For Stephen Speicher re Debunking........
Franz Heymann
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.02102...@localhost.localdomain...
> Dirk,
>
> I do not have the time or interest to clean up the historical
> droppings of Mitchell Jones; indeed, such would be a full-time
> job. In Jones' case it is difficult to discern exactly where
> ignorance ends, and dishonesty begins -- his mischaracterization
> of historical facts is simply astounding. I will give you just
> one concrete instance of this, and leave it to you to generalize
> from there regarding the ignorance/dishonesty of Mitchell Jones.
>
> It appears as if Jones' main historical source -- referenced
> several times -- is the biography of Michelson by his daughter.
>
> Mitchell Jones writes:
> > See *Master of Light*, a biography of Michelson by his
> > daughter, Dorothy Michelson Livingston, for details."
>
> And then he claims, with great air of authority,
>
> Mitchell Jones writes:
> > Michelson considered the existence of the aether to be a proven
> > fact. Thus when his experiment failed to show an aether wind at
> > the surface of the Earth, he concluded that he had proven that
> > the aether was entrained, and believed that until his death.
>
> A pretty strong and very definite statement. Only problem is,
> even according to _his own reference_, it is completely wrong -- a
total
> fabrication on Jones' part. Here are quotes from Jones' reference,
> "The Master of Light," Dorothy Michelson Livingston, _The
> University of Chicago Press_, 1973/1979.
>
> "'The latest test of Einstein's theory has proven two
> things,' Michelson had written. 'First, that the
> earth's rotation has no effect on the velocity of
> light, and secondly that the ether-drag hypothesis is
> definitely disproved.'[7] Thus Sir George Stokes's
> theory of an ether stirred into motion with the earth
> could no longer be invoked to explain the
> Michelson-Morley experiment."
> ...
>
> "However much Michelson may have wished Einstein
> disproved, he nevertheless forced himself to keep an
> open mind. He had been cautious at first, as was
> natural for a man schooled in nineteenth-century
> thinking, but as soon as he considered the evidence
> conclusive, he accepted the theory of relativity."
>
> "[7] A.A. Michelson and H.G. Gale, 'The Effect of the
> Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light," part II,
> _Astrophysical Journal_, vol. LXI (1925), pp. 139-145."
>
>
> If you are to engage this Jones character in discussion, I
> thought you should at least be aware that his attempts to snow
> you on historical "facts" suffer from an overdose of ingorance
> and/or dishonesty. Personally, I consider dealing with him a
> waste of time.
>
Thank you, Stephen, for pointing out so precisely that our friend
Mitchell Jones is nothing but a disgraced cheapskate liar.
I bet he does not even possess enough remnants of honour to shut up and
leave the ng in peace.
I have filed your note and with your permission I will bring it up in
the ng now and again when it appears necessary to remind our readers of
the character of this man.
Since Jones claims that both Stephen and I are on his killfile, I would
appreciate it if someone who is not on his killfile would reply
(briefly, if you don't want to waste time on discussing matters relating
to Jones) to both this note of mine and to Stephen's note to which I
refer, so that both can indirectly appear in the ng as part of the
contents of other notes.
I should hate to see Jones deprived of the opportunity of finding out
what other folk think about his character just because he killfiles his
critics.
Franz Heymann
Paul Stowe
So, this quote says NOTHING about Michelson's belief (or
lack thereof) on whether the aether was proven or not.
As Mr. Speicher is WELL AWARE, Maxwell's ether as discussed
in LET was a viable aether concept which is fully compatible
with the above...
> "However much Michelson may have wished Einstein
> disproved, he nevertheless forced himself to keep an
> open mind. He had been cautious at first, as was
> natural for a man schooled in nineteenth-century
> thinking, but as soon as he considered the evidence
> conclusive, he accepted the theory of relativity."
Again irrelevant to Michell's comment. It IS very poor form
to take snippits of a book 'out of context' or, in this case,
WITHOUT context, an mount a attack on a poster's character.
But it IS typical Stephen Speicher...
> "[7] A.A. Michelson and H.G. Gale, 'The Effect of the
> Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light," part II,
> _Astrophysical Journal_, vol. LXI (1925), pp. 139-145."
Yes, indeed, one SHOULD look at Michell's reference and READ
the whole biography to take the measure of Michelson and his
'beliefs' in this matter. If they do, they're find that Michell
is closer to telling the 'truth' than is Stephen...
> If you are to engage this Jones character in discussion, I
> thought you should at least be aware that his attempts to snow
> you on historical "facts" suffer from an overdose of ingorance
> and/or dishonesty. Personally, I consider dealing with him a
> waste of time.
Personally, I find Stephen not only a waste of time, but a
despicable human being bent upon attempting character assassintion
of all of those whom 'he' considers that do not agree with
his views a.k.a.'not like himself'...
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:apecbh$mhj$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
He does not killfile his critics. He explicitly said on more than one
occasion that he killfiles those who use abusive language. As far as
I can see, that is exactly what he has done so far. I have been
critical of Mr. Jones on quite a few threads, taking great care not
to use abusive language. I have noticed that this way of dealing
with him either results in silence, or in lengthy elaborations of the
kind you have seen on this thread.
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
"Paul Stowe" <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:apeecc$9i0$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Of course you would. Twerp.
Oh, and I nearly forgot: You are a cheat as well. You snipped the
following from my note to which you are replying: It is the essence of
the note to which you replied. You snipped it out in its entirety
without saying so.
.
Quote
"Thank you, Stephen, for pointing out so precisely that our friend
Mitchell Jones is nothing but a disgraced cheapskate liar.
I bet he does not even possess enough remnants of honour to shut up and
leave the ng in peace.
I have filed your note and with your permission I will bring it up in
the ng now and again when it appears necessary to remind our readers of
the character of this man."
Unquote.
Thanks for affording me the opportunity of saying it once again.
Franz Heymann
Stephen Speicher
Please feel free to use the evidence anytime you like. The sad
thing is that, just as I have demonstrated in regard to
Michelson, one can take almost anything that this Mitchell Jones
character has to say, and likewise demonstrate the same ignorance
and/or dishonesty which accompanies his remarks. Since Jones is
so verbose and bombastic, then doing so would pretty much be a
full-time job. He is hardly worth the effort.
It is interesting, however, to note the epistemology of this
character Mitchell Jones. He is very much similar to another
recent cuckoo to grace these groups -- John P. David. Both of
these con men give lip service to the concept of reason, but in
fact their epistemologies demonstrate that they are nothing more
than abject subjectivists. That is, rather than looking at the
world as it actually is, their starting place is whatever random
content their minds hold at the time. In effect, they both
attempt to create what exists, rather than observe it. To them
their feelings about how the world _should_ be takes precedence
over how the world _is_. They do not deal with physics and
facts, but rather they deal with fiction writing. (Nothing wrong
with fiction writing per se, but for that they are on the wrong
groups.)
> Since Jones claims that both Stephen and I are on his killfile, I would
> appreciate it if someone who is not on his killfile would reply
> (briefly, if you don't want to waste time on discussing matters relating
> to Jones) to both this note of mine and to Stephen's note to which I
> refer, so that both can indirectly appear in the ng as part of the
> contents of other notes.
> I should hate to see Jones deprived of the opportunity of finding out
> what other folk think about his character just because he killfiles his
> critics.
>
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Stowe
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> of all of those whom 'he' considers does not agree with his views
>> a.k.a.'not like himself'...
>
> Of course you would. Twerp. Oh, and I nearly forgot: You are
> a cheat as well. You snipped the following from my note to which
> you are replying: It is the essence of the note to which you
> replied. You snipped it out in its entirety without saying so.
Did you take note or are you so dense as to NOT notice... I WAS
responding to what Stephen said, not you... Your input WAS both
irrelevant to my response AND to the topic at hand... FYI, just
so you DO NOTICE, go back and count the ">>" and note the 'depth'...
Oh, and BTW, it's very funny that you [Bilge, OLd Man, or others
of your ilk] should complain about snipping content... That's
most certainly the Pot calling the Kettle Black...
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
Jones made the claim that "he concluded that he had proven that
the aether was entrained, and believed that until his death." The
quote above is a direct contradiction of that claim, in
Michelson's own words. Are you really so rabbid about the ether
that you cannot follow a simple argument? I made no further
claims in regard to Michelson and/or the ether than is contained
in Michelson's contradiction to Jones' false assertion.
As usual, Paul Stowe has nothing to contribute except his
prejudiced distortions. What a creep.
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
Actually there are three claims,
1. "Michelson considered the existence of the aether to
be a proven fact. ..."
2. "... he concluded that he had proven that the
aether was entrained, ...”
3. “...and believed that until his death."
Historical evidence supports the following,
- Michelson, till death, DID consider the existence of the
aether to be a proven fact...
- Michelson DID propose and consider the aether entrained
The sole question then becomes did he recant the entrained
aether hypothesis 'completely'. That one can debate, but if
that was your sole point your statement above then, “ ...it
is completely wrong...” is, at best, a poor choice of
wording and at worst, deliberately misleading...
> As usual, Paul Stowe has nothing to contribute except his
> prejudiced distortions. What a creep.
A single word sums up the best response to this statement,
ditto ...
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Paul Stowe" <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:apeecc$9i0$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.02102...@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > > thought you should at least be aware that his attempts to snow
> > > you on historical "facts" suffer from an overdose of ingorance
> > > and/or dishonesty. Personally, I consider dealing with him a
> > > waste of time.
> >
> > Personally, I find Stephen not only a waste of time, but a
> > despicable human being bent upon attempting character assassintion
> > of all of those whom 'he' considers that do not agree with
> > his views a.k.a.'not like himself'...
I did not get this far in reading Stowe's original post, so
thanks for the chance to make a relevant point. There is never a
need to attempt a "character assassintion[sic]" on the likes of
Paul Stowe, since Stowe is extremely adept at assassinating his
own character all by himself, in most every posting he makes.
>
> Of course you would. Twerp.
> Oh, and I nearly forgot: You are a cheat as well. You snipped the
> following from my note to which you are replying: It is the essence of
> the note to which you replied. You snipped it out in its entirety
> without saying so.
> .
> Quote
> "Thank you, Stephen, for pointing out so precisely that our friend
> Mitchell Jones is nothing but a disgraced cheapskate liar.
> I bet he does not even possess enough remnants of honour to shut up and
> leave the ng in peace.
> I have filed your note and with your permission I will bring it up in
> the ng now and again when it appears necessary to remind our readers of
> the character of this man."
> Unquote.
>
> Thanks for affording me the opportunity of saying it once again.
>
And again.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Historical evidence supports the following,
>
> - Michelson, till death, DID consider the existence of the
> aether to be a proven fact...
>
Then provide a specific quote from Michelson which attests to the
words you claim here. I have already provided direct evidence
from Michelson to the contrary, and am prepared to provide more.
Show us that Paul Stowe is different from Mitchell Jones, and
that Paul Stowe does not just make up claims. Show us by
providing the evidence in support of the claim you make above.
And, just to be clear, the two important points you must show are
that Michelson considered the existence of the ether to be a
"proven fact," and that he thought so "till death." Let's see if
Paul Stowe can back up his claims by actual fact, or if he is
just another blowhard like Mitchell Jones.
> - Michelson DID propose and consider the aether entrained
>
> The sole question then becomes did he recant the entrained
> aether hypothesis 'completely'. That one can debate ...
Okay, then debate. I'm waiting. I provided a specific quote from
Michelson to the contrary, and I can supply more, so let's hear
the evidence you can supply from Michelson in your "debate."
PREDICTION: Paul Stowe will, just like Mitchell Jones, attempt to
make up in sheer amount of verbiage what he lacks in fact. We
will be treated to long quotations from others, which have little
or no relevancy to neither the first issue he must prove, nor the
second issue he must debate. Of course, Paul Stowe can prove me
wrong by simply providing a quotation from Michelson which
supports his case. Let's see what Paul Stowe does.
rryker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
Rod: What a troll.
--
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
http://herr_ryker.tripod.com/
http://herr_ryker.tripod.com/herrryker
Quotes from Dirk Van de Moortel:
"I can lie and cheat and use all the dirty tricks of the trolling
business."
"And I guess negative attention is less frightening than no attention at
all. "All the lonely people, where do they all come from?""
Jon Hurwitz
> despicable human being bent upon attempting character assassintion
> of all of those whom 'he' considers that do not agree with
> his views a.k.a.'not like himself'...
>
Perhaps you could clear up for me what you consider the difference between
what you are doing here and what you are accusing Stephen of.
Can I assume you don't consider yourself a despicable character?
Jon
Paul Stowe
"Jon Hurwitz" <j...@jonh.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:apeecc$9i0$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> Personally, I find Stephen not only a waste of time, but a
>> despicable human being bent upon attempting character assassintion
>> of all of those whom 'he' considers that do not agree with
>> his views a.k.a.'not like himself'...
>>
>
> Perhaps you could clear up for me what you consider
> the difference between what you are doing here and what
> you are accusing Stephen of.
The differences are,
1. I do not attack a person's character or denigrate them
solely because of what the express as ideas or beliefs.
Nor do I do I publically label people cranks, crackpots,
kooks, loons, or cookoo birds based upon their rightful
expression of ideas and opinions.
2. I do not, nor do I believe I have the right to judge people
'worthy' or 'unworthy'. IOW I am NOT a bigot.
3. Unless seriously provoked by someone engaging in such
behavior I DO NOT take such prose. When I do so, I
do so deliberately, hopefully in a manner that clearly
shows readers that I have switched tact and am now
mimicing the respondant's behavior.
4. I do not believe that I, or anyone else has the right to
engage in such behavior in defending science. In science,
by its very nature, the truth points to itself and all the
rest will fade away. There is no place in science for such
basal behavior.
5. The posting history speaks for itself...
> Can I assume you don't consider yourself a despicable character?
It NOT only how I judge myself but how others judge me by my
actions.
As can be clearly seen in the posting history, it is not I that,
as a matter of course, initiates and engages in the denigrating
of others solely based upon what their expressed views.
But, you're as entitled to both your opinion and have the right
to express it as anyone else, as do I.
Expressing an opinion on the demonstrated behavior of another isn't
the same as engaging in that same behavior as a normal modus operandi.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> Historical evidence supports the following,
>>
>> - Michelson, till death, DID consider the existence of the
>> aether to be a proven fact...
>>
>
> Then provide a specific quote from Michelson which attests
> to the words you claim here. I have already provided direct
> evidence from Michelson to the contrary, ...
Really? Let's see, you quote snippets from "The Master of
Light," Dorothy Michelson Livingston, The University of
Chicago Press_, 1973/1979. (But we note NO reference to where
in the book, again poor form..., however) the following,
"The latest test of Einstein's theory has proven two
things, first, that the earth's rotation has no
effect on the velocity of light, and secondly that
the ether-drag hypothesis is definitely disproved. [7]
Thus Sir George Stokes's theory of an ether stirred
into motion with the earth could no longer be invoked
to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment."
And
"However much Michelson may have wished Einstein
disproved, he nevertheless forced himself to keep an
open mind. He had been cautious at first, as was
natural for a man schooled in nineteenth-century
thinking, but as soon as he considered the evidence
conclusive, he accepted the theory of relativity."
"[7] A.A. Michelson and H.G. Gale, 'The Effect of the
Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light," part II,
Astrophysical Journal, vol. LXI (1925), pp. 139-145."
now how about providing those page numbers...
Acceptance of the methodology of Lorentz covariant relativity
does not constitute any evidence of a recanting of the concept
of the aether. You have NOT, contrary to your claim above
provided ANY such evidence. I will grant that you have provided
documentation that Michelson considered the entrained aether
hypothesis disproved. That IS what I said before about debatable.
But a living breathing human being can, and often does,
flip-flop beliefs.
> ...and am prepared to provide more. Show us that Paul Stowe
> is different from Mitchell Jones, and that Paul Stowe does
> not just make up claims.
I don't think Michell 'just makes up claims' I think that he
actually believes that that Michelson endosed the entrained
aether concept. He provide that reference and there is NO
evidence of either deception or such behavior. He got a 'detail'
wrong (i.e. Michelson did abandon the idea). Michelson DID
endorse the entrained aether concept. Michelson performed the
experiment in [7] to test that hypothesis... Had he thought the
case fully closed however I doubt that he would have gone on
to repeat the experiment in a one mile evacuated pipe. He died
before completing writing up the results of this one.
> ...Show us by providing the evidence in support of the claim you
> make above. ...
What, that Michelson was an aetherist???
> And, just to be clear, the two important points you must show
> are that Michelson considered the existence of the ether to
> be a "proven fact," and that he thought so "till death." Let's
> see if Paul Stowe can back up his claims by actual fact, or if
> he is just another blowhard like Mitchell Jones.
If you want to quibble fine, I know of no 'death bed' statement
but neither am I aware of any factual evidence that Michelson
clearly claimed that there wasn't an aether... I am willing
to change my view on this matter if you can provide such.
Everything about the man that I have read suggests otherwise.
>> - Michelson DID propose and consider the aether entrained
>>
>> The sole question then becomes did he recant the entrained
>> aether hypothesis 'completely'. That one can debate ...
>
> Okay, then debate. I'm waiting. I provided a specific quote
> from Michelson to the contrary, and I can supply more, so
> let's hear the evidence you can supply from Michelson in your
> "debate."
>
> PREDICTION: Paul Stowe will, just like Mitchell Jones, attempt
> to make up in sheer amount of verbiage what he lacks in fact.
> We will be treated to long quotations from others, which have
> little or no relevancy to neither the first issue he must
> prove, nor the second issue he must debate. Of course, Paul
> Stowe can prove me wrong by simply providing a quotation from
> Michelson which supports his case. Let's see what Paul Stowe
> does.
Fact, I will not continue to discuss any topic with you if you
continue in your typical contemptable manners...
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
> In article <apgo2k$srp$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Jon Hurwitz" <j...@jonh.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:apeecc$9i0$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> >>
> >> Personally, I find Stephen not only a waste of time, but a
> >> despicable human being bent upon attempting character assassintion
> >> of all of those whom 'he' considers that do not agree with
> >> his views a.k.a.'not like himself'...
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps you could clear up for me what you consider
> > the difference between what you are doing here and what
> > you are accusing Stephen of.
>
> The differences are,
>
> 1. I do not attack a person's character or denigrate them
> solely because of what the express as ideas or beliefs.
Nor do I, and for you to claim that as a distinction makes you
either extremely ignorant, or quite dishonest. Or both. If there
is one thing I have repeated here, over and over, is that I will
not abide with someone who is impervious to reason and fact. It
is not those with differing ideas who I denigrate, but those who
choose self-imposed ignorance and refuse to face or even
acknowledge facts. Such is the hallmark of a crank, and such
actions do in fact demonstrate a character failure; a failure of
honesty and integrity, a failure to exercise the one human
capacity we have to grasp the facts of reality and enable us to
communicate -- reason. Irrationality _is_ a character failure, as
is evasion of the facts.
> Nor do I do I publically label people cranks, crackpots,
> kooks, loons, or cookoo birds based upon their rightful
> expression of ideas and opinions.
Why? Are you afraid of the old saying: judge, and be prepared to
be judged? Why is someone's comment that "Einstein is a moron
and a plagiarist" considered by you as "rightful expression of
ideas and opinions," but my labeling such as a statement from a
cuckoo bird not considered to be a "rightful expression of ideas
and opinions?"
No one is a cuckoo bird because they disagree with me; they are
cuckoo birds because they are impervious to reason and fact. As I
have stated several times before, I literally _hunger_ for
serious and rational criticism of relativity and other areas of
physics, but what is oferred here by people such as yourself is a
comic book-like distortion of such. On my own I become my own
devil's advocate, taking both sides of critical issues by myself,
because the only opposition here is from cuckoo birds who have no
regard for reason and facts. This has been demonstrated here in
these groups and proved over and over and over by you and your
ilk
>
> 2. I do not, nor do I believe I have the right to judge people
> 'worthy' or 'unworthy'. IOW I am NOT a bigot.
>
The fact of the matter is that you and every other cuckoo bird
here _are_ bigots. A bigot is "a person obstinately or
intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."
And, of course you think you do not have the right to judge
people, since doing so would open you to be judged.
> 3. Unless seriously provoked by someone engaging in such
> behavior I DO NOT take such prose. When I do so, I
> do so deliberately, hopefully in a manner that clearly
> shows readers that I have switched tact and am now
> mimicing the respondant's behavior.
>
A typical Stowe fantasy world. Here is a sample from Stowe.
"And you're full of shit!"
"Try again when you know what the fuck you're talking
about."
"but piss poor at actual lucent explanations."
"And your posting show you to be an acerbic asshole."
"Nature does not really give a rat's ass whether we
call mass Kilgrams, Slugs, Pounds, or Shit"
"And from a flaming asshole at that!"
This last was in response to my saying "No. _You_ missed the
point: you offer nothing but superficial platitudes."
Filthy foul-mouthed language, instigated by Paul Stowe, is his
way of "mimicing the respondant's behavior?" Yeah, right.
You live in a fantasy world, Stowe, which is evident in your
physics as well as in your attempt to rationalize away your own
behavior.
> 4. I do not believe that I, or anyone else has the right to
> engage in such behavior in defending science. In science,
> by its very nature, the truth points to itself and all the
> rest will fade away. There is no place in science for such
> basal behavior.
>
"And you're full of shit!"
"Try again when you know what the fuck you're talking
about."
"but piss poor at actual lucent explanations."
"And your posting show you to be an acerbic asshole."
"Nature does not really give a rat's ass whether we
call mass Kilgrams, Slugs, Pounds, or Shit"
"And from a flaming asshole at that!"
> 5. The posting history speaks for itself...
>
Well, at least you got one thing right.
Franz Heymann
Of course he did. He did not even cease arguing after Stephen had
called his bluff.
> He provide that reference and there is NO
> evidence of either deception or such behavior. He got a 'detail'
> wrong (i.e. Michelson did abandon the idea).
Can Stowe and/or Jones distinduish between the concepts of "a detail"
and "the substantive argument"?
> Michelson DID
> endorse the entrained aether concept. Michelson performed the
> experiment in [7] to test that hypothesis... Had he thought the
> case fully closed however I doubt that he would have gone on
> to repeat the experiment in a one mile evacuated pipe. He died
> before completing writing up the results of this one.
Perhaps he just wanted to do the experiment as thoroughly as he could
conceive of doing it? That is an attitude to be lauded.
> > ...Show us by providing the evidence in support of the claim you
> > make above. ...
>
> What, that Michelson was an aetherist???
What I found above was a statement
"Michelson, till death, DID consider the existence of the
aether to be a proven fact..."
I think that was the statement for which Stephen wanted you to provide
evidence.
You have not. Your readers are still waiting.
> > And, just to be clear, the two important points you must show
> > are that Michelson considered the existence of the ether to
> > be a "proven fact," and that he thought so "till death." Let's
> > see if Paul Stowe can back up his claims by actual fact, or if
> > he is just another blowhard like Mitchell Jones.
>
> If you want to quibble fine, I know of no 'death bed' statement
> but neither am I aware of any factual evidence that Michelson
> clearly claimed that there wasn't an aether... I am willing
> to change my view on this matter if you can provide such.
> Everything about the man that I have read suggests otherwise.
It would seem that you have not read enough.
Else why have you not changed your view yet?
> >> - Michelson DID propose and consider the aether entrained
> >>
> >> The sole question then becomes did he recant the entrained
> >> aether hypothesis 'completely'. That one can debate ...
> >
> > Okay, then debate. I'm waiting. I provided a specific quote
> > from Michelson to the contrary, and I can supply more, so
> > let's hear the evidence you can supply from Michelson in your
> > "debate."
> >
> > PREDICTION: Paul Stowe will, just like Mitchell Jones, attempt
> > to make up in sheer amount of verbiage what he lacks in fact.
> > We will be treated to long quotations from others, which have
> > little or no relevancy to neither the first issue he must
> > prove, nor the second issue he must debate. Of course, Paul
> > Stowe can prove me wrong by simply providing a quotation from
> > Michelson which supports his case. Let's see what Paul Stowe
> > does.
>
> Fact, I will not continue to discuss any topic with you if you
> continue in your typical contemptable manners...
Yup. That is as near as we will get to an admission of a gross error on
Stowe's part. Let us be grateful for it.
Franz Heymann
Stephen Speicher
Paul, Paul, Paul. You are just so predictable. All you were
challenged to do was to support the claims that you made, namely
that Michelson considered the existence of the ether to be a
"proven fact," and that he thought so "till death," and provide
evidence for your "debate" that Michelson did not completely
recant the entrained ether. You were asked to provide quotes in
support of these points, but, as I predicted, just like Mitchell
Jones, you made up in verbiage what you lack in fact. We were
treated to quotes, but they were from me, and they were not
relevant to what _you_ needed to prove. You provided no evidence
to substantiate your claim, but instead went on to talk about me
and Jones. Paul, Paul, Paul, you are so predictable.
Now, how would an honest approach contrast with what you did? An
honest approach would just stick to the facts and not attempt to
conceal your inability to substantiate your claims with a bunch
of verbiage. An honest approach would have reduced your whole
post to a few simple lines, something like this:
"I really cannot support what I said with actual
quotations from Michelson, even though I feel as I do.
However, I am also dissatisfied with the evidence you
provided, and I feel it does not support your claims.
Do you have other evidence to provide?"
And, to such an honest approach, I would not have to belabor the
fact that you were unable to support your claims, and I would
welcome the opportunity to provide as much detailed evidence in
support of my claims as is needed. I have done so dozens of
times in the past -- providing substantial historical evidence --
but usually with those who are mostly rational and honest. That
would have been how I would have responded if you did not perform
the evasive song and dance act which you typically do. So,
instead of benefitting from the knowledge I have, instead you
become the recipient of mockery, which, I might add, is well
deserved.
I do not restrict my historical readings to a popular biography
on a subject. I provided quotes from that biography only because
I was trying to show how ignorant and/or dishonest Mitchell Jones
was, in referencing that biography in support of his absurd
notions, when in fact that biography contradicts what Jones says.
These are issues which have been studied in some depth by several
scholars in the field, and which I have enjoyed learning from.
So, because you are basically dishonest and evasive, instead of
learning the facts from me, you will have to do the research on
your own. Have fun.
> Fact, I will not continue to discuss any topic with you if you
> continue in your typical contemptable manners...
>
Is that a threat, or a promise? Do you really think I care
whether you or any of the other cuckoo birds here read or respond
to what I have to say. The typical cuckoo, josX, Ryker, Cagle,
etc... I delete 100% of whatever they write, but for you and
"greywolf42" and a few others I read 5% to 10% of what you write.
I do so mainly for entertainment value, and I can find other
entertainment easily enough elsewhere. So, don't feel compelled
for my sake to read or respond to anything I say.
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Paul Stowe" <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:aphcfs$5ks$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > actually believes that that Michelson endosed the entrained
> > aether concept.
>
> Of course he did. He did not even cease arguing after Stephen had
> called his bluff.
>
And that is because Jones was so ignorant and/or dishonest so as
not to be able or want to know what the facts are. Jones is much
more comfortable in making them up.
> > He provide that reference and there is NO
> > evidence of either deception or such behavior. He got a 'detail'
> > wrong (i.e. Michelson did abandon the idea).
>
> Can Stowe and/or Jones distinduish between the concepts of "a detail"
> and "the substantive argument"?
>
That Paul Stowe would choose to characterize Jones' fundamental
ignorance of the ether, and the historical facts surrounding
such, as being a "detail" is a testament to Stowe's basic
dishonesty. Stowe at least knows enough to understand how
ignorant Jones actually is, but Stowe would rather give
allegiance to someone who supports the ether rather than
accurately and honestly characterizing him for what he is.
> > Michelson DID
> > endorse the entrained aether concept. Michelson performed the
> > experiment in [7] to test that hypothesis... Had he thought the
> > case fully closed however I doubt that he would have gone on
> > to repeat the experiment in a one mile evacuated pipe. He died
> > before completing writing up the results of this one.
>
> Perhaps he just wanted to do the experiment as thoroughly as he could
> conceive of doing it? That is an attitude to be lauded.
>
Franz, you should know by now not to believe anything these
characters tell you. The experiment Stowe refers to had nothing
at all to do with the ether -- it was designed to produce a more
accurate value for the velocity of light. The first lines of the
paper which he dictated read: "The following is a report on the
measurement of the velocity of light made at the Irvine Ranch,
near ..."
> >
> > What, that Michelson was an aetherist???
>
> What I found above was a statement
> "Michelson, till death, DID consider the existence of the
> aether to be a proven fact..."
> I think that was the statement for which Stephen wanted you to provide
> evidence.
> You have not. Your readers are still waiting.
>
Don't hold your breath.
Charles Cagle
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Personally, I find Stephen not only a waste of time, but a
> despicable human being bent upon attempting character assassintion
> of all of those whom 'he' considers that do not agree with
> his views a.k.a.'not like himself'...
>
> Paul Stowe
You mean he's a dick head? I could have told you that. :-)
CC.
Harold Ensle
Jon Hurwitz <j...@jonh.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:apgo2k$srp$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Stowe is far from a despicable character. I have had discussions with both
Spiecher and Stowe.
Regardless of the validity of any of the arguments,
Stowe has always been perfectly civil. The only time he makes any negative
comments is in response to other people's negative comments, and in reality,
he fails to be as insultive as they. Apparently Stowe is naturally inclined
to
civil discussion.
Speicher on the other hand, is only civil to those who he agrees with. He
apparently has never learned, that even if someone really is wrong, you need
only to show why they are wrong, you do not need to insult them in the
process.
H.Ellis Ensle
Bill Hobba
Not quite It actually takes a fair amount of stupidity before Stephen is
uncivil. Everyone has a breaking point and having had a number of
discussions with Stephen and seen the rubbish he had to reply to I do not
believe his break point is unreasonable. I have never seen Stephen being
uncivil to me or to anyone that I would consider genuine. There are many
people who regularly post here who will not even make an effort to acquaint
themselves with facts. Dealing with those is annoying to an extreme and I
do not blame Stephen one bit.
Also note that Stephen has occasionally disagreed (or rather entered into a
discussion to clarify something) with people like Steve Carlip (usually over
some highly technical point such as non metric theories of gravity or some
such issue). Yet he always remains civil to them. So it is not true to say
he is only civil to people he agrees with.
Thanks
Bill
Stephen Speicher
>
> Harold Ensle <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Speicher on the other hand, is only civil to those who he agrees with. He
> > apparently has never learned, that even if someone really is wrong, you
> > need
> > only to show why they are wrong, you do not need to insult them in the
> > process.
>
> Not quite It actually takes a fair amount of stupidity before Stephen is
> uncivil. Everyone has a breaking point and having had a number of
> discussions with Stephen and seen the rubbish he had to reply to I do not
> believe his break point is unreasonable. I have never seen Stephen being
> uncivil to me or to anyone that I would consider genuine. There are many
> people who regularly post here who will not even make an effort to acquaint
> themselves with facts. Dealing with those is annoying to an extreme and I
> do not blame Stephen one bit.
>
> Also note that Stephen has occasionally disagreed (or rather entered into a
> discussion to clarify something) with people like Steve Carlip (usually over
> some highly technical point such as non metric theories of gravity or some
> such issue). Yet he always remains civil to them. So it is not true to say
> he is only civil to people he agrees with.
>
And permit me to point out the incredible irony in all this.
Note Ensle's claim: "He apparently has never learned, that even
if someone really is wrong, you need only to show why they are
wrong, you do not need to insult them in the process."
My well-deserved insults towards Ensle were _precisely_ because
of _his_ refusal to learn from those who have taken the time to
carefully show him why he is wrong. Tom Roberts, amongst many
capable others, invested time and effort to explain to Ensle his
very fundamental mistakes. But, the hallmark of a crank is his
absolute refusal to learn; when confronted with reason and facts
the crank chooses instead a state of self-imposed ignorance. Such
is the state of a Harold Ensle, a state of ignorance out of which
he continues to make outrageous claims about the invalidity of
that which he is either too dense or too irrational to
understand.
Note that cranks like Ensle and his ilk always like to cast the
issue as that I insult those with whom I disagree. As Bill points
out -- and permit me to say that this applies not just to Steve
Carlip, but to Tom Roberts and at some time to most every
knowledgeable person here -- I have disagreed with others yet
such disagreement always maintained a respectful tone. The
reason that Ensle, Stowe, Mingst, Miller, Rykker, etc. want to
make it appear that it is _only_ an issue of disagreement, is
that they all attempt to obliterate the distinction between
disagreement and sheer irrationality; the difference between
those such as Carlip and Roberts who are open to reason, and the
self-imposed ignorance of the cranks who do not ever want to
learn and understand.
And, thanks to Bill for having the courage to speak up against
the distortions of what appears to be an almost never-ending line
of cranks which continue to appear here on this group. I have
disagreed with Bill over several issues in the past, but Bill has
always been open to reason, and in at least one case I left it so
that we agreed to disagree. Disagreements occur all the time
between rational men, but with the cuckoo birds here it is not a
matter of specific disagreement, but a matter of principle: the
principle is an essential committment to reason and facts, as
opposed to the self-imposed ignorance and irrational state of the
typical crank.
and...@attglobal.net
Yes, Ensle's a piece of work. He posts the same crap
over and over. If you challenge him, he disappears
for a while and then it starts again as if it is something
new.
John Anderson
Stephen Speicher
And what is so annoying is that there seems to be some sort of
Conservation law for cranks in this group. The number of cranks
at any one time pretty much stays the same; When one of them
leaves another comes to take his place. It is as if they are all
being recycled. And, as you say, when they return they start
again from the beginning. It is a never-ending cycle.
rryker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
--
Robert Kolker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> And what is so annoying is that there seems to be some sort of
> Conservation law for cranks in this group. The number of cranks
> at any one time pretty much stays the same; When one of them
> leaves another comes to take his place. It is as if they are all
> being recycled. And, as you say, when they return they start
> again from the beginning. It is a never-ending cycle.
>
Was Newton or Maxwell ever subjected to the abuse/scorn of ignorant
and/or malicious cranks who either did not comprehend them, or could not
stand the fact that they (Newton, Maxwell) were right?
Bob Kolker
Harold Ensle
Bill Hobba <bho...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:1YYw9.3776$5u4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
There is no breaking point. It is used only as an excuse for those who
actually desire to be abusive. So this argument is only an excuse.
> Also note that Stephen has occasionally disagreed (or rather entered into
a
> discussion to clarify something) with people like Steve Carlip (usually
over
> some highly technical point such as non metric theories of gravity or some
> such issue). Yet he always remains civil to them. So it is not true to
say
> he is only civil to people he agrees with.
Actually, I agree that my statement was over generalized. Obviously, he
would maintain respect for Steve Carlip. But, for others, of unknown
credentials, he shows his disrespect through insults, something that really
is
unecessary.
H.Ellis Ensle
Franz Heymann
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:apu87p$1i3$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
[...]
> Speicher on the other hand, is only civil to those who he agrees with.
He
> apparently has never learned, that even if someone really is wrong,
you need
> only to show why they are wrong, you do not need to insult them in the
> process.
It is true that Stephen does not suffer fools gladly. He does, however,
wait for a poster to prove himself to be a fool before lamming into him.
I applaud that attitude.
Franz Heymann
Harold Ensle
[..............]
> And permit me to point out the incredible irony in all this.
> Note Ensle's claim: "He apparently has never learned, that even
> if someone really is wrong, you need only to show why they are
> wrong, you do not need to insult them in the process."
>
> My well-deserved insults towards Ensle were _precisely_ because
> of _his_ refusal to learn from those who have taken the time to
> carefully show him why he is wrong.
You misused the word "irony" here. And by saying "well-deserved" you have
merely confirmed my statement and confessed your guilt.
The true irony is that you refer to posts that you have never read or never
understood (though the first is more likely). You complain about people who
ignore obvious facts, but then simply do the same. So since you ignore
facts,
shouldn't you be insulted?
>Tom Roberts, amongst many
> capable others, invested time and effort to explain to Ensle his
> very fundamental mistakes. But, the hallmark of a crank is his
> absolute refusal to learn; when confronted with reason and facts
> the crank chooses instead a state of self-imposed ignorance. Such
> is the state of a Harold Ensle, a state of ignorance out of which
> he continues to make outrageous claims about the invalidity of
> that which he is either too dense or too irrational to
> understand.
I sincerely believe that you never read my arguments with Roberts,
Throop and McCullough. It is obvious then that your statements
above have no support. You have merely assumed that something
is incorrect without review, and then called the person a crank because
his results differed from what you already believed to be true.
> Note that cranks like Ensle and his ilk always like to cast the
> issue as that I insult those with whom I disagree. As Bill points
> out -- and permit me to say that this applies not just to Steve
> Carlip, but to Tom Roberts and at some time to most every
> knowledgeable person here -- I have disagreed with others yet
> such disagreement always maintained a respectful tone. The
> reason that Ensle, Stowe, Mingst, Miller, Rykker, etc. want to
> make it appear that it is _only_ an issue of disagreement, is
> that they all attempt to obliterate the distinction between
> disagreement and sheer irrationality; the difference between
> those such as Carlip and Roberts who are open to reason, and the
> self-imposed ignorance of the cranks who do not ever want to
> learn and understand.
But who really does not want to learn? You have specifically ignored
arguments that for any rational person would be sufficient to see a
very grave error in special relativity. You see, it is a matter of
perspective. You are so quick to think someone else is wrong, you
do not realize that you are wrong and, in fact, your reasoning is so
irrational that, if you knew it, you would have to call yourself the crank.
> And, thanks to Bill for having the courage to speak up against
> the distortions of what appears to be an almost never-ending line
> of cranks which continue to appear here on this group. I have
> disagreed with Bill over several issues in the past, but Bill has
> always been open to reason, and in at least one case I left it so
> that we agreed to disagree. Disagreements occur all the time
> between rational men, but with the cuckoo birds here it is not a
> matter of specific disagreement, but a matter of principle: the
> principle is an essential committment to reason and facts, as
> opposed to the self-imposed ignorance and irrational state of the
> typical crank.
This shows your incredible prejudice. It may not be based in race,
but is exactly the same mental condition.
Finally, it should be noted that Speicher has misrepresented my past
posts here (the ones he didn't read). If someone would like to know
how the twin paradox disproves relativity, they can simply read those
related threads by going to google groups advanced search and using
the key words: ensle + (throop or mccullough or roberts) +twin.
You will see that the discussions were civil and did, in fact, have
real content, that is, rational points were made. They tried to show
explicitly how the paradox was resolved. I did _not_ ignore their
arguments (as would be seen by any person who actually bothered
to read the articles). I concentrated on their points quite carefully
and then explained _explicitly_ why they did not work.
People call me a crank, but what can I do? I have argued the points
as rationally as anyone could. There is a serious error in special
relativity and I am not the first one to notice it. It has often been
brought up by people (from _all_ levels of education) since the
theory of relativity was known. For some reason, the problem
continues to be ignored. I know this, because the large number
of various solutions in the literature simply do not suffice to solve
the problem.
H.Ellis Ensle
Stephen Speicher
>
> Was Newton or Maxwell ever subjected to the abuse/scorn of ignorant
> and/or malicious cranks who either did not comprehend them, or could not
> stand the fact that they (Newton, Maxwell) were right?
>
All genius takes time to be assimilated into a world which does
not easily give up its most fundamental ideas. But the critics
are usually not cranks as we know them to be here, but rather
those who are slow to grasp and integrate the new. When Newton
wrote his 1672 paper on "Light and Colors" he was just shy of
being thirty years-old, and he was greatly surprised at the
criticism from Hooke. Newton just expected that his theory would
be immediately accepted, and as he found that he needed to
continually explain his theory to others, this led to an
overwhelming sense of disappointment and to a real personal
crisis.
The critiques came from many others besides Hooke, even
eventually a critque by Huygens, "And till he hath found this
Hypothesis, he hath not taught us, what it is wherein consists
the nature and difference of Colours, but only this accident
(which certainly is very considerable,) of their different
Refrangibilty." Because of the continued criticism of his optics
and mathematics, towards the end of the 1670s and into the 1680s
Newton virtually withdrew and did not reappear for almost a
decade.
Interestingly, a study of 18th century experimental science
showed many references to Newton's "Opticks," but quite little
for the "Principia." In the early 1800s the "Principia" was not
very accessible in printed form. And, note that previously I had
mentioned how Einstein had to study Maxwell on his own since
Weber would not teach Maxwell in his physics courses. This being
already 30 years after some of Maxwell's works.
Harold Ensle
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3DC4B0...@attglobal.net...
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Bill Hobba wrote:
> > >
> > > Harold Ensle <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Yes, Ensle's a piece of work. He posts the same crap
> over and over. If you challenge him, he disappears
> for a while and then it starts again as if it is something
> new.
Hey, if you and your accomplices are correct, why do you lie?
As anyone would be able to find out, I did not disappear.
When challenge by competent people (like Roberts, Throop
and McCullough and some others). I discussed the topic
essentially as long as they wished.
After the discussions took their course, to the point where
it was clear that their prejudices would not allow them to
see the truth. I would take a break....exhausted from my efforts.
I do return on occassion with the same complaints, since they
still remain unresolved.....hoping that perhaps there are some
new posters, that just might be able to see reason.
Of course, in your case, what would be the point? Though
actually despite my suspicions concerning your abilities, if
you would actually make a serious argument, I would even
give you the benifit of the doubt and respond with a relevant
rebuttle.
H.Ellis Ensle
Bill Hobba
> And what is so annoying is that there seems to be some sort of
> Conservation law for cranks in this group. The number of cranks
> at any one time pretty much stays the same; When one of them
> leaves another comes to take his place. It is as if they are all
> being recycled. And, as you say, when they return they start
> again from the beginning. It is a never-ending cycle.
>
Interesting point.
Perhaps this explains why genuinely knowledgeable people like John Baez,
Chris Hillman and Tom Roberts (I know Tom explained it was a new job he was
taking) have left this group far behind. The constant dealing with these
people is wearing. Do these people actually believe that people like John
Baez and Tom Roberts have not thought of genuine objections to relativity or
other well known physical theories? That is extremely doubtful. That being
the case the only reasonable response is post your concerns in the form of
reasoned queries. But they do not.
We all occasionally 'fizz'. Why at work on Friday when someone was holding
a file I needed for the entire day (our system does not tell you who has it
and we have over 100 people in our area) I 'fizzed'. I wrote an over the
top request to release the file to all staff. The response was swift. My
director (correctly) immediately asked me to write a retraction. As
rational beings we all realize such acts are counter productive. It will be
a while before I do the same again and I now must deal with the fallout.
The point is we learn from our mistakes. What the cranks etc do not seem to
do is learn and because of that the fallout has continued. Knowledgeable
people posting here is inversely proportional to the cranks.
Thanks
Bill
Franz Heymann
[...]
>There is a serious error in special
> relativity and I am not the first one to notice it.
You are obviously now a proven crank. There is no experiment which has
ever thrown up any results which are contrary to what relativity
predicts.
The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
behaviour of their clocks has been verified experimentally.
Franz Heymann
and...@attglobal.net
See "Fads And Fallacies In The Name Of Science" by Martin Gardner.
Pre-Einstein, Newton was a prime target of cranks.
John Anderson
David Evens
So you freely admit that you were engaging in a pathetic fabrication
when you flasely claimed that you do NOT disappear when corrected and
then come back latter with the same (intentional) errors.
Harold Ensle
Franz Heymann <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:aq44i7$hof$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:aq3per$cgq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> [...]
>
> >There is a serious error in special
> > relativity and I am not the first one to notice it.
>
> You are obviously now a proven crank.
This is actually fuuny. Let's see.... the second part of my sentence
is clearly true as people have claimed an error in the past. The
first part simple states that there is an error in special relativity.
You state that the statement makes me a crank. So, by your
standards, anyone who claims that there is an error in SR is
a crank. (Regardless of what the error might be)
Religion indeed!
>There is no experiment which has
> ever thrown up any results which are contrary to what relativity
> predicts.
Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
disproves relativity. There have also been other experiments
that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
............and others actually.
The fact that you know nothing about this does not mean it
is untrue.
> The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
> behaviour of their clocks has been verified experimentally.
No it is not understood. If the twin paradox were truely understood,
relativity would have been rejected a long time ago.
Furthermore, if one would look through the literature, they would find
more than one resolution of the paradox. There are quite a few actually.
Which one is right?
You are apparently unaware of these _facts_.
H.Ellis Ensle
Franz Heymann
>
> Franz Heymann <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:aq44i7$hof$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:aq3per$cgq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >There is a serious error in special
> > > relativity and I am not the first one to notice it.
> >
> > You are obviously now a proven crank.
>
> This is actually fuuny. Let's see.... the second part of my sentence
> is clearly true as people have claimed an error in the past. The
> first part simple states that there is an error in special relativity.
> You state that the statement makes me a crank. So, by your
> standards, anyone who claims that there is an error in SR is
> a crank. (Regardless of what the error might be)
Quite frankly, yes. That is, if the error is claimed to be present in
the sphere of applicability of SR. It has withstood a century of most
intensive theoretical and experimental scrutiny, and has survived as one
of the two most successful theories ever propounded in the whole of the
history of physics.
>
> Religion indeed!
>
> >There is no experiment which has
> > ever thrown up any results which are contrary to what relativity
> > predicts.
>
> Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
> disproves relativity.
Please familiarise yourself with the Sagnac experiment and return when
you have understood it. There is nothing in the Sagnac results which
are counter to what might be expected from relativity.
There have also been other experiments
> that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
> ............and others actually.
It would appear that you are not aware of the fact that the observations
of Silvertooth and Whitney have been discredited as resulting from
particularly poor experimental technique and data analysis.
>
> The fact that you know nothing about this does not mean it
> is untrue.
I know a fair amount more about those experiments than you do.
>
> > The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
> > behaviour of their clocks has been verified experimentally.
>
> No it is not understood. If the twin paradox were truely understood,
> relativity would have been rejected a long time ago.
I have to reiterate:
The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
behaviour of moving clocks has been verified experimentally.
I suggest that you will learn a lot from paying a visit to the
relativity FAQ.
>
> Furthermore, if one would look through the literature, they would find
> more than one resolution of the paradox. There are quite a few
actually.
> Which one is right?
There is no paradox to resolve. There never has been one. There has
only been beefing by folk who only half understood relativity.
>
> You are apparently unaware of these _facts_.
You are deeply mistaken in tha suggestion.
>
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
> Franz Heymann <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:aq44i7$hof$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:aq3per$cgq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >There is a serious error in special
> > > relativity and I am not the first one to notice it.
> >
> > You are obviously now a proven crank.
>
> This is actually fuuny. Let's see.... the second part of my sentence
> is clearly true as people have claimed an error in the past. The
> first part simple states that there is an error in special relativity.
> You state that the statement makes me a crank. So, by your
> standards, anyone who claims that there is an error in SR is
> a crank. (Regardless of what the error might be)
Quite frankly, yes. That is, if the error is claimed to be present in
the sphere of applicability of SR. It has withstood a century of most
intensive theoretical and experimental scrutiny, and has survived as one
of the two most successful theories ever propounded in the whole of the
history of physics.
>
> Religion indeed!
>
> >There is no experiment which has
> > ever thrown up any results which are contrary to what relativity
> > predicts.
>
> Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
> disproves relativity.
Please familiarise yourself with the Sagnac experiment and return when
you have understood it. There is nothing in the Sagnac results which
are counter to what might be expected from relativity.
There have also been other experiments
> that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
> ............and others actually.
It would appear that you are not aware of the fact that the observations
of Silvertooth and Whitney have been discredited as resulting from
particularly poor experimental technique and data analysis.
>
> The fact that you know nothing about this does not mean it
> is untrue.
I know a fair amount more about those experiments than you do.
>
> > The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
> > behaviour of their clocks has been verified experimentally.
>
> No it is not understood. If the twin paradox were truely understood,
> relativity would have been rejected a long time ago.
I have to reiterate:
The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
behaviour of moving clocks has been verified experimentally.
I suggest that you will learn a lot from paying a visit to the
relativity FAQ.
>
> Furthermore, if one would look through the literature, they would find
> more than one resolution of the paradox. There are quite a few
actually.
> Which one is right?
There is no paradox to resolve. There never has been one. There has
only been beefing by folk who only half understood relativity.
>
> You are apparently unaware of these _facts_.
You are deeply mistaken in tha suggestion.
>
Franz Heymann
Old Man
> Franz Heymann <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:aq44i7$hof$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:aq3per$cgq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
Congratulations Harold. You have earned It;
sci.physics Crackpot List:
tj Frazir
Charles Cagle
Richard Perry
Anonymous
josX
Dr X
2N3819
Spaceman
Oriel36
Habshi
Slavek.
JPDavid
James Harris
GRAVITYMECHANIC2
Henry Wilson
smart1234
DON JENSEN
Jeff Relf
Archimedes Plutonium
John C. Polasek
Keith Stein
Richard
Paul Stowe
Douglas Eagleson
David Thomson
brian the Roary Lion
David Rutherford
Average Joe
Anna&Will
Maleki
Robert
reticher
Dave Ulmer
Harold Ensle
It keeps getting longer & longer. [Old Man]
Harold Ensle
Old Man <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:VODx9.3942$jN2.4...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
After looking through the list, I am honoured to be counted
amoung them. Many of the people on this list have thought
more carefully about relativity than you. But due to some
kind of strange mental deficiency, you are totally unaware of it.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
>
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:aq69d8$1fj$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Franz Heymann <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:aq44i7$hof$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aq3per$cgq$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >There is a serious error in special
> > > > relativity and I am not the first one to notice it.
> > >
> > > You are obviously now a proven crank.
> >
> > This is actually fuuny. Let's see.... the second part of my sentence
> > is clearly true as people have claimed an error in the past. The
> > first part simple states that there is an error in special relativity.
> > You state that the statement makes me a crank. So, by your
> > standards, anyone who claims that there is an error in SR is
> > a crank. (Regardless of what the error might be)
>
> Quite frankly, yes. That is, if the error is claimed to be present in
> the sphere of applicability of SR. It has withstood a century of most
> intensive theoretical and experimental scrutiny, and has survived as one
> of the two most successful theories ever propounded in the whole of the
> history of physics.
You have fallen for propaganda, as the experimental evidence does
not support SR over a number of ether theories.
> > Religion indeed!
> >
> > >There is no experiment which has
> > > ever thrown up any results which are contrary to what relativity
> > > predicts.
> >
> > Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
> > disproves relativity.
>
> Please familiarise yourself with the Sagnac experiment and return when
> you have understood it. There is nothing in the Sagnac results which
> are counter to what might be expected from relativity.
It is obvious that you need to, both:
1. Familiarize yourself with the Sagnac experiment.
2. Familiarize yourself with the second postulate of relativity.
> There have also been other experiments
> > that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
> > ............and others actually.
>
> It would appear that you are not aware of the fact that the observations
> of Silvertooth and Whitney have been discredited as resulting from
> particularly poor experimental technique and data analysis.
If you are referring to Robert's posts, then you are mistaken. His analysis
was (while not altogether wrong) irrelevant.
> > The fact that you know nothing about this does not mean it
> > is untrue.
>
> I know a fair amount more about those experiments than you do.
Actually, I doubt it.
> > > The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
> > > behaviour of their clocks has been verified experimentally.
> >
> > No it is not understood. If the twin paradox were truely understood,
> > relativity would have been rejected a long time ago.
>
> I have to reiterate:
> The twins paradox is fully understood
I have to reiterate................no.
>and the predictions about the
> behaviour of moving clocks has been verified experimentally.
This is not even true. Only one SR point of view has been
verified by experiment. The reciprocal view has never been
experimentally verified. (i.e. No experiment has been done
that shows that a moving (in the lab frame) observer has seen
time-dilation of a stationary (in the lab frame) clock). Thus
one of the most fundamental predictions of SR (reciprocity)
has never been verified.
You did study relativity in school, right?
> I suggest that you will learn a lot from paying a visit to the
> relativity FAQ.
Been there.....done that............it sucks.
> >
> > Furthermore, if one would look through the literature, they would find
> > more than one resolution of the paradox. There are quite a few
> actually.
> > Which one is right?
>
> There is no paradox to resolve. There never has been one. There has
> only been beefing by folk who only half understood relativity.
You didn't answer my question.
> > You are apparently unaware of these _facts_.
>
> You are deeply mistaken in tha suggestion.
You are deluded.
H.Ellis Ensle
Randy Poe
> You have fallen for propaganda, as the experimental evidence does
> not support SR over a number of ether theories.
Citation of experimental evidence and ether explanation
please.
You say this with such authority, you must be able to
pull some results from the last 100 years and give the
ether explanations. I'm sure you're not just pulling
this statement out of your anatomy, but have actually
given it some thought, right?
- Randy
Bill Hobba
And the worst part is it seems to have nothing to do with knowledge; it has
to with attitude.
I don't even bother compiling them - their attitude is easy to recognize.
You and I have had discussions and disagreements in the past, but under no
circumstance are you a crank - you have reason on your side. Those above
seem to lack it. Sad.
Thanks
Bill
Franz Heymann
That is a totally baseless assertion. There is not one solitary piece
of experimental evidence available which is contrary to what is to be
expected from SR, in its sphere of applicability. You have tried to
bluff your
>
> > > Religion indeed!
> > >
> > > >There is no experiment which has
> > > > ever thrown up any results which are contrary to what relativity
> > > > predicts.
> > >
> > > Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
> > > disproves relativity.
> >
> > Please familiarise yourself with the Sagnac experiment and return
when
> > you have understood it. There is nothing in the Sagnac results
which
> > are counter to what might be expected from relativity.
>
> It is obvious that you need to, both:
>
> 1. Familiarize yourself with the Sagnac experiment.
> 2. Familiarize yourself with the second postulate of relativity.
It is unnecessary to ask me to perform those actions.
I am indeed familiar with the Sagnac experiment, and I know that the
results are not at variance with SR
>
> > There have also been other experiments
> > > that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
> > > ............and others actually.
> >
> > It would appear that you are not aware of the fact that the
observations
> > of Silvertooth and Whitney have been discredited as resulting from
> > particularly poor experimental technique and data analysis.
>
> If you are referring to Robert's posts, then you are mistaken. His
analysis
> was (while not altogether wrong) irrelevant.
I have no idea of who Ro.bert might be.
I repeat that you are not aware of the fact that the observations
of Silvertooth and Whitney have been discredited as resulting from
particularly poor experimental technique and data analysis. It is also
true that nobody has been able to reproduce the erroneous results of
those experimenters.
>
> > > The fact that you know nothing about this does not mean it
> > > is untrue.
> >
> > I know a fair amount more about those experiments than you do.
>
> Actually, I doubt it.
Coming from you, that is not surprising.
>
> > > > The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about
the
> > > > behaviour of their clocks has been verified experimentally.
> > >
> > > No it is not understood. If the twin paradox were truely
understood,
> > > relativity would have been rejected a long time ago.
> >
> > I have to reiterate:
> > The twins paradox is fully understood
>
> I have to reiterate................no.
In that case, all I can say is that you are quite short of knowledge
about SR.
How about getting a start by reading the FAQ?
>
> >and the predictions about the
> > behaviour of moving clocks has been verified experimentally.
>
> This is not even true.
You are speaking through a hole in the side of your neck.
All the predictions of the behaviour of moving clocks which have been
put to the test have shown the predictions to be correct.
> Only one SR point of view has been
> verified by experiment. The reciprocal view has never been
> experimentally verified. (i.e. No experiment has been done
> that shows that a moving (in the lab frame) observer has seen
> time-dilation of a stationary (in the lab frame) clock).
I hve no idea of what you are trying to say, and I am pretty certain you
don't either.
The Haefele and Keating experiment had observers associated with both
the earthbound clocks and the clocks on the aircraft. The clocks
started out together and ended up together. What is missing?
> Thus
> one of the most fundamental predictions of SR (reciprocity)
> has never been verified.
I don't think you know what you are saying.
>
> You did study relativity in school, right?
I did not learn it at school. I taught it for a decade at University.
>
> > I suggest that you will learn a lot from paying a visit to the
> > relativity FAQ.
>
> Been there.....done that............it sucks.
Well, that classifies you quite clearly as an idiot.
> > > Furthermore, if one would look through the literature, they would
find
> > > more than one resolution of the paradox. There are quite a few
> > actually.
> > > Which one is right?
> >
> > There is no paradox to resolve. There never has been one. There
has
> > only been beefing by folk who only half understood relativity.
>
> You didn't answer my question.
You seem not to have the cognitive abilities to see that I did answer
your question quite correctly.
>
> > > You are apparently unaware of these _facts_.
> >
> > You are deeply mistaken in tha suggestion.
>
> You are deluded.
You have characterised yourself quite explicitly as an idiot in this
sequence of exchanges.
This is my last contribtion, whatever you may feel compelled to
contribute
Goodbye.
Franz Heymann
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:aq8uoi$ute$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Franz Heymann <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:aq6m7l$7m0$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aq69d8$1fj$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > You are deeply mistaken in tha suggestion.
> >
> > You are deluded.
>
> You have characterised yourself quite explicitly as an idiot in this
> sequence of exchanges.
> This is my last contribtion, whatever you may feel compelled to
> contribute
> Goodbye.
>
... and good riddance. As others have pointed out, Ensle is just
recycling the same trash that no one would buy the last time
around, and the time before that, and the time ...
He cannot be educated -- a complete waste of time.
Bill Hobba
Harold Ensle
> After looking through the list, I am honoured to be counted
> amoung them. Many of the people on this list have thought
> more carefully about relativity than you. But due to some
> kind of strange mental deficiency, you are totally unaware of it.
Harold if you had bothered to read some of Old Mans postings you will find
he has knowledge of the standard model. To understand that you need to
understand QFT. To understand that you need to reconcile SR and QM.. Doing
that requires an understanding of SR well beyond anything you have
demonstrated.
And lest you think such things are mathematical tricks be aware the standard
model, of which QED is part, has stood up to experimental scrutiny of
incredible sophistication and accuracy. In order to doubt SR (or theories
that are experimentally indistinguishable from it) you are casting doubt on
some of the most accurate experiments ever undertaken.
Do yourself a favor. Buy Feynmans Lectures on Physics. Actually spend some
time reading and understanding it. This will form an excellent basis to
proceed. If you are not willing to read an understand some of the standard
classics of physics then you will not make progress.
Thanks
Bill
Harold Ensle
Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aq90f...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Actually my source for this statement was Tom Roberts.
If you disagree, take it up with him.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
This does not respond to the above statement. Do you actually
try and answer a post, or do you just type at random?
hint: ...........OVER a number of ether theories.
As have you.
> This is my last contribtion, whatever you may feel compelled to
> contribute
> Goodbye.
Thank goodness!
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Franz Heymann wrote:
> >
> > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:aq8uoi$ute$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > Franz Heymann <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aq6m7l$7m0$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:aq69d8$1fj$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > You are apparently unaware of these _facts_.
> > > >
> > > > You are deeply mistaken in tha suggestion.
> > >
> > > You are deluded.
> >
> > You have characterised yourself quite explicitly as an idiot in this
> > sequence of exchanges.
> > This is my last contribtion, whatever you may feel compelled to
> > contribute
> > Goodbye.
> >
>
> ... and good riddance. As others have pointed out, Ensle is just
> recycling the same trash that no one would buy the last time
> around, and the time before that, and the time ...
>
> He cannot be educated -- a complete waste of time.
Actually you are still a liar. I have on this very goup,
changed some positions based on the input of reasonable
individuals (SRists in fact) and I even remember who
they were. Paul Andersen, Wayne Throop, Luc Bourhis,
and Tom Roberts.
You see, I can change my position, but I need a reason.....
and apparently you can never come up with one.
BTW FYI "a reason" and "insult" have different meanings.
H.Ellis Ensle
Randy Poe
> Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:aq90f...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>>Harold Ensle wrote:
>>
>>>You have fallen for propaganda, as the experimental evidence does
>>>not support SR over a number of ether theories.
>>
>>Citation of experimental evidence and ether explanation
>>please.
>>
>>You say this with such authority, you must be able to
>>pull some results from the last 100 years and give the
>>ether explanations. I'm sure you're not just pulling
>>this statement out of your anatomy, but have actually
>>given it some thought, right?
>>
> Actually my source for this statement was Tom Roberts.
> If you disagree, take it up with him.
I don't know who Tom Roberts was, but I have only
your word for it that he said what you attribute
to him.
Again I'll ask you for a cite for your source, this
time for the Tom Roberts source. Unless you're
pulling *that* out of your anatomy.
- Randy
Stephen Speicher
> Harold Ensle wrote:
> > Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:aq90f...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> >
> >>Harold Ensle wrote:
> >>
> >>>You have fallen for propaganda, as the experimental evidence does
> >>>not support SR over a number of ether theories.
> >>
> >>Citation of experimental evidence and ether explanation
> >>please.
> >>
> >>You say this with such authority, you must be able to
> >>pull some results from the last 100 years and give the
> >>ether explanations. I'm sure you're not just pulling
> >>this statement out of your anatomy, but have actually
> >>given it some thought, right?
> >>
>
> > Actually my source for this statement was Tom Roberts.
> > If you disagree, take it up with him.
>
> I don't know who Tom Roberts was, but I have only
> your word for it that he said what you attribute
> to him.
>
Tom Roberts is a knowledgeable physicist, one who cares fervently
for clarity and precision of thought and words. I have not
followed any of this along, but I gather from what is quoted up
above that Ensle is referring to the fact -- voiced often by
Roberts -- that there are a whole class of ether theories which
are experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity.
However, one should _not_ conclude from that fact, that there are
not good reasons for preferring SR over this class of ether
theories. In fact, Roberts would often make crystal clear the
reasons for favoring SR over these dead-end theories.
Permit me to also point out the irony of cuckoo bird Ensle using
Roberts as a reference, when Ensle repeatedly demonstrated his
own inability to grasp what it is that Roberts had to say. As I
said in an earlier post (when Ensle made his un-glorious return
to this group), that Roberts had a way of turning Ensle's fodder
into gold, by using Ensle's bizarre misinterpretations to
explicate a correct perspective on relativity.
Randy Poe
> Tom Roberts is a knowledgeable physicist, one who cares fervently
> for clarity and precision of thought and words. I have not
> followed any of this along, but I gather from what is quoted up
> above that Ensle is referring to the fact -- voiced often by
> Roberts -- that there are a whole class of ether theories which
> are experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity.
I'll ask you then for what Ensle seems unable or
unwilling to provide: Can you give me a citation
to Roberts writing on this subject so I can read
what he has to say rather than get it filtered by,
um, "alternative" thinkers?
- Randy
Harold Ensle
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > Tom Roberts is a knowledgeable physicist, one who cares fervently
> > for clarity and precision of thought and words. I have not
> > followed any of this along, but I gather from what is quoted up
> > above that Ensle is referring to the fact -- voiced often by
> > Roberts -- that there are a whole class of ether theories which
> > are experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity.
>
> I'll ask you then for what Ensle seems unable or
> unwilling to provide:
Your brain is on permanent insult mode. I answered you exactly.
The only reason I stated it was because that is what Tom Roberts
claimed (with some explanations). I had and have no problem
with this, nor is it such a big issue actually, that I was fretting over
its source as you are. Simply go to advanced google groups, stick
in the words "Roberts" and "ether", and you get all sorts of relevant
posts.
As for Speicher, morally he is the second to worst trained SR
poster here. He never responds to my posts directly (as he
probably has me kill filed), but instead continues to insult me
in response to others. He really is a coward, running around
stabbing people in the back.
If he ever did engage me in genuine discussion. I would be
_perfectly_ reasonable and _perfectly_ logical, but
he just wouldn't be able to deal with it.
[...]
H.Ellis Ensle
Randy Poe
> Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:aqe0f...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>>Stephen Speicher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tom Roberts is a knowledgeable physicist, one who cares fervently
>>>for clarity and precision of thought and words. I have not
>>>followed any of this along, but I gather from what is quoted up
>>>above that Ensle is referring to the fact -- voiced often by
>>>Roberts -- that there are a whole class of ether theories which
>>>are experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity.
>>
>>I'll ask you then for what Ensle seems unable or
>>unwilling to provide:
>
>
> Your brain is on permanent insult mode. I answered you exactly.
> The only reason I stated it was because that is what Tom Roberts
> claimed (with some explanations).
That's not a citation. Even if you had never heard the
term "citation" or never written a formal paper of any
kind, the rest of my paragraph should have made it
clear that I am asking for a reference sufficient for
me to read Tom Roberts' words myself.
You are still either unwilling or unable to provide
this reference. You compound this by claiming that you
have "exactly" provided it.
- Randy
Ilja Schmelzer
Roberts class of ether theories are unimportant variants (unnecessary
complications) of the classical Lorentz ether. So not much to worry
about.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> , http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Randy Poe
OK, thanks. I was thinking that there was perhaps
a paper in Phys.Rev.Letters or something that people
were talking about, not a usenet post. But these seem
at least to be cogently written, so I'll read them and
in the meantime bow out of this silly thread.
Why Ensle wouldn't even go this far is beyond me.
- Randy
Franz Heymann
A few days ago I managed to extract the following from Ensle:
Quote
"Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
disproves relativity. There have also been other experiments
that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
............and others actually."
Unquote
I pointed out to him that he was mistaken to think that the Sagnac
experiment produced results at variance with predictions of relativity.
I also pointed out to him that Silvertooth & Whitney's results have been
discredited due to both poor experimental technique and poor data
analysis. And nobody has published anything by way of subsequent
experiments which might have offered support to S & W.
The best Ensle could produce by way of answer is the following:
Quote
"It is obvious that you need to, both:
1. Familiarize yourself with the Sagnac experiment.
2. Familiarize yourself with the second postulate of relativity."
Unquote.
Need more be said?
Franz Heymann
Stephen Speicher
The subject has been discussed here, many times and in many
different ways, but the main article on this by Roberts is titled
"Theories Equivalent to SR," which you can read at URL:
p.s. Yes, when Ensle activates his filter, all contact with
reality is lost. Denoting Ensle as an "alternative" thinker is a
slur to those who actually think, alternative or not.
Stephen Speicher
For Ensle, nothing more is needed than "plunk."
For the rest, as far back as 1921 ("Sur la theorie de la
relativite et l'experience de M. Sagnac," _Comptes Rendus de
l'Academie des Sciences_, 173, pp. 831-834, 1921), and again in
1937 ("Sur l'experience de M. Sagnac," _Comptes Rendus de
l'Academie des Sciences_, 205, pp. 304-306, 1937) Paul Langevin
demonstrated the compatibility of Sagnac's experiment with both
special and general relativity.
We are almost into the 2020s, and Ensle has not yet caught up
with the 1920s!
Harold Ensle
> Harold Ensle wrote:
> > Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:aqe0f...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >
> >>Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Tom Roberts is a knowledgeable physicist, one who cares fervently
> >>>for clarity and precision of thought and words. I have not
> >>>followed any of this along, but I gather from what is quoted up
> >>>above that Ensle is referring to the fact -- voiced often by
> >>>Roberts -- that there are a whole class of ether theories which
> >>>are experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity.
> >>
> >>I'll ask you then for what Ensle seems unable or
> >>unwilling to provide:
> >
> >
> > Your brain is on permanent insult mode. I answered you exactly.
> > The only reason I stated it was because that is what Tom Roberts
> > claimed (with some explanations).
>
> That's not a citation. Even if you had never heard the
> term "citation" or never written a formal paper of any
> kind,
Actually I have been involved (and written part) of two
papers which have been published in main stream physics
journals. So despite your continued insults, I do know
what a citation is.
>the rest of my paragraph should have made it
> clear that I am asking for a reference sufficient for
> me to read Tom Roberts' words myself.
I provided in the second post adequate information
for you to find what you needed. If
that is not good enough for you, that is your problem.
> You are still either unwilling or unable to provide
> this reference. You compound this by claiming that you
> have "exactly" provided it.
Damn......are you lazy.
H.Ellis Ensle
BTW if it was from a journal, I would have given you an
exact reference, but my statement was from memory of
discussion on this group and I did not have the exact
reference.
Harold Ensle
[.....]
> A few days ago I managed to extract the following from Ensle:
> Quote
> "Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
> disproves relativity. There have also been other experiments
> that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
> ............and others actually."
> Unquote
>
> I pointed out to him that he was mistaken to think that the Sagnac
> experiment produced results at variance with predictions of relativity.
Yes you did.......so.........this is simply a statement with no support.
> I also pointed out to him that Silvertooth & Whitney's results have been
> discredited due to both poor experimental technique and poor data
> analysis.
Yes you did.......so........this is simply a statement with no support.
> And nobody has published anything by way of subsequent
> experiments which might have offered support to S & W.
Strange, I don't remember you posting this (you probably just
added it here), but it is still meaningless. The reason that the
experiment has not been repeated is that nobody _believes_
it is worth the effort....after all SR must be true, so no experiment
that contradicts it need be considered.
> The best Ensle could produce by way of answer is the following:
>
> Quote
> "It is obvious that you need to, both:
> 1. Familiarize yourself with the Sagnac experiment.
> 2. Familiarize yourself with the second postulate of relativity."
> Unquote.
>
> Need more be said?
Of course you snipped what these sentences were in response
to. They were actually a mirror statement based on your own
unsupported claims and do not represent an argument. The point
was that they have as much significance as the statements you made.
Apparently you missed it.
H.Ellis Ensle
Randy Poe
> Actually I have been involved (and written part) of two
> papers which have been published in main stream physics
> journals.
Cite?
> So despite your continued insults, I do know
> what a citation is.
And did you find it customary in these journals
to give citations of the form "do your own research"?
Any insult you have perceived is from your own
distorted view of reality. All I've done is ask a couple
of times for a citation. And when you didn't provide one,
I stated that you hadn't provided one. Factual
observation.
>
> Damn......are you lazy.
An insult looks more like that.
Do try to think straight.
Anyway, long before this latest uninformative post, two
people actually did provide the request citations.
Note that until they did so, I had no way of even
knowing what medium the comments were from. In fact,
as I stated, I had assumed you were talking about
a published article.
- Randy
Franz Heymann
>
> Franz Heymann <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:aqekvk$guf$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>
> [.....]
>
> > A few days ago I managed to extract the following from Ensle:
> > Quote
> > "Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
> > disproves relativity. There have also been other experiments
> > that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
> > ............and others actually."
> > Unquote
> >
> > I pointed out to him that he was mistaken to think that the Sagnac
> > experiment produced results at variance with predictions of
relativity.
>
> Yes you did.......so.........this is simply a statement with no
support.
There was no need to do so, since it is a fact which is totally common
currency in the field in this day and age. I have a feeling that Ensle
is living in the distant past.
By the way, has it occurred to Ensle that his erroneous assertion about
the Sagnac experiment was also given without support?
>
> > I also pointed out to him that Silvertooth & Whitney's results have
been
> > discredited due to both poor experimental technique and poor data
> > analysis.
>
> Yes you did.......so........this is simply a statement with no
support.
Read the FAQ and find the necessary support there.
Secondly, their results have not been repeated since then.
If they were to be taken seriously, there would quite certainly have
been further experiments along the same lines.
Ensle, you really do not have a leg to stand on.
Would Ensle now like to have a list of experiments which are in
agreement with the predictions of special relativity? It would have to
be a very partial list, in view of the overwhelming amount of data which
has accrued in the past 3/4 century. I have a feeling that Ensle does
not know that SR has been tested at speeds up to within one part in
10^11 of the speed of light.
>
> > And nobody has published anything by way of subsequent
> > experiments which might have offered support to S & W.
>
> Strange, I don't remember you posting this (you probably just
> added it here), but it is still meaningless. The reason that the
> experiment has not been repeated is that nobody _believes_
> it is worth the effort....after all SR must be true, so no experiment
> that contradicts it need be considered.
You are under the grossest possible misapprehension of how science
proceeds. Have you ever thought of the kudos which would accrue to the
person who would do an improved version of the S & W experiment, and
confirm that indeed S & R were right by fluke?
>
> > The best Ensle could produce by way of answer is the following:
> >
> > Quote
> > "It is obvious that you need to, both:
> > 1. Familiarize yourself with the Sagnac experiment.
> > 2. Familiarize yourself with the second postulate of relativity."
> > Unquote.
> >
> > Need more be said?
>
> Of course you snipped what these sentences were in response
> to. They were actually a mirror statement based on your own
> unsupported claims and do not represent an argument. The point
> was that they have as much significance as the statements you made.
>
> Apparently you missed it.
I did not miss anything worth while in your post.
Franz Heymann
Sergey Karavashkin
relativism. With it they are basically unable to connect the facts, to
find the arguments, to overwhelm the paradoxes. Militant dogmatism and
boundless boorishness are their only arguments. If one tries proving
them something, they simply snip the arguments and turn inside out the
proof. How many times I suggested them to solve a very simple paradox
with their beloved twins. How many threads were left because of that
my post. Now I'm suggesting you again this my old post of 30.07.02
from the thread "simple relativity question":
<< As I see, relativists have rather confused you with the Mach's
bucket rotating by a rope. The point of Homo's question is not how to
invent synchronisation which the colleagues began discussing, and
discussing mainly quite correct. We can easy prove that if two systems
were inertial, we always can find a way to synchronise the clocks.
The point is, in relativism the distortions of observations carried
out by way of particular (and not best) technique are substituted by
real distortions of the space-time configuration of objects. However
this thesis remains true only in frames of intentionally limited (and
so biased) logic. Actually, to say for sure that the length in the
frame A has diminished due to its velocity with respect to the
stationary frame B and this was the reason of distinction of time
intervals, we have first to prove rigorously in limits of SR (not
introducing an absolutely stationary Newtonian reference system) that
just the frame A is moving. I will be said, this is known from the
pre-history, as the frame A has accelerated breaking away from B. I
don't debate but want to check. To do so, I am asking the third
observer C relatively to which both systems A and B moved with the
velocity v before separated. C evidences that A has accelerated in
direction reverse to the initial motion, and now A and C are
stationary, while B goes on moving. Well, in which frame the real
transformations of scales occur? It is clear that when having this
problem solved, the item of the clock synchronisation will be lifted.
This is the answer.>>
Do you actually think, they will try to comprehend or think? No, only
to push forward their slogans and to attack with throat. To
understand, to analyse is too complicated exercise for their brains.
Otherwise they wouldn't behave so.
Sergey.
Sergey Karavashkin
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >There is a serious error in special
> > > > relativity and I am not the first one to notice it.
> > >
> > > You are obviously now a proven crank.
> >
> > This is actually fuuny. Let's see.... the second part of my sentence
> > is clearly true as people have claimed an error in the past. The
> > first part simple states that there is an error in special relativity.
> > You state that the statement makes me a crank. So, by your
> > standards, anyone who claims that there is an error in SR is
> > a crank. (Regardless of what the error might be)
>
> Quite frankly, yes. That is, if the error is claimed to be present in
> the sphere of applicability of SR. It has withstood a century of most
> intensive theoretical and experimental scrutiny, and has survived as one
> of the two most successful theories ever propounded in the whole of the
> history of physics.
Franz,
You are well fluffing up your tail, until someone pins it down. You
are so much sure that SR is infallible, only because you're deaf to
any arguments, you snip them and substitute all physical terms with
indecent language. Even from our previous discussions on photon, you
wrote something on "The Aether question", denied this on "What's a
free photon", renounced your beloved formula E=mc^2 stating that my
joining it with your other beloved formula E=h*nu is illegal, denied
the Schroedinger equation. You had to sit still in your discussion
with Henri Wilson concerning two photons in one frame; you debunked
even Feynman concerning non-interacting photons. You have pulled out
of naphthalene the multiply beaten Einstein's thesis of photon point
particles and came to the idea that EM field is located out of photon.
When I pointed you it out, you simply have faded from answer. Your
reaction is understandable, as just this disables to describe the
interference pattern. By the way, all these problems dragged on as
long ago as from the beginning of past century. But this concerned to
photon. Furthermore, I gave you a brief analysis of so-called
experiments on the stars light deviation in the field of Sun having
been so boosted by relativists. You have simply "disregarded" this
all. Such are your proofs, and such is your way of argumentation.
Well, I'm giving you again an excerption from my post of 23.10.02 on
the thread "What is a Free Photon?" (your words are with one mark
">"):
======================
> The red-shift of photons by the gravitational field of the earth has
> been observed
First, not of photons. To prove the photons existence, one has to
answer related questions, not to pretend as if nothing happened.
Second, if I properly understand, you mean the experiments by R. Pound
and G. Rebka in 1960; by T.E. Cranshaw, I.P. Schiffer, A.B. Whitehead
in the same 1960; and by S.A. Melnikov in 1964. V.A. Atsukovsky has
mentioned the following as to these so-called experiments:
"The experiments carried out by Cranshaw and his group are criticised
in the paper by R. Pound and G. Rebka in which they write: "Our
investigation shows that from the Cranshaw's experiment one can
conclude nothing at all". However the experiments by R. Pound and G.
Rebka can be doubted too. They themselves have showed that disregard
of one-grade difference in temperatures of receiver and radiator
causes the same effect as that sought. However the temperature during
this experiment has been taken into account by way of introduced
corrections, and these corrections achieved 5,5-fold value as to that
determined. One cannot be sure, whether the corrections were proper.
The results obtained by S.A. Melnikov were only qualitative, and there
was noticed that the exact calculation of the effect regarding all
hampering factors is so complicated that hardly can be calculated at
all" [V.A. Atsukovsky. The critical analysis of the foundations of
Relativity, p. 39].
> The transverse momentum acquired by a photon passing close by the limb
> of the sun has been observed.
If we look at the photos of stars shift obtained in the similar
experiments by Campbell and Trumpler, we can see that there was less
than a dozen pure radial shifts of 112 observed stars of two
near-solar-disk zones, while most of them have an inclined either
tangential shift or no shift at all. With it one can trace no stable
regularity. For example, the tracks of stars 98 and 99 cross each
other. The stars 66, 55, 57, 43, 73, 29, 77 haven't shifted at all,
though they are in the near zone. The star 86 has shifted
tangentially, while the neighbouring to it star 82 was immovable. The
same for stars 104 and 101, and with it the near-placed star 102 has
shifted approximately radially. The alongside stars 11 and 12, 14
have the opposite shifts. The same concerns the stars 44 and 17, 70
and 77, etc. If one considers such result positive, what for have we
to experiment at all? It would be simpler to paint or to construct in
a computer; this will more precisely correspond to the desired effect,
and one hasn't spend money for expeditions. Complete profit. ;-)
=====================
You have replied me only on the Rebka's experiment. The fact that you
called me "idiot" is your relativistic beloved way to discuss. That I
used 'improper' literature, is also your relativistic beloved
technique. And the fact that in Rebka's experiment the correction
factors multiply exceed the result itself - this fact is 'normal'. If
you at least once have dealt with the temperature measurement in
experiments, you know what I mean.
Such are your relativistic experiments and ignorant methods. Or let us
discuss a photon aeroplane with the drops of water on the mirror? You
have snipped its description too. Provable experiment! To the point,
couldn't you tell me of another experiment carried out in October by
American and British scientists, on the stars light deviation by
Jupiter? In that information it was said directly, if the experiment
appears unsuccessful, they will have to revise the entire Einstein's
theory. The experiment has been carried out, the funds have been used
up, the advertising has been made, and what about the report? ;-)
As to your following assertion:
> Quite frankly, yes. That is, if the error is claimed to be present in
> the sphere of applicability of SR. It has withstood a century of most
> intensive theoretical and experimental scrutiny, and has survived as one
> of the two most successful theories ever propounded in the whole of the
> history of physics.
I multiply gave the colleagues here the examples, how your relativism
does survive. In particular, in my post to Laurent of 26.09.02 on
"What evidence for photons" I wrote the following:
=======================
<< You have no interest to, in what ways are actually supported such
fantasies, even though I showed you before, how the publishers and
archives impede the dissemination of new knowledge. I can add. Some
time ago the Editor-in-Chief of a Russian public scientific journal
"NeWton" ordered us a paper describing our achievements in
electromagnetism. We have sent him… The final of this story was
in a spirit of best relativistic 'scientific' arguments. Lest me long
explaining, please simply read the last letter of the Editor:
**********
Fri, 14 Jun 2002
Dear and much-esteemed Sergey,
With deep regret I am announcing that by the reasons out of my control
the journal NeWton has suddenly dead, i.e. closed down. I'm feeling
extremely uncomfortable informing you of it, since, being myself false
reassured, I have reassured you and many other people whose attention
flatters me and whose acquaintance is of a great value for me.
Currently I'm thinking of publishing something alike in an other, more
reliable place (publishing). I have spoken of it with the
Press-Secretary of Russian Foundation of Fundamental Research V.
Novikov. He is the physicist too. I have touched in this talk also the
problem of longitudinal radiation. He told that at due time at the
Academy of Sciences there was a whole discussion on this subject. I
thought, as soon as I have an opportunity, I will promote the
publishing of a series of the thematic collection, journal or almanac
on this and other issues of scientific discussion, now under the
patronage and promotion of the Russian Academy of Sciences, not the
occasional structures and sponsors having not a direct relation to the
science. Without saying, you are one of the most welcomed authors in
this future project. Please excuse me for the delay in answering. I
hope, our acquaintance will not stop at this point.
Remember me to Olga. I wish you all the best.
Peter
************
Was it occasional? Possibly. May I tell you one more story. Other
Editor-in-Chief of a scientific journal, also in Russia, has invited
us to send him for publication our materials on elastic systems. It
seems, what a concern have our results in classical wave mechanics to
QM? It turns out, they have! See the last message of this Editor, Head
of the BioMedPhysics Department of the Udmurt university. This message
does not need any commenting:
************
Mon, 16 Sep 2002
Dear Sergey,
May I apologise for so long consideration of your work. Unfortunately,
a number of dramatic events has moved all our plans to
September-October - a small war of vehement adherents of Quantum
Mechanics against our "non-physical" trend in our university. All
other trends are thought non-physical. I have heard already such
judgement from Ginzburg and Vonsovsky, but in a softer form.
As a result, my department in the Udmurt University is liquidated.
My best regards,
Valentin Shironosov
************
This all has something in common with the silence that I have an
honour to hear on Google as to our scientific results, non-answering
my questions, running away from threads, going on fantasying as if
nothing was said. See, side by side with your posting there is the
intellectual Bob's comment to the same my posting. All what he wished
was - to be sarcastic as to the Biblean phrase. All the other does not
exist. >>
===================
These evidences concern me only indirectly, so you cannot mount your
beloved horse that someone is conflictive. This happened with the
people quite enrolled in the conventional system of lie, but having
once violated the mutual guarantee of lie, even not concerning just SR
or QM but simply because they dared to publish the developing
materials. There are thousands of such evidences. Such are the
methods, how the relativists retain their 'leading' position. This is
an unconcealed fascism, this is terror. You all are aware of it, you
in that number.
Sergey.
> >
> > Religion indeed!
> >
> > >There is no experiment which has
> > > ever thrown up any results which are contrary to what relativity
> > > predicts.
> >
> > Actually this is not even true. The Sagnac experiment easily
> > disproves relativity.
>
> Please familiarise yourself with the Sagnac experiment and return when
> you have understood it. There is nothing in the Sagnac results which
> are counter to what might be expected from relativity.
>
> There have also been other experiments
> > that do not support SR. Silvertooth and Whitney, for example
> > ............and others actually.
>
> It would appear that you are not aware of the fact that the observations
> of Silvertooth and Whitney have been discredited as resulting from
> particularly poor experimental technique and data analysis.
> >
> > The fact that you know nothing about this does not mean it
> > is untrue.
>
> I know a fair amount more about those experiments than you do.
> >
> > > The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
> > > behaviour of their clocks has been verified experimentally.
> >
> > No it is not understood. If the twin paradox were truely understood,
> > relativity would have been rejected a long time ago.
>
> I have to reiterate:
> The twins paradox is fully understood and the predictions about the
> behaviour of moving clocks has been verified experimentally.
>
> I suggest that you will learn a lot from paying a visit to the
> relativity FAQ.
>
> >
> > Furthermore, if one would look through the literature, they would find
> > more than one resolution of the paradox. There are quite a few
> actually.
> > Which one is right?
>
> There is no paradox to resolve. There never has been one. There has
> only been beefing by folk who only half understood relativity.
> >
> > You are apparently unaware of these _facts_.
>
> You are deeply mistaken in tha suggestion.
> >
> Franz Heymann
Stephen Speicher
> Again the relativists raise their rotten banners of "truly infallible"
> relativism. With it they are basically unable to connect the facts ...
> To understand, to analyse is too complicated exercise for their
> brains.
>
And which part of the brain did you and Atsukovsky use when you
embraced Miller's discredited data?
Edward Green
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
[...]
> I should hate to see Jones deprived of the opportunity of finding out
> what other folk think about his character just because he killfiles his
> critics.
Yes. Killfiling critics is a real head in sand behavior.
Randy Poe
> Again the relativists raise their rotten banners of "truly infallible"
> relativism.
Again the cranks raise the "religion" strawman. No physicist
has ever said relativity is infallible. Nobody has ever made
a claim beyond "self-consistent, and correct so far".
> With it they are basically unable to connect the facts, to
> find the arguments, to overwhelm the paradoxes.
The paradoxes are always resolved, ALWAYS, by being
self-consistent with what frame you are measuring in,
by not requiring signaling faster than light, and by not
introducing a Galilean transform or postulate.
The "contradictions" are always created, ALWAYS, by
introducing:
(1) a Galilean postulate
(2) faster than light signaling, or
(3) jumping frames and getting confused about the
meanings of variables.
- Randy
Jeff Krimmel
Good post Randy. Strictly rational and quickly to the point.
Thanks for the good read,
Jeff
Franz Heymann
"Sergey Karavashkin" <sel...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1305a9da.02111...@posting.google.com...
I have told you in another thread in no uncertain terms that I will not
discuss the whole of physics in one thread with you.
What you spout below here seems to be largely a regurgitation of the
stuff I told you in another thread to raise in separate threads, without
any innuendos, without any of the misatributions you have been known to
make on a grand scale, and with the physics points about which you apear
in doubt clearly stated.
So, I decline to partake of the mish mash you offer below here.
I have made my terms for discussion with you quite clear, and I will
stick to them, because I don't trust you further than I can throw a
stone.
To save other readers' time, I have not made other comments further down
in this garbage collection.
Franz Heymann
Sergey Karavashkin
> On 11 Nov 2002, Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
>
> > Again the relativists raise their rotten banners of "truly infallible"
> > relativism. With it they are basically unable to connect the facts ...
> > To understand, to analyse is too complicated exercise for their
> > brains.
> >
>
> And which part of the brain did you and Atsukovsky use when you
> embraced Miller's discredited data?
Only your uncultured understanding can take the alternative data as
discredited by the only reason that your clan has cursed them. I have
already answered you. Should Miller's data be the only or be obtained
on the bad-quality device, one could discredit them, showing the
mistake in metrological substantiation of his experiment. This was
never done. At the same time I also wrote you that the problem of
parasitic compensation in Michelson's interferometer was not so simple
and stays uninvestigated finally. Kennedy's experiments took this
compensation into account and were also positive. Michelson has
obtained positive results too, but on another device, this has been
also described in scientific literature. To understand this, one has
to have a desire to understanding the physical problems, doing not
limiting himself by the slogans. This is too meagre food for people
having brains.
So you can say whatever you wish, but without substantiation your
theses will have a corresponding value. Dog barks - caravan goes on.
This is an ancient East wisdom.
Sergey.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Sergey Karavashkin" <sel...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1305a9da.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Only your uncultured understanding can take the alternative data as
> discredited by the only reason that your clan has cursed them. I have
> already answered you. Should Miller's data be the only or be obtained
> on the bad-quality device, one could discredit them, showing the
> mistake in metrological substantiation of his experiment. This was
> never done. At the same time I also wrote you that the problem of
> parasitic compensation in Michelson's interferometer was not so simple
> and stays uninvestigated finally. Kennedy's experiments took this
> compensation into account and were also positive. Michelson has
> obtained positive results too, but on another device, this has been
> also described in scientific literature. To understand this, one has
> to have a desire to understanding the physical problems, doing not
> limiting himself by the slogans. This is too meagre food for people
> having brains.
Please provide references in peer-reviewed literature.
> So you can say whatever you wish, but without substantiation your
> theses will have a corresponding value. Dog barks - caravan goes on.
> This is an ancient East wisdom.
Put up or shut up. There is a good saying. We have more than enough
"snipers" here.
David A. Smith
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021111...@localhost.localdomain>...
> > On 11 Nov 2002, Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> >
> > > Again the relativists raise their rotten banners of "truly infallible"
> > > relativism. With it they are basically unable to connect the facts ...
> > > To understand, to analyse is too complicated exercise for their
> > > brains.
> > >
> >
> > And which part of the brain did you and Atsukovsky use when you
> > embraced Miller's discredited data?
>
> Only your uncultured understanding can take the alternative data as
> discredited by the only reason that your clan has cursed them.
Your own culture is unable to distinguish between objective
scientific analysis, and that which is "cursed." Since your
"clan" is unable to rationally exercise the former, you are left
with the mysticism of the latter.
Ken S. Tucker
So, if I understand you correctly,
"the mistake in metrological substantiation"
when the cofactor of
"parasitic compensation in Michelson's interferometer"
is included, together with East wisdom, should explain
relative variations of cultural geodesics?
Thus you, basically suggest a means of compensation,
to enhance communication, is that what your driving at?
(I should mention, my next door neighbour pointed this
out, so it appears to be a sort of grass-roots based
new motive.
For the good of nature,
Regards...Ken S.Tucker
Sergey Karavashkin
In your judgement you considerably narrowed the problem, having united
the cutlets with flies. The fact that Stephen is a trivial boor says,
it's his business to bark. However the problem of measurement of so
called aether wind with the help of interference is not so simple as
the relativists claim.
The first I can say, people who studied this problem know that the
Fizeau experiments weren't negative. Indeed, they haven't shown a
liquid medium dragging the light fully but only partly. But we
shouldn't forget that liquid is not a continuum for light.
Second, when I answered to Stephen, I supposed that he with his
assumed erudition knows, for example, the book "Ether drift data" by
F.G. Pease in which multiple experiments carried out by the author and
other scientists have been described. Or that he knows the
publications of a conference on Michelson-Morley experiment (1927,
Mount Wilson). At this conference, practically all specialist of the
area were present, in that number Michelson, Lorenz, Miller, Roy
Kennedy, and others. At this conference there were discussed both the
positive results and the reasons of negative results, and
particularly, the Reagy's computation on the parasitic compensation of
the effect with the interferometer turning. And at this conference the
Miller's experiments weren't taken as discredited but were thoroughly
discussed and compared with other positive results. I supposed also
that Stephen might know the Michelson's paper in Astrophysical journal
in which he stated the results of positive experiment which he carried
out in 1925 together with Pease. And this is a small part of known
results.
I would like to say that the problem is not so simple and requires
from us to be not arrogant but attentively analysing. Not only the
temperature gradients and vibrations of the device basis impact on the
results of interferometric experiments. The main error is caused by
the circumstance that the device is aligned in the moving frame of
reference. Just this was why Miller paid especial attention to the
aspect that we should strive for broad interferometric fringes. Just
with the purpose to get over the parasitic compensation, Kennedy
applied an additional layer on a half of reflecting mirror, creating a
step. And this was in addition to the compensation of the beams path
parasitic difference that was already applied in the first Michelson's
experiments. Which of the ways to get the compensation over led to
which result - this needs to be utterly analysed.
I would like to say also that the primary calculation of the
interferometer, given in the first Michelson's reports and caught up
by the relativists, was inadmissibly simplified. In the above works
much more serious calculations were given, they took into account the
beam shift, mirrors inclination and many, many other factors. These
calculations are very complicated and lead to much more complicated
and not so much one-valued results.
If one actually thinks himself the physicist, before stating so
groundless as Stephen, Franz, Bilge and some others do, one has to
understand every reason of the success or not of each series of
experiments. One has to make complete correct calculations, to provide
the repeatability of the result in different versions. This is the
approach of a real physicist. With it one shouldn't exclude the length
shortening which actually takes place after the classical
calculations. Personally I have carried out scrupulously such
investigations and obtained the square relationship of the
longitudinal deformation of field with respect to velocity. But this
was not a simplified relativistic deformation. Very interesting
phenomena were revealed there. A.A. Denisov and some other authors
whom such as Stephen groundlessly reject obtained the similar results
in a simplified form.
This all is necessary to be known and the main, done. Such is the
'caravan'. For example, we in our laboratory have proved the
conservation theorems for dynamic fields; the peer international
experts have recognised them, so the EM part of relativism has to be
archived, since the equations of dynamic field have changed. We have
conducted the experiments on the radiation/receipt of longitudinal EM
and transversal acoustic waves - they both do work, so we have lifted
an important contradiction in the aether theory on which the
relativists liked so much to ground their refusals, doing not taking
care to carry out even some preliminary experiments, not to say, to
consider the problem thoroughly. So step by step will occur to all
other parts of the relativism. Thus, let dogs bark. ;-)
Sergey.
dyna...@vianet.on.ca (Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message news:<2202379a.02111...@posting.google.com>...
Ken S. Tucker
Your context below certainly proves you have concerns about MMX,
and this is shared by many people, including Dr. Marmet, who has
worked to produce alternative explanations to GR.
I think the arguments on MMX are pointless now, analyzing that
data will never resolve anything tangiable. It's more pointless
because of the developement of the LIGO system of interferometers.
While none of the 4 or 5 interferometers being constructed
world wide rotate, their relative orientation, together with
the motion, rotation and revolution of the Earth, produce, when
measurements are collated, many different orientations relatively
to the aether. The whole system cost nearly $1/2 billion, so your
concerns are certainly being addressed, as are mine, within the
limits of the taxpayer!
What if aether wind AND g-waves are detected? (rhetorical).
I suppose a few will turn in there graves, and a few might
find an earlier grave!
Regards Ken S. Tucker
sel...@go.com (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<1305a9da.02112...@posting.google.com>...
Tom Roberts
> [...]
You seem to be advocating the position that Dayton Miller's experiment really
had a significant non-null result.
It is clear to me that his experiment was significantly distorted by
experimenter's bias. Note this is not an attempt to insult him or his
collaborators, or to impugn their honesty or integrity as experimenters. It is a
simple and direct statement which seems to me to be fully consistent with the data.
Note that experimenter's bias was not well known until sometime in the 1950s or
'60s, and then mostly in the realm of medical and social studies. Simply put:
because of the position of the human observer in the experiment, it is essential
to use a single-blind experimental protocol to ensure that the human does not
influence the results; Miller did not do that, and the omission was disasterous.
Support for my claim is quite simple and straightforward: Miller's result was
obtained by averaging thousands of individual measurements, and the result is
significantly smaller than the resolution with which the measurements were
recorded. And they were recorded to 0.1 fringe, which is more accurate than MY
eyes are. Clearly their "signal" is utterly dependent on the way the
measurements were visually interpreted and rounded BY THE HUMAN EXPERIMENTER.
Other criticisms of Miller's work (most notably by Shankland et al) have never
justified to my satisfaction how the mechanisms they identified could introduce
a sidereal variation in the result. Experimenter's bias does so easily, as long
as one assumes that the experimenters themselves knew the sideral time while
they were making measurements. For a long-term data acquisition experiment like
this, it is inconceivable to me that they did not spend some of their
non-observing hours computing sidereal time, making preliminary averages,
comparing each day's data to expectations (and yesterday's data, and last
year's), etc. -- certainly every experimental group I have known has done such
things while taking data.
But the groups I know use electronics and computers to take
their data, so experimenter's bias is NOT an issue for them.
At least not in this sense....
So while Miller obtained a non-null result, it is not very believable that this
was caused by some sort of ether. When placed in context with the hundreds of
other experiments testing SR, the most reasonable conclusion is that his
experiment was flawed. Fatally.
[Sorry, I have no references handy. I doubt they are needed, but
if anyone needs them, just ask and I'll look them up.]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Stephen Speicher
[...]
Welcome back, Tom. I hope you will stay for a while.
Stephen Speicher
>
> al) have never justified to my satisfaction how the mechanisms
> they identified could introduce a sidereal variation in the
> result. Experimenter's bias does so easily, as long as one
> assumes that the experimenters themselves knew the sideral time
> while they were making measurements.
>
I was surprised to read that you were not fully convinced by
Shankland's analysis, so I went back to again read the paper and
doublecheck my previous conclusions. I find Shankland et al. to
be more convincing than I even recall. They make clear that the
second harmonic provides the parameters for the supposed ether
drift, and after providing the evidence they conclude:
"Under the most favorable experimental circumstances
the second harmonics in the Mount Wilson data remain
essentially constant in phase and amplitude through
periods of several hours, and are then associated with
a constant temperature pattern in the observation hut.
This, together with the statistical and mechanical
analyses, forces us to conclude that the observed
harmonics in the fringe displacements are not due to a
cosmic phenomenon (aether drift), nor to
magnetostriction, nor to mechanical causes, but rather
to temperature effects on the interferometer. These
disturbances were much more severe at Mount Wilson than
those encountered by other observers in their
repetitions of the Michelson-Morley experiment
performed in laboratory rooms."
--R. S. Shankland et al., "New Analysis of the
Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller,"
_Reviews of Modern Physics_, Vol. 27, Number 2, pp.
167-178, April, 1955.
With reference to their conclusions, what specifically is it in
their analyses that you do not find convincing?
Also, just to be fair to Shankland et al. in regard to
experimenter's bias, they do note:
"Consider the individual data sheets. It is generally
agreed that an experienced observer with keen eyesight,
such as Miller had, can estimate the fringe position to
0.05 fringe, which may be regarded as the least count
of the instrument. This personal factor will introduce
variations in the data in addition to those arising
from other causes."
So, even though they did not feel the need to spell this factor
out as an overall influence -- afterall, they believe they have
found the cause -- they do grant the ability for Miller to
have possibly infuenced the data.
And, one last thing, mainly for entertainment value. I have given
this following quote before, either partially or fully, and I
give it again.
"The Michelson experiments were made by the American
physicist Miller, first in flat country and later on
top of Mount Wilson, a high mountain. To begin with, he
claimed to have discovered, using his Michelson
interferometer, the so-called aether wind. Some time
later he withdrew the claim; the shift of the
interference fringes, on which he had based his claim,
had been too small. I believe he then attributed it to
the movement of the solar system. When I was in the
United States in 1925/1926, Miller's measurements were
still frequently being discussed. I therefore went to
Pasadena to see a demonstration of the apparatus on top
of Mt. Wilson. Miller was a modest little man who very
readily allowed me to operate the enormous
interferometer. I found it very shaky and unreliable; a
tiny movement of one's hand or a slight cough made the
interference fringes so unstable that no readings were
possible. From then on I completely lost faith in
Miller's results."
--Max Born as part of a commentary in the book "The
Born-Einstein Letters," Translated by Irene Born with
commentaries from Max Born, _Macmillan_, 1971.
What Born relays here is a personal experience, not a scientific
analysis, but the words "a slight cough made the interference
fringes so unstable that no readings were possible" are hard to
put out of mind. I always think of these words from Born whenever
the issue of the Miller data arises.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
>> [...]
>
> You seem to be advocating the position that Dayton Miller's
> experiment really had a significant non-null result.
>
> It is clear to me that his experiment was significantly
> distorted by experimenter's bias. ...
That is an interpetation that cannot be supported by anything
EXCEPT a belief.
> Note this is not an attempt to insult him or his collaborators,
> or to impugn their honesty or integrity as experimenters.
Yes it is, by default...
> It is a simple and direct statement which seems to me to be
> fully consistent with the data.
Really, data is data. Has this experiment ever been replicated
using the original defined protocols? If so, has the results
been directly compared to the original?
> Note that experimenter's bias was not well known until sometime
> in the 1950s or '60s, and then mostly in the realm of medical
> and social studies. Simply put: because of the position of the
> human observer in the experiment, it is essential to use a
> single-blind experimental protocol to ensure that the human
> does not influence the results; Miller did not do that, and the
> omission was disasterous.
That can only be 'proven' by direct replication. Otherwise it's
only an 'opinion'.
Another experiment that used a protocol similar to Miller's, was
Silvertooth's, and with similar results. The question of 'what'
can only be answered by replication under controlled unbiased
(by all parties) conditions. You have a demonstrated bias as
strong as that you accuse Miller of.
> [Sorry, I have no references handy. I doubt they are needed, but
> if anyone needs them, just ask and I'll look them up.]
On-Line References
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/4/2
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/special-relativity-invalid3.htm
http://www.energyscience.co.uk/bib/1990a.htm
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as45pe$orq$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
[snip]
> On-Line References
>
> http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
I thought you had some kind of physics education.
Did you ever had a look at
http://www.orgonelab.org
http://www.orgonelab.org/research.htm
?
Dirk Vdm
J. J. Lodder
Entertainment indeed, but not convincing by itself.
New experimental results are almost always found
at the margins of instrument sensitivity,
where they have to be extracted from noise and spurious signals.
An occasional visitor will not be capable
of judging the possibility of getting something valuable
from the mess with a lot of careful work.
And indeed, even the experimentalist in charge may misjudge,
as Miller did,
Jan
pst...@ix.netcom.com
I do not play the guilt by association game. What is factually
wrong with the information contained in the reference I provided
on Miller? I wouldn't care if the article was written by Howard
Hughes (who was also known to be downright crazy, in the very real
sense) if the information he provided was correct.
I think people have the ability to judge for themselves, and
separate 'on topic' information from that which is totally
unrelated. A man could 'believe' himself to be Jesus and still
be able to correcly and accurately describe the works of
Shakesphere. One is NOT, of necessity, related to the other.
If there is inaccurate information in the reference then point it
out and let's talk about it, Otherwise you have NO valid argument.
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as58ia$orn$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=UV207.11504$YS5.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
I have nothing to add to the 4 examples I provided.
Dirk Vdm
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Yup, just as I thought, another red herring and no factual
problems 'on topic' of the information on Miller...
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as5flj$5rq$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <uTpF9.10$rB.4...@news.cpqcorp.net>,
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as58ia$orn$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
[snip]
> >> If there is inaccurate information in the reference then point it
> >> out and let's talk about it, Otherwise you have NO valid argument.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=UV207.11504$YS5.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
> > I have nothing to add to the 4 examples I provided.
>
> Yup, just as I thought, another red herring and no factual
> problems 'on topic' of the information on Miller...
Yup, just as I thought, another example of typical
ether-adict behaviour.
<Godwin>
I'm sure you would
ah, well... never mind.
</Godwin>
Dirk Vdm
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as5flj$5rq$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> In article <uTpF9.10$rB.4...@news.cpqcorp.net>,
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as58ia$orn$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> If there is inaccurate information in the reference then point it
>>>> out and let's talk about it, Otherwise you have NO valid argument.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=UV207.11504$YS5.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
>>> I have nothing to add to the 4 examples I provided.
>>
>> Yup, just as I thought, another red herring and no factual
>> problems 'on topic' of the information on Miller...
>
> Yup, just as I thought, another example of typical
> ether-adict behaviour.
>
> <Godwin>
> I'm sure you would ah, well... never mind.
> </Godwin>
If this is your best off-topic retoric I think you need to get
lessons from Uncle Al :)
OTOH, I still see no evidence that the provided information on
the site in question isn't factual...
It is rather funny though that your only apparent argument is
that the person providing such independently confirmable factual
information isn't to your liking. In fact, that article is
actually pretty neutral throughout except in the conclusion
section, in which the author most clearly indicates that he IS
stating his opinion, clearly delineating fact from opinion.
My points remains,
1. that bias exist in ALL people and Roberts is exhibiting as
much of that as to which he accuses Miller et al...
2. The only way to actually refute an experiment is to replicate
it, demonstrating that, in replication, changing the suspected
parameter removes/alters the results obtained. Arm chair
quarterbacking isn't valid science! No matter who engages in
it...
To date, I have never encountered a human being that is without
bias, that includes myself.
Paul Stowe
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as5pk0$be2$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
The fact that he is not to my liking does not matter here.
The fact that he is not not (!) to *your* liking and that you still
take claims of a person like this seriously, says something about
your ability to judge the value and the credibility of the sources
you use to form your opinions.
No one in his right mind should use DeMeo as a source for
anything. We know Demeo's agenda: rehibilitate a convicted
criminal who tried to make a living on the gullible.
http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopubs.htm
Extract:
| For more than 13 years (1977 - 1990), the author has conducted field
| trials with the Reich cloudbuster, a novel water-grounded antenna
| operated from the ground and which, thorough an unorthodox theory of
| atmospheric functioning, influences cloud growth and circulation
| patterns governing rainfall. Reported increases in moisture, clouds
| and rains have been observed to follow cloudbusting operations in a
| rather consistent and repeatable manner, sometimes in a most dramatic
| fashion.
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xdemeo.htm
Extract:
| THE ORGONE ACCUMULATOR HANDBOOK: Construction Plans,
| Experimental Use, and Protection Against Toxic Energy. by
| James DeMeo, Ph.D., with a foreword by Eva Reich, M.D., and
| an appendix examining new experimental evidence
| demonstrating the biological effects of the orgone energy
| accumulator. The orgone accumulator is based upon the
| discoveries of the late Dr. Wilhelm Reich, whose work
| remains vital and of wide interest. Learn how to concentrate
| and work with orgone (life) energy using simple, readily
| available materials. A limitless supply is freely available
| from the atmosphere. These experimental devices have been
| shown to stimulate plant growth and human physiology in
| controlled studies. In this edition, Dr. DeMeo updates
| information on the construction of orgone energy blankets,
| shooters, box-type accumulators, bion-packs and draw buckets
| for atmospheric cleansing, with many instructional diagrams
| and photographs, and a complete bibliography and resource
| guide. Over 150 pages, perfectbound with full-color cover
| featuring the clearly visible blue orgone (life energy)
| field of an Apollo astronaut on the lunar surface.
There is *much* more if you care to look.
> In fact, that article is
> actually pretty neutral throughout except in the conclusion
> section, in which the author most clearly indicates that he IS
> stating his opinion, clearly delineating fact from opinion.
>
> My points remains,
>
> 1. that bias exist in ALL people and Roberts is exhibiting as
> much of that as to which he accuses Miller et al...
>
> 2. The only way to actually refute an experiment is to replicate
> it, demonstrating that, in replication, changing the suspected
> parameter removes/alters the results obtained. Arm chair
> quarterbacking isn't valid science! No matter who engages in
> it...
>
> To date, I have never encountered a human being that is without
> bias, that includes myself.
Agreed.
But your taking DeMeo as a reference, instantly and effectively
reduces your credibility to close to zero. Consider this statement
as my personal bias if you like.
Dirk Vdm
Minor Crank
> In article <3DE53FE4...@lucent.com>,
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> > Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > You seem to be advocating the position that Dayton Miller's
> > experiment really had a significant non-null result.
> >
> > It is clear to me that his experiment was significantly
> > distorted by experimenter's bias. ...
>
> That is an interpetation that cannot be supported by anything
> EXCEPT a belief.
Except for the fact that experimenters with modern instrumentation,
which exceeds the sensitivity and stability of Miller's setup by many
orders of magnitude, have consistently failed to reproduce his
results.
What other explanation can there be EXCEPT experimenter's bias?
>
> > Note this is not an attempt to insult him or his collaborators,
> > or to impugn their honesty or integrity as experimenters.
>
> Yes it is, by default...
>
> > It is a simple and direct statement which seems to me to be
> > fully consistent with the data.
>
> Really, data is data. Has this experiment ever been replicated
> using the original defined protocols? If so, has the results
> been directly compared to the original?
And why would anybody want to repeat the experiment with archaic
instrumentation? It has been pointed out on another thread that LIGO
is in effect the world's largest, most sensitive instrument for
detecting potential ether drift effects. LIGO has many problems to
overcome, but a need for continuous, periodic recalibration following
24 hour and 365 day time cycles due to ether drift effects is
absolutely NOT one of them!
Rehashing ancient data is a distinguishing trait of internet cranks.
Including yours truly, of course!
:-)
Your repeat of your same silly sentiments demands my repeat of the
same answer that I gave before. Why would ANYBODY want to repeat
Silvertooth's experiment with archaic instrumentation?
> > [Sorry, I have no references handy. I doubt they are needed, but
> > if anyone needs them, just ask and I'll look them up.]
>
> On-Line References
>
> http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
> http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/4/2
> http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/special-relativity-invalid3.htm
>
> http://www.energyscience.co.uk/bib/1990a.htm
>
> Paul Stowe
"Minor crank"
SPCC
Franz Heymann
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:as5pk0$be2$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <H6sF9.25017$Ti2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>,
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> ><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:as5flj$5rq$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> In article <uTpF9.10$rB.4...@news.cpqcorp.net>,
> >> "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:as58ia$orn$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>>> If there is inaccurate information in the reference then point
it
> >>>> out and let's talk about it, Otherwise you have NO valid
argument.
> >>>
> >>>
That is strikingly obvious, since it looks as if you are steadfastly
refusing to investigate Dirk's four links.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:as5pk0$be2$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In article <H6sF9.25017$Ti2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>,
> > "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > ><pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:as5flj$5rq$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >> In article <uTpF9.10$rB.4...@news.cpqcorp.net>,
> > >> "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:as58ia$orn$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >>>> If there is inaccurate information in the reference then
point it
> > >>>> out and let's talk about it, Otherwise you have NO valid
argument.
> > >>>
> > >>>
I wonder if Stowe's loyalty to this card De Meo is too strong for him
to admit that he picked a dud horse.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Van de moortel
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:as608k$kip$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:ZluF9.25333$Ti2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
[snip]
> > Agreed.
> > But your taking DeMeo as a reference, instantly and effectively
> > reduces your credibility to close to zero. Consider this statement
> > as my personal bias if you like.
>
> I wonder if Stowe's loyalty to this card De Meo is too strong for him
> to admit that he picked a dud horse.
Hehe, he also picked another horse named Caroline:
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/special-relativity-invalid3.htm
See also:
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/People/DeMeo_Reich.htm
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
Enjoy ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
Caroline Thom(p)son of old?
She who knows no physics and blares it loudly?
I think she is still going strong in alt.something or other, recycling
the same nonsense.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Van de moortel
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:as629l$80u$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
And who calls for help to DaddyMeo:
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/People/DeMeo_Reich.htm
> I think she is still going strong in alt.something or other, recycling
> the same nonsense.
Absolutely :-)
> Franz Heymann
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
>
> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as5pk0$be2$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > OTOH, I still see no evidence that the provided information on
> > the site in question isn't factual...
>
> The fact that he is not to my liking does not matter here.
The _real_ fact that matters is that Stowe has repeatedly
demonstrated that he is incapable of discerning an actual fact,
from his own feelings. So it really does not matter whether the
info comes from a slimeball or a saint. In either case, Stowe
acts on the premise of his own wish-fulfillment rather than
objectively assessing facts.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as5pk0$be2$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>>>
>>> OTOH, I still see no evidence that the provided information on
>>> the site in question isn't factual...
>>> information isn't to your liking.
>>
>> The fact that he is not to my liking does not matter here.
>
> The real fact that matters is that Stowe has repeatedly
> demonstrated that he is incapable of discerning an actual
> fact, from his own feelings. So it really does not matter
> whether the info comes from a slimeball or a saint. In
> either case, Stowe acts on the premise of his own
> wish-fulfillment rather than objectively assessing facts.
Fine, then answer the same question put to Dirk, what aspects
of the referenced article that described Dayton Miller's
experiment and efforts is not factual.
Apparently none of you ilk can discern the difference between
message and messenger.
When I looked for information that would help reader understand
the historical context and aspects of what was being discussed
I chose those that appeared to be the most neutral (on both
sides) and informative. I did not then, nor do I now care as
to the personal beliefs of the author. Throughout this whole
exceedingly petty diatribe NEVER have I claimed, suggested, or
hinted that I held similar beiefs as the author. The 'fact'
is, I didn't know, nor do I CARE about his beliefs and, as long
as any of his other biases or beliefs does NOT slant the basic
facts in has NO bearing on those. If you think it has, fine,
define the problems, otherwise, like Dirk, your attacking the
messenger, not the message. As for his other beliefs, he is as
entitled to expression as any one else, even you, period!
As for wish-fullfillment I note that you NEVER was able to
defend your touted out claim that, somehow, an snippet from
Maxwell's writings proved his abandonment of the vortex model.
Ilja politely asked you to explain yourself and you ran, tail
between legs, failing to even attempt to defend OR retract
that bogus assertion. As was said then,
"... Ilja question is relevant, and you're evading it.
Thus his question remains, and unanswered..."
One must consider that you are what psychologist call
'projecting' your own faults onto others. Now that IS
pathetic.
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02112...@localhost.localdomain>,
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>
> >> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as5pk0$be2$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >>>
> >>> OTOH, I still see no evidence that the provided information on
> >>> the site in question isn't factual...
> >>> information isn't to your liking.
> >>
> >> The fact that he is not to my liking does not matter here.
> >
> > The real fact that matters is that Stowe has repeatedly
> > demonstrated that he is incapable of discerning an actual
> > fact, from his own feelings. So it really does not matter
> > whether the info comes from a slimeball or a saint. In
> > either case, Stowe acts on the premise of his own
> > wish-fulfillment rather than objectively assessing facts.
>
> Fine, then answer the same question put to Dirk, what aspects
> of the referenced article that described Dayton Miller's
> experiment and efforts is not factual.
>
The point I made was that, as far as _you_ are concerned, it does
not matter. Fact or fiction, they are the same to you. The only
criteria you use for judgment are your feelings, embodied in the
satisfaction from answering this question (implicitly, not
consciously): does this support the way that I feel about
physics? If it supports your feelings, then you embrace it as
fact. If it does not support your feelings, you reject it as
fiction. You are, literally, incapable of making objective
judgments, at least as far as physics is concerned. You have
demonstrated this here on these science groups, over and over,
year after year. I know nothing of your private life -- and I am
most happy to keep it that way -- so I do not know for sure how
much of this subjectivism extends beyond physics and into other
areas of your life. However, I would not be at all surprised to
discover that a flaw such as this is a major component of your
overall character.
Dirk Van de moortel
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:as6e5i$s2f$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02112...@localhost.localdomain>,
[snip]
> One must consider that you are what psychologist call
> 'projecting' your own faults onto others. Now that IS
> pathetic.
>
> Paul Stowe
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22wilhelm+reich%22
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22wilhelm+reich%22+ether
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22wilhelm+reich%22+ether+demeo
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
> Welcome back, Tom. I hope you will stay for a while.
>
I second that. My discussions with you and reading of your posts helped my
understanding of a number of issues enormously.
Thanks
Bill
Harry
Harald
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3DE53FE4...@lucent.com...
That is an important claim. Especially since
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm makes the opposite claim:
"Miller's larger apparatus used a 50x telescope, allowing magnified readings
down to hundredths of a fringe, though readings were typically recorded in
tenths."
But I did not see that they cited a specific reference to back up that
claim.
Therefore the reference on which you base your claim is crucial. I am very
interested!
About the accuracy of fringes: Yes please!
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
>