|
|
| Author |
Message |
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 27 Jun 2006 08:46:49 -0700, dwhig265@aol.com wrote:
If the was a big bang, there would be a natural centre about which all vector
momentun would sum to zero. But there wasn't a big bang.
|
Really? What makes you say that?
Say you have a ruler that is expanding, with marks at regular
intervals, and observers parked at each of the marks.
An observer sitting at the mark "3" looks at the mark "4" and notices
that it is receding from him at 0.1 marks/day. The same observer looks
at the mark "6" and notices that it's receding from him at 0.3
marks/day. The same observer looks at the mark "12" and notices that
it's receding from him at 0.9 marks/day. This observer concludes that
the marks at 4, 6, and 12 were all at the very spot where he is sitting
10 days ago.
The observer sitting at the mark "4" looks at the mark "3" and notices
that it is receding from him at 0.1 marks/day. The same observer looks
at the mark "16" and notices that it is receding from him at 1.2
marks/day. The same observer looks at the mark "-3" and notices that it
is receding from him at 0.7 marks/day. This observer concludes that the
marks at 3, 16, and -3 were all at the very spot where he is sitting 10
days ago.
Likewise the observer sitting at the mark "12" looks at the mark "3"
and notices that it is receding from him at 0.9 marks/day. The same
observer looks at the mark at "4" and notices that it is receding at
0.8 marks/day. This observer concludes that the marks at 3 and 4 were
all at the very spot where he is sitting 10 days ago.
All of these observers agree completely on what happened 10 days ago.
They also all agree on the measured rate of expansion, 0.1
marks/day/mark. Now where is the "natural center" of that expansion
about which all the vector momenta of the observers add to zero?
(Henri hasn't read a whole lot, and as a result he hasn't thought a
whole lot, and as a result he is mistaken about a whole lot -- despite
having been born with a "scientific mind" with which to do a whole lot
more than he's actually done.)
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:27 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
| Quote: | Einstein discovered that an attraction between masses is a wrong idea. It
is
a significant discovery. Falling objects are in free fall because of the
curvature of space. Then he made mistakes in trying to explain that.
Henry Haapalainen
Yet for all your idiotic posting, you have not once proven that general
relativity is not an accurate model of reality.
I asked this of you months ago and you simply refused. (EG)
Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:
|
You neither understood the question nor understand the concept of
properly quoting who says what.
I asked you to prove that general realtivity is not an accurate model
of reality. Nowhere in that request was anything about your asinine
"model" of reality that is backed up by a wager of 1000 burger bucks or
whatever the f*** it is that isn't backed by the United States
treasury.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:38 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
| Quote: | In article <v%iog.10442$5_4.5092@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Henry
Haapalainen <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
(deleted)
Eric Gisse alias Phineas T Puddleduck, just shut up. HH
If you had the intelligence to check our headers, you'd see we're
different people. Believe it or not, more then one person thinks you're
nuts.
|
This is the type of entertainment you can't buy with money.
| Quote: |
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:27 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151443331.684517.255630@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1151431530.173601.106530@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing
"*exactly*
| > what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no
matter
| > how
| > you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
| > shithead
| > and arsehole.
| > Androcles
|
| In your case, Androcles, it's pretty plain what's wrong with your
| thinking. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking before you
| run into something that's patently wrong.
|
| Like how muons that are superluminal will leave the same amount of
| energy in a scintillator regardless of their initial speed, and still
| come out to be just under c by the time they leave the scintillator.
| You say, "I don't know HOW it does that, but it's sure more believable
| than time dilation." Apparently, to spit out something you thing is
| hogwash, you'd be happy to swallow something from further down the
| colon.
|
I was talking about you, not to you.
You say a muon slows down in a scintillator and you don't know how
it does that, so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
Androcles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:57 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:l8e3a2dg48lfg1l2f786t4puv9a0s069p3@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:1151431530.173601.106530@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
| >|
| >| PD wrote:
| >| > Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| > > Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained
the
| >MMX null
| >| > > result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was
| >still taken
| >| > > as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official
| >verdict.
| >| >
| >| > The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation
of
| >| > SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.
| >| >
| >| If it were true that decision is taken as HW asserts, it would be wrong
| >| then
| >| and still is wrong. Fortunately for the world, that is not the
| >| official verdict to
| >| physicists, only to those pseudophysicists who frequent these ngs, like
| >| you.
| >|
| >| For some psychological reason, you wish to believe that verdict is
| >| true. It
| >| isn't, and that makes you the laughing stock of the physics community.
| >| > >
| >| > > It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
| >'contractions',
| >| > > it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether
| >will always
| >| > > MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
| >| > >
| >| > > Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to
front.
| >He BEGAN
| >| > > with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it
| >seemingly
| >| > > didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he
| >concocted his
| >| > > outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens
to
| >be
| >| > > correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
| >| >
| >| > Then it isn't outlandish, is it?
| >| >
| >| Wrong again. It isn't that now that you've gotten indoctrinated with
| >| it, but at
| >| the time it came out it was indeed extremely unusual and bizarre.
| >|
| >
| >Phuckwit Duck:
| > " I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
| >
| > I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
| > than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
| > that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
| > to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
| > reveals the true interest in the proposal.
| >
| > While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
| > intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
| > "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
| > reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
| > from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
| > someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
| > straight, and then make progress from there.
| >
| > I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
| > read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
| > confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
| > my heart does not.
| >
| > [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
| > appear]"
| >-- Phuckwit Duck.
| >
| >PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing "*exactly*
| >what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
| >how
| >you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
| >shithead
| >and arsehole.
|
| ...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
| self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
|
He is certainly the most vociferous at the moment. I guarantee he'll
snip when cornered by logic he cannot respond to in any other way.
A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
they are up against a heavyweight. Let them collaborate and form a
joint opinion, I'll take them ALL on, from Baez to Roberts to all the way
down to the lightweights Spookfood and Gisse.
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:57 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151450763.888278.83270@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a>
| > wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing
"*exactly*
| > >what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no
matter
| > >how
| > >you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the
typical
| > >shithead
| > >and arsehole.
| >
| > ...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
| > self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
| >
|
| And who appointed me leader? You? No one else has.
Observation, shithead. You write the most. Therefore you are the leading
baboon.
| And how do you judge scientific ability, Henri?
By applicability to technology and reality.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
| By whether they are
| original or by whether they are right?
You can't be right, Sagnac proves it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
This is where you start muttering "inertial" and "domain of applicability".
You are shitheads.
Androcles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:07 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:v%iog.10442$5_4.5092@reader1.news.jippii.net...
|> > Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:
| > >
| > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
| > >
| > > Henry Haapalainen
|
| (deleted)
|
| Eric Gisse alias Phineas T Puddleduck, just shut up. HH
|
You've fucked up again, Happy Henry. Goose can't be Phuddlephuck,
Goose is even MORE stupid than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:17 am Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:5wrog.229880$8W1.218180@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: |
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:l8e3a2dg48lfg1l2f786t4puv9a0s069p3@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
|
[snip]
| Quote: | |
| >PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing "*exactly*
| >what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
| >how
| >you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
| >shithead
| >and arsehole.
|
| ...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
| self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
|
He is certainly the most vociferous at the moment. I guarantee he'll
snip when cornered by logic he cannot respond to in any other way.
|
Androcles, cornering the world by logic:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORPersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
| Quote: |
A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
they are up against a heavyweight.
|
Androcles, the heavyweight:
http://www.retardism.com/fatman.jpg
Dirk Vdm
| Quote: | Let them collaborate and form a
joint opinion, I'll take them ALL on, from Baez to Roberts to all the way
down to the lightweights Spookfood and Gisse.
Androcles.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| Quote: | "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151443331.684517.255630@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1151431530.173601.106530@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|
| > PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing
"*exactly*
| > what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no
matter
| > how
| > you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
| > shithead
| > and arsehole.
| > Androcles
|
| In your case, Androcles, it's pretty plain what's wrong with your
| thinking. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking before you
| run into something that's patently wrong.
|
| Like how muons that are superluminal will leave the same amount of
| energy in a scintillator regardless of their initial speed, and still
| come out to be just under c by the time they leave the scintillator.
| You say, "I don't know HOW it does that, but it's sure more believable
| than time dilation." Apparently, to spit out something you thing is
| hogwash, you'd be happy to swallow something from further down the
| colon.
|
I was talking about you, not to you.
You say a muon slows down in a scintillator
|
I did? Where did I say that?
Liar.
| Quote: | and you don't know how
it does that,
|
I don't? Where did I say that?
Liar.
| Quote: | so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
out at c = 1/0. <shrug
|
c = 299,792,458 m/s (or 1, depending on your system of units).
Are you a bonehead, Androcles? Why yes, yes, I believe you are.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| Quote: | "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151450763.888278.83270@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| > wrote:
|
|
| > >PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing
"*exactly*
| > >what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no
matter
| > >how
| > >you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the
typical
| > >shithead
| > >and arsehole.
|
| > ...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
| > self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
|
|
| And who appointed me leader? You? No one else has.
Observation, shithead. You write the most. Therefore you are the leading
baboon.
|
Hell, that's not even true. I write a lot, but certainly not the most.
Hello, Henri. Have you changed pseudonyms again?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| Quote: | "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:l8e3a2dg48lfg1l2f786t4puv9a0s069p3@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a
| wrote:
|
| >Phuckwit Duck:
| > " I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
|
| > I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
| > than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
| > that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
| > to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
| > reveals the true interest in the proposal.
|
| > While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
| > intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
| > "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
| > reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
| > from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
| > someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
| > straight, and then make progress from there.
|
| > I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
| > read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
| > confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
| > my heart does not.
|
| > [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
| > appear]"
| >-- Phuckwit Duck.
|
| >PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing "*exactly*
| >what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
| >how
| >you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
| >shithead
| >and arsehole.
|
| ...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
| self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
|
He is certainly the most vociferous at the moment. I guarantee he'll
snip when cornered by logic he cannot respond to in any other way.
|
Why, Androcles, I'm shocked! I haven't snipped a thing you said here.
| Quote: |
A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
they are up against a heavyweight.
|
Ah yes, a fierce opponent who no one wants to take on anymore:
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/roadkill.jpg
| Quote: | Let them collaborate and form a
joint opinion, I'll take them ALL on, from Baez to Roberts to all the way
down to the lightweights Spookfood and Gisse.
Androcles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1151497271.064482.304000@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
| Quote: | He is certainly the most vociferous at the moment. I guarantee he'll
snip when cornered by logic he cannot respond to in any other way.
Why, Androcles, I'm shocked! I haven't snipped a thing you said here.
A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
they are up against a heavyweight.
Ah yes, a fierce opponent who no one wants to take on anymore:
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/roadkill.jpg
|
:-)
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
In article <1151497271.064482.304000@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Sorcerer wrote:
A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
they are up against a heavyweight.
Ah yes, a fierce opponent who no one wants to take on anymore:
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/roadkill.jpg
Let them collaborate and form a
joint opinion, I'll take them ALL on, from Baez to Roberts to all the way
down to the lightweights Spookfood and Gisse.
Androcles.
|
Unfortuantely Androcles is fighting a rigged battle. He knows full well
that is idiocy has an advantage. He doesn't have to do experiments, be
logical, prove things are right or back up his ideas. He just needs to
continues beating his chest.
The only think heavyweight about him is the stone in his skull.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dwhig265@aol.com
science forum addict
Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: | Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Jun 2006 08:46:49 -0700, dwhig265@aol.com wrote:
If the was a big bang, there would be a natural centre about which all vector
momentun would sum to zero. But there wasn't a big bang.
Really? What makes you say that?
Say you have a ruler that is expanding, with marks at regular
intervals, and observers parked at each of the marks.
An observer sitting at the mark "3" looks at the mark "4" and notices
that it is receding from him at 0.1 marks/day. The same observer looks
at the mark "6" and notices that it's receding from him at 0.3
marks/day. The same observer looks at the mark "12" and notices that
it's receding from him at 0.9 marks/day. This observer concludes that
the marks at 4, 6, and 12 were all at the very spot where he is sitting
10 days ago.
The observer sitting at the mark "4" looks at the mark "3" and notices
that it is receding from him at 0.1 marks/day. The same observer looks
at the mark "16" and notices that it is receding from him at 1.2
marks/day. The same observer looks at the mark "-3" and notices that it
is receding from him at 0.7 marks/day. This observer concludes that the
marks at 3, 16, and -3 were all at the very spot where he is sitting 10
days ago.
Likewise the observer sitting at the mark "12" looks at the mark "3"
and notices that it is receding from him at 0.9 marks/day. The same
observer looks at the mark at "4" and notices that it is receding at
0.8 marks/day. This observer concludes that the marks at 3 and 4 were
all at the very spot where he is sitting 10 days ago.
All of these observers agree completely on what happened 10 days ago.
They also all agree on the measured rate of expansion, 0.1
marks/day/mark. Now where is the "natural center" of that expansion
about which all the vector momenta of the observers add to zero?
(Henri hasn't read a whole lot, and as a result he hasn't thought a
whole lot, and as a result he is mistaken about a whole lot -- despite
having been born with a "scientific mind" with which to do a whole lot
more than he's actually done.)
PD
Excellent post! Now please describe the above with orthogonally |
positioned rulers. (three dimensions). Dwain W. Higginbotham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomgee
science forum Guru
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject:
Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 26 Jun 2006 06:02:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
I heard your call today for some sensible response, and I will try
that.
There may be some denial about that being the "official" verdict today,
but here in these ngs, that does seem to be true. However, it is
foolish
to take the posts here as being representative of what is "official" in
physics today. That apparent "verdict" is propounded by those who
post here, alright, but they are only a tiny tiny number of scientists
out
of all those who could post here but don't. Thus, we can say that is
the
official verdict of those who are apparently in the majority of those
who
post here, and that can be supported by archival evidence.
Well it is pretty bloody obvious to me that the MMX certainly did NOT prove
that there could not be at least a local EM reference frame...particularly when
Einstein used the same contraction idea that Lorentz invented.
If SR is correct then so must be LET. SR actually relies on an absolute
refernce frame
It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
I see your point, and I can agree that is one way to describe what AE
actually did with the luminous ether theory. If by "outlandish
definition"
you refer to "moving clocks run slow", I must again agree that is an
apt
description of what he meant, but it was outlandish even more so in
that
it appears to be true.
Since when?
There is no believable proof of that Tom.
The math evidence is very strong, however, and while math is no |
better than logic in representing reality, it does sometimes make
predictions that are later confirmed. The Twin Paradox is only one
of two thought experiments that support the math of SR, and the
two are different such that one supports the other. The other is
often known as the moving train experiment, where time dilation is
shown to depend on POV of the observer. I have posted that one
here before and asked for anyone to deny its intuitive conclusion,
but no one was able to do that.
AE's conclusion that "moving clocks run slow" is the basis for my
model that carries forward that concept to my claim that time is a
property of matter and passes dependent of an object's motion.
| Quote: |
Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.
Both works are in Theoretical Physics, which disdains empirical
research
and embraces math and logic, so both works seem to me to have been
as non-physical as anything can be.
Yes but at least the aether theories have some kind of physical connection.
Contractions are actually REAL.
That is too counterintuitive for me to agree with at this point. It is |
too hard
for me to believe that physical objects will contract in different
frames. I
think that it is time that varies, creating that effect, but that it is
only an illusion
based on the time dilation effect. I have yet to figure out how that
occurs, but
I hope to do just that sooner or later.
| Quote: |
The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
what Einstein believed in himself.
Only if you are working with the reality of the universe does one have
to
accept an ether. If you are adding 2x2, no ether is required, since
math
is an imaginary tool we use to compare imaginary or real objects.
There
is no such thing as a "2" in existence in the universe, other than as
it exits
in our heads. There are, however, two apples and two oranges, which
can be both real and imaginary, depending on which is our choice.
On that basis, I cannot agree that it is correct to say there is no
physical
connection between SR and reality. SR is not representative of
reality,
true, but it is an excellent tool for us.
Is it?
Where? In charged particle accelerators? There are alternative explanations for
those effects.
There is no evidence that SR applies to neutral objects.
Well, the principle of relativity is one, which is holding up still. |
But I
agree there are alternative explanations for much of what has been
explained from the conclusions of SR. The tenet about relative
motion, which is IMO the basis of SR, is another great tool tool for
us, even though some have gotten carried away with what they have
concluded from that.
| Quote: |
By necessity, all our tools
have a
connection to reality - that cannot be avoided if they are to be valid
tools
for us to use. To say 2x2=4 is almost meaningless in itself until and
unless it is ultimately in reference to something real. As a tool for
the
teaching of math, we could say it is not meaningless because ultimately
it
will be used to count real objects.
Well, I have often wondered if the laws of maths would exist in the absence of
everything alse.
I believe they would.
I don't see something that is based and depend on the existence of |
other
things can exist without any of those other things, so I must disagree.
| Quote: |
After all that, I must say, however, that I agree we cannot refer to
the real
universe without including an ether.
I don't accept that an absolute universal aether exists. Maybe local aetherlike
frames exist but that is all.
Why not? And at what point do the frames begin, and why?
My model suggests one that does
not
conflict with any known observed effects but instead explains reality
in a
better way than some in place as "official verdicts" by sci.ngs
posters.
If you want an aether, you have to cope with the concept of a 'physical'
infinity.
I must disagree, as I don't agree there is such a thing, whatever |
it means.
| Quote: |
For anyone interested, I have reduced my essay model to about 4 MB for
emailing free to those here willing to provide me feedback about it
here in
these same science ngs. It is in MS Word 6.0. To get it, just email
me
your email address to: typropress@yahoo.com. It's a work in progress
still, but all the ideas are there fully supported and explained. If
you are
willing to discuss my ideas anywhere with anyone you know, or even just
in public here in these ngs, I will be glad to send them to you. You
can
post passages from it for discussion, but it is a copyrighted work and
so
whole chapters or the entire work may not be reproduced unless you
first
pay me five dollars US per chapter or ten dollars US per each entire
work.
|
NOTE
Something has gone wrong with my Yahoo mail software, or their
server goes down often. Please email me at: lvl-us@peoplepc.com
instead for your copy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:16 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Charity | Nissan Armada Forum | Credit Cards | Credit Card | Loans
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
