels at c".
What's this bloody 'wave' supposed to mean anyway?

Not so. Light is made up of em waves, not t'other way round.

I don't know why you ask about waves, since you should know
that light propagates in a spherical fashion from its source as
successive waves of em energy.
Quote:

The distance between each wave is not relevant here.

Light is made of single photons that are emitted when a charge undergoes an
energy transition.

No, sorry, but light is made up of successive em waves
emanating from a source in a spherical manner that
interact with DM particles to create light.

Tom, when a single electron changes 'orbits' a single photon is released.

No need for your 'succesive EM waves' or anything else.

Not entirely true. Your single photon is a particle that you

cannot explain in any other way than the way my model
describes the creation of light. I agree that a single photon
is "released" when an electron falls back to a lower energy
level within its atom, or rather, that it appears that way.

Yet, when you explain light as a single photon, you are
ignoring the part of it that is a wave in light. Light is
"dual-natured", composed of both waves and particles. You
can ignore either part of it to some degree, but you cannot
exclude it because sooner or later it gets in the way of your
explanation. My explanation has it both ways in one.
Quote:

What is the 'wave' in a single photon, Tom?

Simple. It is the em wave that is interacting with that
given photon at the instant of its creation.

Well, that's a new one....

It's new to you, but I've been saying that here since 1996.

Where have you been all that time? The only way to
explain the dual nature of light is that of my model that
has light as the result of an interaction between an em
wave and a virtual photon particle - i.e., an invisible DM
particle. The em wave carries energy that it imparts to
a DM particle when it collides with it as the wave moves
through space. The DM particle thus acquires positive
energy briefly as the wave moves through it, then it goes
back to being invisible.

Each em wave "lights up" the DM particles as it moves
through the medium of DM particles, and each one moves
so fast that they light up the universe for us.
Quote:

All light
traveling in any one particular direction tends towards a common speed.

No. The theory plainly states that all light moves at c, period.
It says nothing about direction nor about tending toward a
common speed.

Nothing moves at c, a, b or d, period.

Things can move at c, a, b, and d RELATIVE TO OTHER OBJECTS.

So you deny there is motion unless and until there are
other objects by which to compare them? Newton's
sole object in his Law 1 does not exist?

Yes. Everything is at rest in its own frame.

Not Newton's sole particle, which can be at rest or in motion

all by itself in its own frame.
Quote:

Newton usually assumed the Earth's surface to be the absolute reference.

You mean he thought the earth is the center of the universe?

What you really mean to say by your statement above
is that the speed of objects can only be MEASURED
by comparison relative to other objects. Right?

Of course. Any object has an infinite number of speeds at any instant, each one
equated relative to a differently moving object.

But it is only necessary to compare it with other objects when

obtaining some measurement, otherwise, we know they move
in the universe whether or not we compare them with another
object or consider them to be alone in their own frame, right?

IOWs, we acknowledge that even in their own frame where
they appear to be at rest, they are not really at rest, they are
instead moving along within the expansion process of the
universe, right?
Quote:

All speed changes are accompanied by absolute wavelength shifts....so the
observed doppler in starlight is still a true indicator of their source's speed
wrt Earth.

No. Doppler shifts do not indicate the speed of an object, they
indicate changes in directions. Once you have a good notion
of an object's speed, you could then possibly determine changes
in the speed.

You are raving...

That is again your personal and unsupported opinion....

Which has never failed....

Until now, that is. What cheek you exhibit.

Again, however, that is another subject and not
relevant to this topic. BTW, Henri, there is no such thing as
"absolute wavelength shifts" because the term "absolute" is used
to mean something fundamental or independent, or perhaps an
ideal, like absolute zero temperature.

Theoretically, it would be possible to connect the 'wavecrests' of a light ray
with minute rods of fixed absolute length. Like all rigid rods, they are the
same absolute length in all frames.

There are no "light rays", unless you refer to the rays of
coherent light. What appear to be light rays are light
that has been altered from its original spherical shape.

What about a fine laser beam?

That is coherent light, Henri, didn't you know that?
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:31 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152796128.748335.155640@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152719783.086592.56610@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...


but then you said that the you used the scope to measure the flight time

Yes, I used an instrument to measure (tA'-tA).

Then I used an independent measurement of 2AB.

and you admitted that your procedure is not very accurate.

Of course not. But others, including Michelson, have done the
experiment much more accurately. There are now ample
references to such experiments in this thread.

But none of those references ( including yours) that used the d/t procedure
gave a constant value for light speed.

What the heck does that mean?

You mean if I report that I measure the speed of light
to be 299792000+-500 m/sec, that somehow isn't a
number in your book? It isn't constant? Do my lab
notebooks change when I'm not looking? Not constant
in what sense?

No that's not what I said. I said that the speed of light measured with
the procedure of d/t gave different values as shown in the table. This
could be that the d/t procedure reveal the affect of absolute motion.
It is noteworthy that the procedure that uses lambda*wavelength to
determine light speed gave very consistent result. The reason is that
such a procedure avoid the affect of absolute motion of the detector.

Quote:

You used a scope to measure time and the flight time is by eyeballing. Also
the calibration of the grid on the scope is not known and the error of the
error calculation is not known.

What would make you say either of those things? The scope
calibration is known, the error is known. That's a skill taught
to every lab student. They're supposed to put error bars on
their calculations.

What theory and assumption they use to calibrate the scope?? I bet they
used SR and the SR assumption that the leading edge of a light ray will
hit the detector.

Ken Seto
>
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:57 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152796128.748335.155640@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152719783.086592.56610@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...


but then you said that the you used the scope to measure the flight time

Yes, I used an instrument to measure (tA'-tA).

Then I used an independent measurement of 2AB.

and you admitted that your procedure is not very accurate.

Of course not. But others, including Michelson, have done the
experiment much more accurately. There are now ample
references to such experiments in this thread.

But none of those references ( including yours) that used the d/t procedure
gave a constant value for light speed.

What the heck does that mean?

You mean if I report that I measure the speed of light
to be 299792000+-500 m/sec, that somehow isn't a
number in your book? It isn't constant? Do my lab
notebooks change when I'm not looking? Not constant
in what sense?

No that's not what I said. I said that the speed of light measured with
the procedure of d/t gave different values as shown in the table.

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. I'll ask once again which
measurements you think are inconsistent with the current
value of c.

- Randy
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:40 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 14 Jul 2006 10:52:46 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Sorcerer wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > Androcles.
|
| Calculated?

Yes, calculated.


| Now if you have a 4 mile ring,

Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
a cosmic muon and a photon.

Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
difference arises. Unless you want to say what you've said before --
something to the effect of "How the hell do I know what makes them
different? They just ARE different, and that's the boondoggle that
folks should be working hard to figure out, rather than wasting their
time on this relativity crap." Maybe at the same time, they'll figure
out how cosmic muons with a gamma of 5 or 500 can leave the same energy
deposit in a piece of scintillator and yet both be slowed to just under
c by the same piece of scintillator, right?

Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

Quote:

Atmospheric muons originate in elastic collisions and can easily start out at
c wrt the Earth's surface.

PD


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:47 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 14 Jul 2006 23:19:10 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 09:57:17 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:



Well you could have just as easily said, "EM is made up light waves, each of
which travels at c".
What's this bloody 'wave' supposed to mean anyway?

Not so. Light is made up of em waves, not t'other way round.
I don't know why you ask about waves, since you should know
that light propagates in a spherical fashion from its source as
successive waves of em energy.

A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.


Quote:
No, sorry, but light is made up of successive em waves
emanating from a source in a spherical manner that
interact with DM particles to create light.

Tom, when a single electron changes 'orbits' a single photon is released.

No need for your 'succesive EM waves' or anything else.

Not entirely true. Your single photon is a particle that you
cannot explain in any other way than the way my model
describes the creation of light. I agree that a single photon
is "released" when an electron falls back to a lower energy
level within its atom, or rather, that it appears that way.

Yet, when you explain light as a single photon, you are
ignoring the part of it that is a wave in light. Light is
"dual-natured", composed of both waves and particles. You
can ignore either part of it to some degree, but you cannot
exclude it because sooner or later it gets in the way of your
explanation. My explanation has it both ways in one.

my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists. They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.The frequency of a radio
signal is not directly related to this intrinsic frequency although it is
likely that all photons in a generated signal interact so they oscillate in
some kind of common phase.

Quote:
What is the 'wave' in a single photon, Tom?

Simple. It is the em wave that is interacting with that
given photon at the instant of its creation.

Well, that's a new one....

It's new to you, but I've been saying that here since 1996.
Where have you been all that time? The only way to
explain the dual nature of light is that of my model that
has light as the result of an interaction between an em
wave and a virtual photon particle - i.e., an invisible DM
particle. The em wave carries energy that it imparts to
a DM particle when it collides with it as the wave moves
through space. The DM particle thus acquires positive
energy briefly as the wave moves through it, then it goes
back to being invisible.

Each em wave "lights up" the DM particles as it moves
through the medium of DM particles, and each one moves
so fast that they light up the universe for us.

I that why the universe appears black? Now I know....


Quote:
Things can move at c, a, b, and d RELATIVE TO OTHER OBJECTS.

So you deny there is motion unless and until there are
other objects by which to compare them? Newton's
sole object in his Law 1 does not exist?

Yes. Everything is at rest in its own frame.

Not Newton's sole particle, which can be at rest or in motion
all by itself in its own frame.

.....Another new one........

Quote:

Newton usually assumed the Earth's surface to be the absolute reference.

You mean he thought the earth is the center of the universe?

No. I didn't say that.

Quote:
What you really mean to say by your statement above
is that the speed of objects can only be MEASURED
by comparison relative to other objects. Right?

Of course. Any object has an infinite number of speeds at any instant, each one
equated relative to a differently moving object.

But it is only necessary to compare it with other objects when
obtaining some measurement, otherwise, we know they move
in the universe whether or not we compare them with another
object or consider them to be alone in their own frame, right?

No Tom. Speed only exists as a relative quantity.

Quote:
IOWs, we acknowledge that even in their own frame where
they appear to be at rest, they are not really at rest, they are
instead moving along within the expansion process of the
universe, right?

The universe is not expanding.


Quote:
You are raving...

That is again your personal and unsupported opinion....

Which has never failed....

Until now, that is. What cheek you exhibit.

You are raving mad...
Worse than Seto..


Quote:
There are no "light rays", unless you refer to the rays of
coherent light. What appear to be light rays are light
that has been altered from its original spherical shape.

What about a fine laser beam?

That is coherent light, Henri, didn't you know that?

It is stil a light beam.


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:52 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 15 Jul 2006 11:40:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 10:52:46 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Sorcerer wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > Androcles.
|
| Calculated?

Yes, calculated.


| Now if you have a 4 mile ring,

Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
a cosmic muon and a photon.

Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
difference arises. Unless you want to say what you've said before --
something to the effect of "How the hell do I know what makes them
different? They just ARE different, and that's the boondoggle that
folks should be working hard to figure out, rather than wasting their
time on this relativity crap." Maybe at the same time, they'll figure
out how cosmic muons with a gamma of 5 or 500 can leave the same energy
deposit in a piece of scintillator and yet both be slowed to just under
c by the same piece of scintillator, right?

Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

It doesn't exists because they aren't accelerated between two electrodes, ie.
between the plates of a capacitor.

Quote:
Atmospheric muons originate in elastic collisions and can easily start out at
c wrt the Earth's surface.

PD


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:00 am    Post subject: Re: SMAL DICK ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET Reply with quote

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:12:02 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:

Quote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.10.03.02.15.617899@earthlink.net...
| On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:26:23 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
|
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.09.16.34.53.177334@earthlink.net...
| > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:46:28 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2006.07.08.20.50.50.727239@earthlink.net...
| > | > | Pedant Point: TWLS=c and OWLS isotropic would indeed be more or
less
| > | > | sufficient, and I believe this has been done in two separate
| > | > | experiments.
| > |
| > |
| > | > Pedant point: It is physically impossible to go two ways.
| > | > Therefore
| > your
| > | > belief is faith, not fact, and it is fact that you are a fucking
| > | > idiot. Androcles
| > |
| > | Please explain the procedure of "going two ways" and why it is
| > | impossible.
|
| > There isn't procedure, that's why it is impossible. Try it. Take a
| > step forward
| > as you take a step back. Then put on your strait-jacket and take your
| > medication.
| > The velocity of light, c, is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA. A
| > mathematician would call that "undefined" and say AB/(tB-tA) = c. A
| > shithead would build cuckoo transformations out of it and pretend he
knew
| > mathematics, like this:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
|
| The speed of light in a TWLS is 0, according to your logic.

And according to the definition of a vector.

| The same
| logic would require that a person traveling from NY to Boston back to NY
| would also have an average speed of 0.
|
Tell us, what is the speed of a person that travelled from NY to NY,
starting at t_NY and ending at t'_NY, given that there are no clocks in
Boston
and his wristwatch is unreliable?
Answer: You haven't the faintest idea. You have insufficient information.
It is UNDEFINED.

No, it's zero.

Proof:

event 1: (0,0)
event 2: (0,t)

where t is unknown. The velocity is d/t; since t is unknown but greater
than zero, that yields 0.

Now, a more reasonable sort would probably include as an intermediate
event

event 1A: (d, t/2)

and thereby work out that the average speed is nonzero (if unknown),
but never mind.

Quote:
Constant velocities do not contain a reversal of direction, and speed is
the magnitude
of velocity.

In a circular orbit, is the speed constant?

Quote:
Try to understand: Einstein ASSUMES the time of arrival in Boston is half
of (t'_NY-t_NY) +t_NY. For everyday purposes that assumption is reasonable
(if imprecise),

Actually, it depends on one's assumptions. For instance, one might direct
the light beam through a tube of water on outbound, and through a tube of
flint glass on inbound.

Quote:
but in rigorous mathematics assumptions are definitely out of order.
Einstein didn't understand differentiation either. He reduces the distance
from
NY to Boston to zero. "Hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally small". It
is impossible to differentiate (ie find the slope) at a discontinuity. He
is violating the rules of mathematics. You cannot tell me the person
taking the trip to Boston and back takes 2 hours,
therefore he takes 1 hour one way. That's a strawman and I can bowl it
over easily.

Noted. However, one might take into account the fact that the MMX showed
no anisotropies as it was rotated between measurements.

Quote:
It takes 59 minutes one way and 61 minutes the other, both by the clock at
Boston and the traveller's wristwatch. Why? Because Einstein says
himself,
x' /(c-v), x'/(c+v), which are clearly different times. Then he plays his
frame-hopping
game and pretend to use rigorour math, bur we really don't care what the
time
is by a photon's wristwatch.

Here's a thought for you. Assume a canoe is traveling 10 m/s
(relative to the water) along a river that is moving 1 m/s. There are two
posts in the river, 100 m apart. In a nearby lake a second canoe is also
traveling 10 m/s between two posts in the water, 100 m apart.

In the river context, the canoe going from post 1 to post 2 will take
100/11 seconds. If one assumes an instantaneous turnaround time, then
going back from post to post 1 will take 100/9 seconds.

Total roundtrip time: 100/11 + 100/9 = (11+9)*100/(99) = 2000/99 seconds.

In still water, the roundtrip time is simply 2 * 100/10 = 2000/100 seconds.

As you can see, the first canoe will take slightly longer, at least given
the parameters of this thought-experiment.

If one takes a third canoe and two posts 100 m apart with the canoe going
crosswise to the river, one gets 2000/(10*sqrt(101)) seconds, as the canoe
is traveling along the hypotenuse of a right triangle if one plots its
course relative to the river.

This is of course a variant of the old "headwind/tailwind/crabwind"
problem, and it's quite clear that it's going to take longer to make a
trip in a headwind, tailwind, or crosswind (or, if one prefers, with the
current, against the current, or across the current) than it would in
still air or water -- or, for that matter, unmoving luminiferous aether.

And of course MMX was designed to measure two canoes at once (one might
contemplate, for instance, mounting five posts in a gigantic wheel within
the river; the fifth post is at the center of the wheel -- and the canoes
are racing through different paths).

That it measured no difference was very surprising, and lead to Einstein's
"fraudulent" theory, which was vehemently objected to at the time, but
slowly gained acceptance as alternative explanations were discarded.

This may be because scientists were desperate for grant money, and quite
willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money. After
all, look at the profligate waste of the Texas Superconducting
Supercollider (it would have been cheaper to mothball it!).

However, I for one think scientists are a little more reasonable than
that. :-)

Quote:

Einstein wants to use the everyday approximation of 1 hour and then say
he's
being precise, and he is LYING. The guy was simply a buffoon who didn't
know
what he was doing or he was a malicious huckster who did.
Either way, relativity is crap, and you arguing a case for it is belief,
faith.
I'd be facetious and say "by your logic", but you have no logic.

I'm assuming, therefore, that you have a coherent explanation for various
phenomena which SR and GR explain well. Stating that Einstein's
computations were fraudulent doesn't cut it without alternatives that can
show various phenomena that are well-documented in the scientific
literature.

Put it to the test, if you want; describe an experiment which shows a
result that SR and GR cannot predict.

[rest snipped]

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:02 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 14 Jul 2006 23:19:10 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 09:57:17 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:



Well you could have just as easily said, "EM is made up light waves, each of
which travels at c".
What's this bloody 'wave' supposed to mean anyway?

Not so. Light is made up of em waves, not t'other way round.
I don't know why you ask about waves, since you should know
that light propagates in a spherical fashion from its source as
successive waves of em energy.

A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

What you're talking about is measurement of a wave, but that is

not an em wave, that is a graphical representation of a wave. A
wave is a disturbance of the medium through which it moves. In
the case of em waves, they are waves of em energy emanating
from a heat source and moving through their medium.
Quote:

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.

In such a case, you plot the interaction of an em wave with a

Dark Matter particle at the instant of collision. Assume that the
following is a graphical representation of what I just said:
) ) = Parts of the em waves moving through the medium of DM.
O = A DM particle having negative mass and no energy.
Below is an em wave moving toward DM particles. Since the
DM medium is everywhere in space, the very first em wave from
its source moves through the DM medium. It cannot do otherwise.
) O O O
The em waves move in succession through the same DM particles
and "light them up" each time they go through them. I cannot show
that here, so think of each em wave having crashed into each DM
particle just behind it instead of already having passed it:
O ) O ) O ) O )
At that instant, energy from the em wave is imparted to the DM
particle, causing it to become transformed into a real matter (RM)
particle from the virtual particle it was as DM, and in so doing, the
photon is created and it is visible to us because it has positive
energy and mass now, but just for an instant. As the wave passes
through, the photon reverts back to an DM negative mass, no
energy particle. That, IMHO, is how light is created.
Quote:

No, sorry, but light is made up of successive em waves
emanating from a source in a spherical manner that
interact with DM particles to create light.

Tom, when a single electron changes 'orbits' a single photon is released.

No need for your 'succesive EM waves' or anything else.

Not entirely true. Your single photon is a particle that you
cannot explain in any other way than the way my model
describes the creation of light. I agree that a single photon
is "released" when an electron falls back to a lower energy
level within its atom, or rather, that it appears that way.

Yet, when you explain light as a single photon, you are
ignoring the part of it that is a wave in light. Light is
"dual-natured", composed of both waves and particles. You
can ignore either part of it to some degree, but you cannot
exclude it because sooner or later it gets in the way of your
explanation. My explanation has it both ways in one.

my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists.

That is the same as my model has it, so how is yours better?

They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.

So do mine, so what's different or better there? My model

argues that photons have mass, and for a particle to be
able to oscillate, it must have some mass. What do you
say about that?
Quote:

The frequency of a radio
signal is not directly related to this intrinsic frequency although it is
likely that all photons in a generated signal interact so they oscillate in
some kind of common phase.

What is the 'wave' in a single photon, Tom?

Simple. It is the em wave that is interacting with that
given photon at the instant of its creation.

Well, that's a new one....

It's new to you, but I've been saying that here since 1996.
Where have you been all that time? The only way to
explain the dual nature of light is that of my model that
has light as the result of an interaction between an em
wave and a virtual photon particle - i.e., an invisible DM
particle. The em wave carries energy that it imparts to
a DM particle when it collides with it as the wave moves
through space. The DM particle thus acquires positive
energy briefly as the wave moves through it, then it goes
back to being invisible.

Each em wave "lights up" the DM particles as it moves
through the medium of DM particles, and each one moves
so fast that they light up the universe for us.

I that why the universe appears black? Now I know....

Yes, that does logically follow what I said.

Things can move at c, a, b, and d RELATIVE TO OTHER OBJECTS.

So you deny there is motion unless and until there are
other objects by which to compare them? Newton's
sole object in his Law 1 does not exist?

Yes. Everything is at rest in its own frame.

Not Newton's sole particle, which can be at rest or in motion
all by itself in its own frame.

....Another new one........


Newton usually assumed the Earth's surface to be the absolute reference.

You mean he thought the earth is the center of the universe?

No. I didn't say that.

What you really mean to say by your statement above
is that the speed of objects can only be MEASURED
by comparison relative to other objects. Right?

Of course. Any object has an infinite number of speeds at any instant, each one
equated relative to a differently moving object.

But it is only necessary to compare it with other objects when
obtaining some measurement, otherwise, we know they move
in the universe whether or not we compare them with another
object or consider them to be alone in their own frame, right?

No Tom. Speed only exists as a relative quantity.

Yes, but only because speed is a measurement of the rate of

motion and as such it is only a number. However, the motion
is real and not just a math construct like its speed, and that you
cannot really deny, can you?
Quote:

IOWs, we acknowledge that even in their own frame where
they appear to be at rest, they are not really at rest, they are
instead moving along within the expansion process of the
universe, right?

The universe is not expanding.

I had not heard of that since AE propounded a static universe.

You are raving...

That is again your personal and unsupported opinion....

Which has never failed....

Until now, that is. What cheek you exhibit.

You are raving mad...
Worse than Seto..

For someone who thinks the universe is static, you're a fine

one to say that....
Quote:

There are no "light rays", unless you refer to the rays of
coherent light. What appear to be light rays are light
that has been altered from its original spherical shape.

What about a fine laser beam?

That is coherent light, Henri, didn't you know that?

It is stil a light beam.


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:51 am    Post subject: Re: SMAL DICK ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET Reply with quote

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.01.31.05.924006@earthlink.net...
| On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:12:02 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.10.03.02.15.617899@earthlink.net...
| > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:26:23 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2006.07.09.16.34.53.177334@earthlink.net...
| > | > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:46:28 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
| > | > | > news:pan.2006.07.08.20.50.50.727239@earthlink.net...
| > | > | > | Pedant Point: TWLS=c and OWLS isotropic would indeed be more
or
| > less
| > | > | > | sufficient, and I believe this has been done in two separate
| > | > | > | experiments.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Pedant point: It is physically impossible to go two ways.
| > | > | > Therefore
| > | > your
| > | > | > belief is faith, not fact, and it is fact that you are a fucking
| > | > | > idiot. Androcles
| > | > |
| > | > | Please explain the procedure of "going two ways" and why it is
| > | > | impossible.
| > | >
| > | > There isn't procedure, that's why it is impossible. Try it. Take a
| > | > step forward
| > | > as you take a step back. Then put on your strait-jacket and take
your
| > | > medication.
| > | > The velocity of light, c, is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA. A
| > | > mathematician would call that "undefined" and say AB/(tB-tA) = c. A
| > | > shithead would build cuckoo transformations out of it and pretend he
| > knew
| > | > mathematics, like this:
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| > |
| > | The speed of light in a TWLS is 0, according to your logic.
| >
| > And according to the definition of a vector.
| >
| > | The same
| > | logic would require that a person traveling from NY to Boston back to
NY
| > | would also have an average speed of 0.
| > |
| > Tell us, what is the speed of a person that travelled from NY to NY,
| > starting at t_NY and ending at t'_NY, given that there are no clocks in
| > Boston
| > and his wristwatch is unreliable?
| > Answer: You haven't the faintest idea. You have insufficient
information.
| > It is UNDEFINED.
|
| No, it's zero.


Ok, you make my point. In Einstein's theory, the speed of light is zero
according to Ghost. Case closed.



|
| Proof:
|
| event 1: (0,0)
| event 2: (0,t)
|
| where t is unknown. The velocity is d/t; since t is unknown but greater
| than zero, that yields 0.


Ok, case confirmed closed. Well done for providing a proof of c = 0.

Good enough for physics, although to a mathematician we have:
event 2: (0,0)




|
| Now, a more reasonable sort would probably include as an intermediate
| event
|
| event 1A: (d, t/2)
|
| and thereby work out that the average speed is nonzero (if unknown),



An even more reasonable mathematician would definitely include as
an extrapolation of the intermediate event:

event 1B: (d+delta d, t/2+delta t) where delta>0.

c = [f(d) - f(d+h)]/ h = -300,000km/sec

| but never mind.

You should mind. c is negative by your "reasonable sort" reasoning. I
wish you'd make up your unreasonable mind and prove c = the
set {300,000, 0, -300,000} instead of handwaving.

I call that UNDEFINED, but never mind, I'll settle for c = 0 as a
compromise
to be a reasonable sort.

Oh wait.... you said AVERAGE speed. So you are right, it is zero.



| > Constant velocities do not contain a reversal of direction, and speed is
| > the magnitude
| > of velocity.
|
| In a circular orbit, is the speed constant?

Your question is ambiguous.
The instantaneous speed is the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity.
The instantaneous velocity is not constant, therefore the speed is not
constant.
The average is zero. You did ask for average, right?
Now if you want the angular speed you can use the angular velocity,
measured in radians/sec, not fps.

If you want to include rotating frames of reference, use a rotating
coordinate
system and don't call it "inertial."

Y'know, your concept of "reasonable" is "be persuaded by the unreasonable",
and your examples are non sequitur. You've gone from c = 0 to average c to
c in water and flint glass to c going round in circles. You are not
succeeding
in your persuasions.
You are not reasonable. You are fuckin' unreasonable, and we haven't even
gotten past 2AB/(t'A-tA) yet, let alone the cuckoo transformations.





|
| > Try to understand: Einstein ASSUMES the time of arrival in Boston is
half
| > of (t'_NY-t_NY) +t_NY. For everyday purposes that assumption is
reasonable
| > (if imprecise),
|
| Actually, it depends on one's assumptions.


Mathematicians do not make assumptions, mathematicians prove.
Physicists make assumptions. The worst assumption a physicist
makes is that he understands mathematics.

| For instance, one might direct
| the light beam through a tube of water on outbound, and through a tube of
| flint glass on inbound.

Non sequitur, das Licht im leeren Raume was stated. It isn't possible for a
reasonable sort to assume flint glass or water.
You are fucked, c = { 300,000, 0, -300,000 }, average zero.




| > but in rigorous mathematics assumptions are definitely out of order.
| > Einstein didn't understand differentiation either. He reduces the
distance
| > from
| > NY to Boston to zero. "Hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally small". It
| > is impossible to differentiate (ie find the slope) at a discontinuity.
He
| > is violating the rules of mathematics. You cannot tell me the person
| > taking the trip to Boston and back takes 2 hours,
| > therefore he takes 1 hour one way. That's a strawman and I can bowl it
| > over easily.
|
| Noted. However, one might take into account the fact that the MMX showed
| no anisotropies as it was rotated between measurements.

Yes it did as it was rotated, you didn't look. Rotating MMX is Sagnac.

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

You'd measure the velocity of cars on a toll road at the toll booth, you
would.
You didn't measure, therefore you didn't see. That doesn't mean it didn't
happen,
why should one take into account missing measurements?





|
| > It takes 59 minutes one way and 61 minutes the other, both by the clock
at
| > Boston and the traveller's wristwatch. Why? Because Einstein says
| > himself,
| > x' /(c-v), x'/(c+v), which are clearly different times. Then he plays
his
| > frame-hopping
| > game and pretend to use rigorous math, bur we really don't care what the
| > time
| > is by a photon's wristwatch.
|
| Here's a thought for you. Assume a canoe is traveling 10 m/s
| (relative to the water) along a river that is moving 1 m/s. There are two
| posts in the river, 100 m apart. In a nearby lake a second canoe is also
| traveling 10 m/s between two posts in the water, 100 m apart.
|
| In the river context, the canoe going from post 1 to post 2 will take
| 100/11 seconds. If one assumes an instantaneous turnaround time, then
| going back from post to post 1 will take 100/9 seconds.
|
| Total roundtrip time: 100/11 + 100/9 = (11+9)*100/(99) = 2000/99 seconds.
|
| In still water, the roundtrip time is simply 2 * 100/10 = 2000/100
seconds.
|
| As you can see, the first canoe will take slightly longer, at least given
| the parameters of this thought-experiment.
|
| If one takes a third canoe and two posts 100 m apart with the canoe going
| crosswise to the river, one gets 2000/(10*sqrt(101)) seconds, as the canoe
| is traveling along the hypotenuse of a right triangle if one plots its
| course relative to the river.
|
| This is of course a variant of the old "headwind/tailwind/crabwind"
| problem, and it's quite clear that it's going to take longer to make a
| trip in a headwind, tailwind, or crosswind (or, if one prefers, with the
| current, against the current, or across the current) than it would in
| still air or water -- or, for that matter, unmoving luminiferous aether.
|
| And of course MMX was designed to measure two canoes at once (one might
| contemplate, for instance, mounting five posts in a gigantic wheel within
| the river; the fifth post is at the center of the wheel -- and the canoes
| are racing through different paths).
|
| That it measured no difference was very surprising, and lead to Einstein's
| "fraudulent" theory, which was vehemently objected to at the time, but
| slowly gained acceptance as alternative explanations were discarded.
|
| This may be because scientists were desperate for grant money, and quite
| willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money. After
| all, look at the profligate waste of the Texas Superconducting
| Supercollider (it would have been cheaper to mothball it!).
|
| However, I for one think scientists are a little more reasonable than
| that. :-)

Here's a thought for you.
Physicists are failed mathematicians and greedy bastards without qualms.
Scientists are a little more reasonable than that. Physicists are not
scientists.

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5.3167@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant.

That's someone who calls himself a "physicist", partially responsible
for the relativity FAQs.

This IS because physicists still are desperate for grant money, and quite
willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money.
I'm not a physicist, I'm a mathematician, engineer and astronomer.

BTW, the guy that headed the team that designed the electronics for
Concorde was a civil engineer, I knew him. He knew more about
electronics than bridges because he chose to. What does this tell you?
It tells me he was competent at both, but he wasn't an artist. Bridges
have to do more than span gaps, they have to be beautiful.
Whatever design is submitted, all are expected to function. The
chosen design is the one that pleases aesthetically, and that decision
ultimately rests with someone that doesn't design bridges.

| >
| > Einstein wants to use the everyday approximation of 1 hour and then say
| > he's
| > being precise, and he is LYING. The guy was simply a buffoon who didn't
| > know
| > what he was doing or he was a malicious huckster who did.
| > Either way, relativity is crap, and you arguing a case for it is
belief,
| > faith.
| > I'd be facetious and say "by your logic", but you have no logic.
|
| I'm assuming, therefore, that you have a coherent explanation for various
| phenomena which SR and GR explain well. Stating that Einstein's
| computations were fraudulent doesn't cut it without alternatives that can
| show various phenomena that are well-documented in the scientific
| literature.
|
| Put it to the test, if you want; describe an experiment which shows a
| result that SR and GR cannot predict.

Sure:

1) Sagnac. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
2) V1493 Aql.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:28 am    Post subject: Re: SMAL DICK ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET Reply with quote

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.01.31.05.924006@earthlink.net...
| On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:12:02 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.10.03.02.15.617899@earthlink.net...
| > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:26:23 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2006.07.09.16.34.53.177334@earthlink.net...
| > | > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:46:28 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
| > | > | > news:pan.2006.07.08.20.50.50.727239@earthlink.net...
| > | > | > | Pedant Point: TWLS=c and OWLS isotropic would indeed be more
or
| > less
| > | > | > | sufficient, and I believe this has been done in two separate
| > | > | > | experiments.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Pedant point: It is physically impossible to go two ways.
| > | > | > Therefore
| > | > your
| > | > | > belief is faith, not fact, and it is fact that you are a fucking
| > | > | > idiot. Androcles
| > | > |
| > | > | Please explain the procedure of "going two ways" and why it is
| > | > | impossible.
| > | >
| > | > There isn't procedure, that's why it is impossible. Try it. Take a
| > | > step forward
| > | > as you take a step back. Then put on your strait-jacket and take
your
| > | > medication.
| > | > The velocity of light, c, is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA. A
| > | > mathematician would call that "undefined" and say AB/(tB-tA) = c. A
| > | > shithead would build cuckoo transformations out of it and pretend he
| > knew
| > | > mathematics, like this:
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| > |
| > | The speed of light in a TWLS is 0, according to your logic.
| >
| > And according to the definition of a vector.
| >
| > | The same
| > | logic would require that a person traveling from NY to Boston back to
NY
| > | would also have an average speed of 0.
| > |
| > Tell us, what is the speed of a person that travelled from NY to NY,
| > starting at t_NY and ending at t'_NY, given that there are no clocks in
| > Boston
| > and his wristwatch is unreliable?
| > Answer: You haven't the faintest idea. You have insufficient
information.
| > It is UNDEFINED.
|
| No, it's zero.


Ok, you make my point. In Einstein's theory, the speed of light is zero
according to Ghost. Case closed.

|
| Proof:
|
| event 1: (0,0)
| event 2: (0,t)
|
| where t is unknown. The velocity is d/t; since t is unknown but greater
| than zero, that yields 0.


Ok, case confirmed closed. Well done for providing a proof of c = 0.

Good enough for physics, although to a mathematician we have:
event 2: (0,0)




|
| Now, a more reasonable sort would probably include as an intermediate
| event
|
| event 1A: (d, t/2)
|
| and thereby work out that the average speed is nonzero (if unknown),

A reasonable sort doesn't say "average" when he is asked about "constant".
An even more reasonable mathematician would definitely include as
an extrapolation of the intermediate event:

event 1B: (d+delta d, t/2+delta t) where delta>0.

c = [f(d) - f(d+h)]/ h = -300,000km/sec

| but never mind.

You should mind. c is negative by your "reasonable sort" reasoning. I
wish you'd make up your unreasonable mind and prove c = the
set {300,000, 0, -300,000} instead of handwaving.

I call that UNDEFINED, but never mind, I'll settle for c = 0 as a
compromise to be a reasonable sort.
Oh wait.... you said AVERAGE speed. So you are right, it is zero.



| > Constant velocities do not contain a reversal of direction, and speed is
| > the magnitude
| > of velocity.
|
| In a circular orbit, is the speed constant?

Your question is ambiguous.
The instantaneous speed is the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity.
The instantaneous velocity is not constant, therefore the speed is not
constant.
The average is zero. You did ask for average, right? Average doesn't mean
constant.
Now if you want the angular speed you can use the angular velocity,
measured in radians/sec, not fps.

If you want to include rotating frames of reference, use a rotating
coordinate system and don't call it "inertial."

Y'know, your concept of "reasonable" is "be persuaded by the unreasonable",
and your examples are non sequitur. You've gone from c = 0 to average c to
c in water and flint glass to c going round in circles. You are not
succeeding in your persuasions.
You are not reasonable. You are fuckin' unreasonable, and we haven't even
gotten past 2AB/(t'A-tA) yet, let alone the cuckoo transformations.





|
| > Try to understand: Einstein ASSUMES the time of arrival in Boston is
half
| > of (t'_NY-t_NY) +t_NY. For everyday purposes that assumption is
reasonable
| > (if imprecise),
|
| Actually, it depends on one's assumptions.


Mathematicians do not make assumptions, mathematicians prove.
Physicists make assumptions. The worst assumption a physicist
makes is that he understands mathematics.

| For instance, one might direct
| the light beam through a tube of water on outbound, and through a tube of
| flint glass on inbound.

Non sequitur, das Licht im leeren Raume was stated. It isn't possible for a
reasonable sort to assume flint glass or water.
You are fucked, c is a set of velocities { 300,000, 0, -300,000 }, average
zero.




| > but in rigorous mathematics assumptions are definitely out of order.
| > Einstein didn't understand differentiation either. He reduces the
distance
| > from
| > NY to Boston to zero. "Hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally small". It
| > is impossible to differentiate (ie find the slope) at a discontinuity.
He
| > is violating the rules of mathematics. You cannot tell me the person
| > taking the trip to Boston and back takes 2 hours,
| > therefore he takes 1 hour one way. That's a strawman and I can bowl it
| > over easily.
|
| Noted. However, one might take into account the fact that the MMX showed
| no anisotropies as it was rotated between measurements.

Yes it did as it was rotated, you didn't look. Rotating MMX is Sagnac.

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

You'd measure the velocity of cars on a toll road at the toll booth, you
would.
You didn't measure, therefore you didn't see. That doesn't mean it didn't
happen, why should one take into account missing measurements?

| > It takes 59 minutes one way and 61 minutes the other, both by the clock
at
| > Boston and the traveller's wristwatch. Why? Because Einstein says
| > himself,
| > x' /(c-v), x'/(c+v), which are clearly different times. Then he plays
his
| > frame-hopping
| > game and pretend to use rigorous math, bur we really don't care what the
| > time
| > is by a photon's wristwatch.
|
| Here's a thought for you. Assume a canoe is traveling 10 m/s
| (relative to the water) along a river that is moving 1 m/s. There are two
| posts in the river, 100 m apart. In a nearby lake a second canoe is also
| traveling 10 m/s between two posts in the water, 100 m apart.
|
| In the river context, the canoe going from post 1 to post 2 will take
| 100/11 seconds. If one assumes an instantaneous turnaround time, then
| going back from post to post 1 will take 100/9 seconds.
|
| Total roundtrip time: 100/11 + 100/9 = (11+9)*100/(99) = 2000/99 seconds.
|
| In still water, the roundtrip time is simply 2 * 100/10 = 2000/100
seconds.
|
| As you can see, the first canoe will take slightly longer, at least given
| the parameters of this thought-experiment.
|
| If one takes a third canoe and two posts 100 m apart with the canoe going
| crosswise to the river, one gets 2000/(10*sqrt(101)) seconds, as the canoe
| is traveling along the hypotenuse of a right triangle if one plots its
| course relative to the river.
|
| This is of course a variant of the old "headwind/tailwind/crabwind"
| problem, and it's quite clear that it's going to take longer to make a
| trip in a headwind, tailwind, or crosswind (or, if one prefers, with the
| current, against the current, or across the current) than it would in
| still air or water -- or, for that matter, unmoving luminiferous aether.
|
| And of course MMX was designed to measure two canoes at once (one might
| contemplate, for instance, mounting five posts in a gigantic wheel within
| the river; the fifth post is at the center of the wheel -- and the canoes
| are racing through different paths).
|
| That it measured no difference was very surprising, and lead to Einstein's
| "fraudulent" theory, which was vehemently objected to at the time, but
| slowly gained acceptance as alternative explanations were discarded.
|
| This may be because scientists were desperate for grant money, and quite
| willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money. After
| all, look at the profligate waste of the Texas Superconducting
| Supercollider (it would have been cheaper to mothball it!).
|
| However, I for one think scientists are a little more reasonable than
| that. :-)


Trivial crap about canoes ignored.
Here's a thought for you.

"Scientists" includes biologists, geologists, archeologists, astronomers,
chemists, even surgeons. Just about any discipline that employs the
scientific method.
Mathematics is not science, it is a tool and an art, as the hammer and
chisel
are the tools of the sculptor, the screwdriver is the tool of the
electrican,
the wrench the tool of the mechanic. Mathematics can be use to describe
Nature, it is the lingua franca of science, but we can't create Nature with
math.

Physicists are failed mathematicians and greedy bastards without qualms.
Physicists are not scientists. Scientists are a little more reasonable than
that.

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5.3167@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant.

That's someone who calls himself a "physicist", partially responsible
for the relativity FAQs.
With that single "awshit" Roberts has totally wiped the slate of every
"attaboy" he ever earned. No brownie points left. He's finished, done for,
dead. He may as well go home, he has nothing left to offer.

This IS because physicists still are desperate for grant money, and quite
willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money.

I'm a mathematician, engineer and astronomer, not a physicist, but I
understand physics.

BTW, the guy that headed the team that designed the electronics for
Concorde was a civil engineer, I worked with him. He knew more about
electronics than bridges because he chose to. What does this tell you?
It tells me he was competent at both, but he wasn't an artist. Bridges
have to do more than span gaps, they have to be beautiful.
Whatever design is submitted, all are expected to function. The
chosen design is the one that pleases aesthetically, and that decision
ultimately rests with someone that doesn't design bridges. The bridge
has to hold up mathematically, sure, but it has to look good.

| >
| > Einstein wants to use the everyday approximation of 1 hour and then say
| > he's
| > being precise, and he is LYING. The guy was simply a buffoon who didn't
| > know
| > what he was doing or he was a malicious huckster who did.
| > Either way, relativity is crap, and you arguing a case for it is
belief,
| > faith.
| > I'd be facetious and say "by your logic", but you have no logic.
|
| I'm assuming, therefore, that you have a coherent explanation for various
| phenomena which SR and GR explain well. Stating that Einstein's
| computations were fraudulent doesn't cut it without alternatives that can
| show various phenomena that are well-documented in the scientific
| literature.
|
| Put it to the test, if you want; describe an experiment which shows a
| result that SR and GR cannot predict.

Sure:

1) Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
2) V1493 Aql. Stars do not blow up twice in 3 months.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:57 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 15 Jul 2006 19:02:38 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 23:19:10 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:


Not so. Light is made up of em waves, not t'other way round.
I don't know why you ask about waves, since you should know
that light propagates in a spherical fashion from its source as
successive waves of em energy.

A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

What you're talking about is measurement of a wave, but that is
not an em wave, that is a graphical representation of a wave. A
wave is a disturbance of the medium through which it moves. In
the case of em waves, they are waves of em energy emanating
from a heat source and moving through their medium.

Well I can't really see the connection here between EM, heat sources and waves.

Quote:
I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.

In such a case, you plot the interaction of an em wave with a
Dark Matter particle at the instant of collision. Assume that the
following is a graphical representation of what I just said:
) ) = Parts of the em waves moving through the medium of DM.
O = A DM particle having negative mass and no energy.
Below is an em wave moving toward DM particles. Since the
DM medium is everywhere in space, the very first em wave from
its source moves through the DM medium. It cannot do otherwise.
) O O O
The em waves move in succession through the same DM particles
and "light them up" each time they go through them. I cannot show
that here, so think of each em wave having crashed into each DM
particle just behind it instead of already having passed it:
O ) O ) O ) O )
At that instant, energy from the em wave is imparted to the DM
particle, causing it to become transformed into a real matter (RM)
particle from the virtual particle it was as DM, and in so doing, the
photon is created and it is visible to us because it has positive
energy and mass now, but just for an instant. As the wave passes
through, the photon reverts back to an DM negative mass, no
energy particle. That, IMHO, is how light is created.

Most would think you are plain crazy for expounding such a theory.
I wony condemn you outright because your DM might be something like my second
mass sub-dimension.
I say there are three mass and three time subdimensions. The mass ones are
connected with 'fields' and possibly light.. and the time ones are required to
explain timeflow.
I

Quote:
Not entirely true. Your single photon is a particle that you
cannot explain in any other way than the way my model
describes the creation of light. I agree that a single photon
is "released" when an electron falls back to a lower energy
level within its atom, or rather, that it appears that way.

Yet, when you explain light as a single photon, you are
ignoring the part of it that is a wave in light. Light is
"dual-natured", composed of both waves and particles. You
can ignore either part of it to some degree, but you cannot
exclude it because sooner or later it gets in the way of your
explanation. My explanation has it both ways in one.

my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists.

That is the same as my model has it, so how is yours better?

They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.

So do mine, so what's different or better there? My model
argues that photons have mass, and for a particle to be
able to oscillate, it must have some mass. What do you
say about that?

I see nothing wrong with photons having mass, which I regard as a type of
manifestation of fields. Anything that has physical properties must have a
structure and a structure implies the presence of fields and energy, ie. mass.


Quote:
Each em wave "lights up" the DM particles as it moves
through the medium of DM particles, and each one moves
so fast that they light up the universe for us.

I that why the universe appears black? Now I know....

Yes, that does logically follow what I said.

I was being sarcastic...If it is 'lit up' it wont be black.



Quote:
But it is only necessary to compare it with other objects when
obtaining some measurement, otherwise, we know they move
in the universe whether or not we compare them with another
object or consider them to be alone in their own frame, right?

No Tom. Speed only exists as a relative quantity.

Yes, but only because speed is a measurement of the rate of
motion and as such it is only a number.

No Tom, speed is a measurement of the rate of change of an object's position
relative to another object. We give it a number in terms of our defined
standards.

Quote:
However, the motion
is real and not just a math construct like its speed, and that you
cannot really deny, can you?

Motion is real. Relative speed is also just as real and is certainly not a
maths construct.

Quote:
IOWs, we acknowledge that even in their own frame where
they appear to be at rest, they are not really at rest, they are
instead moving along within the expansion process of the
universe, right?

The universe is not expanding.

I had not heard of that since AE propounded a static universe.

You obviously haven't been listening.

Quote:

You are raving...

That is again your personal and unsupported opinion....

Which has never failed....

Until now, that is. What cheek you exhibit.

You are raving mad...
Worse than Seto..

For someone who thinks the universe is static, you're a fine
one to say that....

Plenty of people know the universe is not expanding into a space that is
expanding into another universe that is expanding into even more expanding
space......etc, etc....




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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:00 pm    Post subject: Re: SMAL DICK ken seto, INTELECTUAL MIDGET Reply with quote

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:51:32 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:

Quote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.16.01.31.05.924006@earthlink.net...
| On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:12:02 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
|
|
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2006.07.10.03.02.15.617899@earthlink.net...
| > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:26:23 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > |
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:pan.2006.07.09.16.34.53.177334@earthlink.net...
| > | > | On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:46:28 +0000, Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill3@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
| > | > | > news:pan.2006.07.08.20.50.50.727239@earthlink.net...
| > | > | > | Pedant Point: TWLS=c and OWLS isotropic would indeed be more
or
| > less
| > | > | > | sufficient, and I believe this has been done in two separate
| > | > | > | experiments.
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > Pedant point: It is physically impossible to go two ways.
| > | > | > Therefore
| > | > your
| > | > | > belief is faith, not fact, and it is fact that you are a
| > | > | > fucking idiot. Androcles
| > | > |
| > | > | Please explain the procedure of "going two ways" and why it is
| > | > | impossible.
| > |
| > | > There isn't procedure, that's why it is impossible. Try it. Take a
| > | > step forward
| > | > as you take a step back. Then put on your strait-jacket and take
your
| > | > medication.
| > | > The velocity of light, c, is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA.
| > | > A mathematician would call that "undefined" and say AB/(tB-tA) =
| > | > c. A shithead would build cuckoo transformations out of it and
| > | > pretend he
| > knew
| > | > mathematics, like this:
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| > |
| > | The speed of light in a TWLS is 0, according to your logic.
|
| > And according to the definition of a vector.
|
| > | The same
| > | logic would require that a person traveling from NY to Boston back
| > | to
NY
| > | would also have an average speed of 0.
| > |
| > Tell us, what is the speed of a person that travelled from NY to NY,
| > starting at t_NY and ending at t'_NY, given that there are no clocks
| > in Boston
| > and his wristwatch is unreliable?
| > Answer: You haven't the faintest idea. You have insufficient
information.
| > It is UNDEFINED.
|
| No, it's zero.


Ok, you make my point. In Einstein's theory, the speed of light is zero
according to Ghost. Case closed.




| Proof:
|
| event 1: (0,0)
| event 2: (0,t)
|
| where t is unknown. The velocity is d/t; since t is unknown but greater
| than zero, that yields 0.


Ok, case confirmed closed. Well done for providing a proof of c = 0.

It's your proof.

Quote:

Good enough for physics, although to a mathematician we have: event 2:
(0,0)





| Now, a more reasonable sort would probably include as an intermediate
| event
|
| event 1A: (d, t/2)
|
| and thereby work out that the average speed is nonzero (if unknown),



An even more reasonable mathematician would definitely include as an
extrapolation of the intermediate event:

event 1B: (d+delta d, t/2+delta t) where delta>0.

c = [f(d) - f(d+h)]/ h = -300,000km/sec

| but never mind.

You should mind. c is negative by your "reasonable sort" reasoning. I wish
you'd make up your unreasonable mind and prove c = the set {300,000, 0,
-300,000} instead of handwaving.

I call that UNDEFINED, but never mind, I'll settle for c = 0 as a
compromise
to be a reasonable sort.

Oh wait.... you said AVERAGE speed. So you are right, it is zero.



| > Constant velocities do not contain a reversal of direction, and speed
| > is the magnitude
| > of velocity.
|
| In a circular orbit, is the speed constant?

Your question is ambiguous.

Is it? I said speed for a reason, not velocity.

Quote:
The instantaneous speed is the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity.
The instantaneous velocity is not constant, therefore the speed is not
constant.

For most orbits, it's not. The circular orbit is a special case, and is
occasionally used because the math is far easier.

Quote:
The average is zero. You did ask for average, right?

No, I simply said speed.

Quote:
Now if you want the angular speed you can use the angular velocity,
measured in radians/sec, not fps.

I said speed for a reason. For a circular orbit, one gets the following
parameters:

s = sqrt(gr)
x = r * cos(t*s/r)
y = r * sin(t*s/r)
v_x = -s * sin(t*s/r)
v_y = s * cos(t*s/r)
z = 0

I'm not sure if there's a concept of "angular velocity"; if there is, it's
probably pointing in the z direction for various weird reasons. The
angular speed is a scalar, and is of course sqrt(gr) / (2*pi*r)
= (1/(2*pi))*sqrt(g/r).

Quote:

If you want to include rotating frames of reference, use a rotating
coordinate
system and don't call it "inertial."

Y'know, your concept of "reasonable" is "be persuaded by the
unreasonable", and your examples are non sequitur. You've gone from c = 0
to average c to c in water and flint glass to c going round in circles.
You are not succeeding
in your persuasions.
You are not reasonable. You are fuckin' unreasonable, and we haven't even
gotten past 2AB/(t'A-tA) yet, let alone the cuckoo transformations.

But it's not 2AB/(t'A-tA). It's (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA). That gives c=0, by
your logic.

Quote:






| > Try to understand: Einstein ASSUMES the time of arrival in Boston is
half
| > of (t'_NY-t_NY) +t_NY. For everyday purposes that assumption is
reasonable
| > (if imprecise),
|
| Actually, it depends on one's assumptions.


Mathematicians do not make assumptions, mathematicians prove.

And mathematical axioms are precisely...what?

Quote:
Physicists make assumptions. The worst assumption a physicist makes
is that he understands mathematics.

Well, there is that issue. Of course, you've measured the speed of light,
right?

Quote:
| For instance, one might direct
| the light beam through a tube of water on outbound, and through a tube
| of flint glass on inbound.

Non sequitur, das Licht im leeren Raume was stated. It isn't possible for
a
reasonable sort to assume flint glass or water.
You are fucked, c = { 300,000, 0, -300,000 }, average zero.

Correct. c=0. This means you can't possibly read my post. :-)

Quote:




| > but in rigorous mathematics assumptions are definitely out of order.
| > Einstein didn't understand differentiation either. He reduces the
distance
| > from
| > NY to Boston to zero. "Hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally small".
| > It is impossible to differentiate (ie find the slope) at a
| > discontinuity.
He
| > is violating the rules of mathematics. You cannot tell me the person
| > taking the trip to Boston and back takes 2 hours, therefore he takes 1
| > hour one way. That's a strawman and I can bowl it over easily.
|
| Noted. However, one might take into account the fact that the MMX
| showed no anisotropies as it was rotated between measurements.

Yes it did as it was rotated, you didn't look. Rotating MMX is Sagnac.

Only if the rotation is done *during the conduction of the measurement*.
AIUI, the general idea was rotate, stop, measure, rotate, stop, measure.

If one does a Sagnac/MMX one indeed sees a difference, and one will see a
delta anyway, since the Earth is revolving around the Sun and rotating
while one is observing the phase shift. However, these elements are much
smaller than the result the scientific types expected.

Quote:

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

You'd measure the velocity of cars on a toll road at the toll booth, you
would.
You didn't measure, therefore you didn't see. That doesn't mean it didn't
happen,
why should one take into account missing measurements?






| > It takes 59 minutes one way and 61 minutes the other, both by the
| > clock
at
| > Boston and the traveller's wristwatch. Why? Because Einstein says
| > himself,
| > x' /(c-v), x'/(c+v), which are clearly different times. Then he plays
his
| > frame-hopping
| > game and pretend to use rigorous math, bur we really don't care what
| > the time
| > is by a photon's wristwatch.
|
| Here's a thought for you. Assume a canoe is traveling 10 m/s (relative
| to the water) along a river that is moving 1 m/s. There are two posts
| in the river, 100 m apart. In a nearby lake a second canoe is also
| traveling 10 m/s between two posts in the water, 100 m apart.
|
| In the river context, the canoe going from post 1 to post 2 will take
| 100/11 seconds. If one assumes an instantaneous turnaround time, then
| going back from post to post 1 will take 100/9 seconds.
|
| Total roundtrip time: 100/11 + 100/9 = (11+9)*100/(99) = 2000/99
| seconds.
|
| In still water, the roundtrip time is simply 2 * 100/10 = 2000/100
seconds.
|
| As you can see, the first canoe will take slightly longer, at least
| given the parameters of this thought-experiment.
|
| If one takes a third canoe and two posts 100 m apart with the canoe
| going crosswise to the river, one gets 2000/(10*sqrt(101)) seconds, as
| the canoe is traveling along the hypotenuse of a right triangle if one
| plots its course relative to the river.
|
| This is of course a variant of the old "headwind/tailwind/crabwind"
| problem, and it's quite clear that it's going to take longer to make a
| trip in a headwind, tailwind, or crosswind (or, if one prefers, with the
| current, against the current, or across the current) than it would in
| still air or water -- or, for that matter, unmoving luminiferous aether.
|
| And of course MMX was designed to measure two canoes at once (one might
| contemplate, for instance, mounting five posts in a gigantic wheel
| within the river; the fifth post is at the center of the wheel -- and
| the canoes are racing through different paths).
|
| That it measured no difference was very surprising, and lead to
| Einstein's "fraudulent" theory, which was vehemently objected to at the
| time, but slowly gained acceptance as alternative explanations were
| discarded.
|
| This may be because scientists were desperate for grant money, and quite
| willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money.
| After all, look at the profligate waste of the Texas Superconducting
| Supercollider (it would have been cheaper to mothball it!).
|
| However, I for one think scientists are a little more reasonable than
| that. :-)

Here's a thought for you.
Physicists are failed mathematicians and greedy bastards without qualms.
Scientists are a little more reasonable than that. Physicists are not
scientists.

Ah, OK. This is an interesting statement. Are you a scientist?

Quote:

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5.3167@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
| irrelevant.

That's someone who calls himself a "physicist", partially responsible for
the relativity FAQs.

This IS because physicists still are desperate for grant money, and quite
willing to perpetrate worldwide fraud in order to gain that money. I'm not
a physicist, I'm a mathematician, engineer and astronomer.

BTW, the guy that headed the team that designed the electronics for
Concorde was a civil engineer, I knew him. He knew more about electronics
than bridges because he chose to. What does this tell you? It tells me he
was competent at both, but he wasn't an artist. Bridges have to do more
than span gaps, they have to be beautiful. Whatever design is submitted,
all are expected to function. The chosen design is the one that pleases
aesthetically, and that decision ultimately rests with someone that
doesn't design bridges.

So you're telling me that physicists are greedy, conniving bastards who
love Einstein because his theory is more beautiful than reality?

Definitely interesting stuff.

Quote:


| > Einstein wants to use the everyday approximation of 1 hour and then
| > say he's
| > being precise, and he is LYING. The guy was simply a buffoon who
| > didn't know
| > what he was doing or he was a malicious huckster who did.
| > Either way, relativity is crap, and you arguing a case for it is
belief,
| > faith.
| > I'd be facetious and say "by your logic", but you have no logic.
|
| I'm assuming, therefore, that you have a coherent explanation for
| various phenomena which SR and GR explain well. Stating that
| Einstein's computations were fraudulent doesn't cut it without
| alternatives that can show various phenomena that are well-documented
| in the scientific literature.
|
| Put it to the test, if you want; describe an experiment which shows a
| result that SR and GR cannot predict.

Sure:

1) Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

GR.

Quote:
2) V1493 Aql.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm

More data required. At best, it's an interesting phenom in its own right,
but only shows one "U" from the double explosion. Are there others?

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 35 of 37 [553 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:24 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 For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2" Tde Relativity 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:10 pm
No new posts "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2" Tde Particle 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:10 pm
No new posts "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2" Tde Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:09 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am

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: 0.4707s ][ Queries: 16 (0.3848s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]