that means, you don't know the basic maths, too. Bad for you. You must brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old man.
Regards,
Klaus
________________________________ Von: Hartwig Thim <superha...@gmx.at> An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 20:48:59 Uhr Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Roger, he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right spelling) being equal or identical to him. Hartwig -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks "identical" and > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> Definition of EQUAL > 1 > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> So he's gone off into his own little world.
> Roger
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hartwig Thim > To: NPA Members Chat Email > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Roger, > thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another > example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that in school. > Hartwig > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
> > with the following assumptions
> > 0x1 = 0 > > 0x2 =0
> > the following must be true
> > 0x1 = 0x2
> > i.e 0=0
> > then divide through by 0
> > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
> > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
> > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to which > is > > the problem; as I have said.
> > Klaus, > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > them > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is > not > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > is > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > thereby > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring > light > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if > only > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com> > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Hartwig,
> > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > mathematics. > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > have > > told > > > you, > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > be).
> > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > wrong. > > When > > > you > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > division > > by > > > zero, > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > succeed.
> > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > the > > > light source > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > and > > > generates > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > light > > > source > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > you > > don't > > > even know > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > exactly > > > one thing > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > light > > > source > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > about > > the > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > > Considering > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > light > > source > > > is moving > > > or not (related to S').
> > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
are true also for t not equal t'. You should think about your strategy. Your argumentation is inconsistent.
You can repeat your nonsense as many times you like, it remains still nonsense. There is only one light flash for each and any observer. Regardless of his/her inertial system. Harald has told you that several times. And I tell you as well.
Sincerely,
Klaus
________________________________ Von: Hartwig Thim <superha...@gmx.at> An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 21:06:00 Uhr Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Klaus, Roger said: t=t' so he wrote the two equations correctly: as they are: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0 And let me finally tell you the story why cats have three tails: no cat has got two tails, one cat has got one tail. no cat + one cat = one cat, so: one cat has got three tails or special relativity makes two light flashes out of one. That's the real fallacy (of special relativity or the LTs). Hartwig
> but we are supposedly considering case when (1) and (2) are not > necessarily > equal
> What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is equal to eqn. > (2)??
> What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is not > necessarily > equal to eqn. (2)??
> (1) reformulated yields:
> x²+y²+z²-c²t² = 0 (1b)
> (2) reformulated yields:
> x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0 (2b)
> Nobody intelligent on this earth claims that the left hand sides of (1b) > and > (2b) are NOT equal.
> so effectively as one possibility (1) might equal 1 and (2) might equal 2
> 1-1 = 2-2 =0
> Oh yes, that's correct. And where exactly is the fallacy? And where > exactly is > the division by zero? And where is the unique link to SRT? Because if you > have > following eqs. as an arbitrary example
> a = 5 (i)
> and
> b = 7 (ii)
> then
> a - 5 = 0 = b - 7
> and what?
> b - a = 7 - 5 = 2
> still true, isn't it?
> and even further:
> b = a + 2
> still true.
> So, what is your problem?
> Regards,
> Klaus
> ----- Original Message ----- > >From: Klaus Kern > >To: NPA Members Chat Email > >Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 3:06 PM > >Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> >Hartwig,
> >Please name the excellent mathematicians which have told you, that 0=0 > must > >not be done.
> >Klaus, > >there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > them > >yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > >zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is > not > >getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > is not only > >useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them thereby > predicting > >an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring light > flashes at > >O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if only one in > S at O > >has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong.
> >> what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > >> mathematics. > >> As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which have > told > >> you, > >> that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall be).
> >> Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > wrong. > >>When > >> you > >> are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > division by > >> zero, > >> you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not succeed.
> >> x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > the > >> light source > >> related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > and > >> generates > >> a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > light > >> source > >> at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², you > don't > >> even know > >> whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> >> Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > exactly > >> one thing > >> about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > light > >> source > >> is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > about the > >> spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > >> Considering > >> only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the light > source > >> is moving > >> or not (related to S').
> >> So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
> >> Roger, > >> yes, that is the big mistake. Excellent mathematicians have told me > that > >> 0 = 0 must not be done, and then dividing by 0 is yielding the big > >> catastrophy, > >> called "Special Relativity". > >> Hartwig > >> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > >> > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 11:06:51 -0000 > >> > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > >> > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > >> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> >> > Its what "they" do with the equation next thats nonsense.
> >> > "they" have 0 =0
> >> > and do nonsense like divide both sides by 0 and think they have > 1=1
Santa Klaus (at least thousend years old), your time has finished a week ago, now we are living in the New Year 2011, January. Jump quickly into the running sled, otherwise you will miss it and you have to walk into heavens. Hartwig -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Roger, > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there the 7 > dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right spelling) being > equal > or identical to him. > Hartwig > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Hartwig
> > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks "identical" > and > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > Definition of EQUAL > > 1 > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) > : > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > So he's gone off into his own little world.
> > Roger
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hartwig Thim > > To: NPA Members Chat Email > > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Roger, > > thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another > > example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that in > school. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
> > > with the following assumptions
> > > 0x1 = 0 > > > 0x2 =0
> > > the following must be true
> > > 0x1 = 0x2
> > > i.e 0=0
> > > then divide through by 0
> > > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
> > > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
> > > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to > which > > is > > > the problem; as I have said.
> > > Klaus, > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you > equate > > them > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > is > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > > not > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > is > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > thereby > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > measuring > > light > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' > if > > only > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com> > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig,
> > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement > in > > > > mathematics. > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > have > > > told > > > > you, > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > be).
> > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > wrong. > > > When > > > > you > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > division > > > by > > > > zero, > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > succeed.
> > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing > about > > the > > > > light source > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at > x=y=z=0 > > and > > > > generates > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of > the > > > light > > > > source > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > > you > > > don't > > > > even know > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's > telling > > > exactly > > > > one thing > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 > the > > > light > > > > source > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > about > > > the > > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal > 0. > > > > Considering > > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > > light > > > source > > > > is moving > > > > or not (related to S').
> > > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
Klaus, read my NPA2010-paper again and again until you understand it. I can see why it is difficult for Santa Klaus. Hartwig -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> are true also for t not equal t'. You should think about your strategy. > Your > argumentation is inconsistent.
> You can repeat your nonsense as many times you like, it remains still > nonsense. > There is only one light flash for each and any observer. Regardless of > his/her > inertial system. Harald has told you that several times. And I tell you as > well.
> Klaus, > Roger said: t=t' so he wrote the two equations correctly: as they are: > x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0 > And let me finally tell you the story why cats have three tails: > no cat has got two tails, one cat has got one tail. no cat + one cat = one > cat, > so: one cat has got three tails > or special relativity makes two light flashes out of one. That's the real > fallacy (of special relativity or the LTs). > Hartwig
> > but we are supposedly considering case when (1) and (2) are not > > necessarily > > equal
> > What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is equal to > eqn. > > (2)??
> > What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is not > > necessarily > > equal to eqn. (2)??
> > (1) reformulated yields:
> > x²+y²+z²-c²t² = 0 (1b)
> > (2) reformulated yields:
> > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0 (2b)
> > Nobody intelligent on this earth claims that the left hand sides of (1b) > > and > > (2b) are NOT equal.
> > so effectively as one possibility (1) might equal 1 and (2) might equal > 2
> > 1-1 = 2-2 =0
> > Oh yes, that's correct. And where exactly is the fallacy? And where > > exactly is > > the division by zero? And where is the unique link to SRT? Because if > you > > have > > following eqs. as an arbitrary example
> > a = 5 (i)
> > and
> > b = 7 (ii)
> > then
> > a - 5 = 0 = b - 7
> > and what?
> > b - a = 7 - 5 = 2
> > still true, isn't it?
> > and even further:
> > b = a + 2
> > still true.
> > So, what is your problem?
> > Regards,
> > Klaus
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Klaus Kern > > >To: NPA Members Chat Email > > >Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 3:06 PM > > >Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > >Hartwig,
> > >Please name the excellent mathematicians which have told you, that > 0=0 > > must > > >not be done.
> > >Klaus, > > >there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > them > > >yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > is > > >zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > > not > > >getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > is not only > > >useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them thereby > > predicting > > >an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring light > > flashes at > > >O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if only one > in > > S at O > > >has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong.
> > >> what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > >> mathematics. > > >> As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > have > > told > > >> you, > > >> that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > be).
> > >> Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > wrong. > > >>When > > >> you > > >> are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > division by > > >> zero, > > >> you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > succeed.
> > >> x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > the > > >> light source > > >> related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > and > > >> generates > > >> a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > light > > >> source > > >> at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > you > > don't > > >> even know > > >> whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > >> Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > exactly > > >> one thing > > >> about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > light > > >> source > > >> is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > about the > > >> spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > >> Considering > > >> only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > light > > source > > >> is moving > > >> or not (related to S').
> > >> So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
---- Exactly, maybe it isn't equal; but many SR texts give x²+y²+z² - c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²- c²t² =0, and we are dealing with SR.
x²+y²+z²= c²t² (1)
right hand side is
What exactly is the "right hand side" of this "double equation"? --- right hand side is x'²+y'²+z'²- c²t² =0 that gives us x'²+y'²+z'²= c²t² (2)
maybe x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'²=0 ?????????????????????? (maybe not?) -- Exactly, but many SR texts give us that it is; and we are dealing with SR.
x'²+y'²+z'²= c²t² (2)
but we are supposedly considering case when (1) and (2) are not necessarily equal
What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is equal to eqn. (2)??
---no idea what you mean by "usual mathmatical terms", it means equation (1) = equation (2)
What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is not necessarily equal to eqn. (2)??
--- ditto with "mathematical terms", it means equation (1) maybe equal to equation (2)
(1) reformulated yields:
x²+y²+z²-c²t² = 0 (1b)
(2) reformulated yields:
x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0 (2b)
Nobody intelligent on this earth claims that the left hand sides of (1b) and (2b) are NOT equal.
--- (1b) = (2b) =0, but that does not mean (1) = (2)
so effectively as one possibility (1) might equal 1 and (2) might equal 2
1-1 = 2-2 =0
Oh yes, that's correct.
-- good
And where exactly is the fallacy?
---the fallacy would then be to claim 1 =2
And where exactly is the division by zero?
-- going by 1-1 = 2-2 =0 and dividing through by 0, and believing the fallacy that 0/0 =1 then we have 0/0 x1 = 0/0 x 2; all this I dealt with earlier --- see beginning of email.
And where is the unique link to SRT? Because if you have following eqs. as an arbitrary example
a = 5 (i)
and
b = 7 (ii)
then
a - 5 = 0 = b - 7
and what?
b - a = 7 - 5 = 2
still true, isn't it?
--- that was not the math shown
and even further:
b = a + 2
still true.
So, what is your problem?
-- I have no problem. Its all clear to me.
----- Original Message ----- From: Klaus Kern To: NPA Members Chat Email Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Hartwig,
Please name the excellent mathematicians which have told you, that 0=0 must not be done.
Thank you,
Klaus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Von: Hartwig Thim <superha...@gmx.at> An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 15:38:47 Uhr Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Klaus, there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate them yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is not getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² is not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them thereby predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring light flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if only one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. Hartwig -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com> > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Hartwig,
> what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > mathematics. > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which have told > you, > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall be).
> Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is wrong. When > you > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by division by > zero, > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not succeed.
> x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about the > light source > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 and > generates > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the light > source > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², you don't > even know > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling exactly > one thing > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the light > source > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known about the > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > Considering > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the light source > is moving > or not (related to S').
> So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
> Roger, > yes, that is the big mistake. Excellent mathematicians have told me that > 0 = 0 must not be done, and then dividing by 0 is yielding the big > catastrophy, > called "Special Relativity". > Hartwig > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 11:06:51 -0000 > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Its what "they" do with the equation next thats nonsense.
> > "they" have 0 =0
> > and do nonsense like divide both sides by 0 and think they have 1=1
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hartwig Thim > > To: NPA Members Chat Email > > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 6:08 PM > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Dear Glird, > > but the more critical mistake is that the equation is logically wrong: > > x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0. This is impossible! > And > > kills special relativity. > > Happy New Year! > > Hartwig Thim > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:37:43 -0500 (EST) > > > Von: Glird <gl...@aol.com> > > > An: membersc...@worldnpa.org > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:34:19 +0100 > > > From: "Laski" <la...@autocom.pl> > > > To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] John, Attached Please find the Better > Version > > > of the Exercises > > > Message-ID: <60E8508EE9534ACDB2D2872C4CD4660D@xhqx443ro87wzr> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> > > > Hi Byouhgha and All, > > > > I fully agree that LT formulae refer to the one-dimensional case > > only.
> > > How can y = y' and z = z' couple with x = (x' - vt)/q to be only one > > > dimension?
> Hartwig > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks "identical" > and "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> Definition of /EQUAL/
> 1 > /a //(1)/ *:* of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as > another /(2)/ *:* identical in mathematical value or logical > denotation *:* equivalent > <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivalent> > So he's gone off into his own little world. > Roger
> > Klaus, > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you > equate them > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes is > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes is not > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² is > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from > them thereby > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > measuring light > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and > O' if only > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Hartwig,
> > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > mathematics. > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > have > > told > > > you, > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > be).
> > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > wrong. > > When > > > you > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > division > > by > > > zero, > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > succeed.
> > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about the > > > light source > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at > x=y=z=0 and > > > generates > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > light > > > source > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², you > > don't > > > even know > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > exactly > > > one thing > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > light > > > source > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is > known about > > the > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > > Considering > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the light > > source > > > is moving > > > or not (related to S').
> > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
> Roger, > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > Hartwig > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Hartwig
> > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > "identical" and > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > Definition of EQUAL > > 1 > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > (2) : > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > So he's gone off into his own little world.
> > Roger
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hartwig Thim > > To: NPA Members Chat Email > > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Roger, > > thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another > > example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that > in school. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
> > > with the following assumptions
> > > 0x1 = 0 > > > 0x2 =0
> > > the following must be true
> > > 0x1 = 0x2
> > > i.e 0=0
> > > then divide through by 0
> > > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
> > > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
> > > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to which > > is > > > the problem; as I have said.
> > > Klaus, > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > them > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > > is > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is > > not > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x�+y�+z�-c�t� = x'�+y'�+z'�-c�t'� > > is > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > thereby > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring > > light > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if > > only > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig,
> > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > mathematics. > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > have > > > told > > > > you, > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > be).
> > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > wrong. > > > When > > > > you > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > division > > > by > > > > zero, > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > succeed.
> > > > x�+y�+z�=c�t� in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > the > > > > light source > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > and > > > > generates > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > > light > > > > source > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x�+y�+z�=c�t�, > > you > > > don't > > > > even know > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > Same is true for x'�+y'�+z'�=c�t'� in system S'. It's telling > > > exactly > > > > one thing > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > > light > > > > source > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > about > > > the > > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > > > Considering > > > > only x'�+y'�+z'�=c�t'�, you don't even know whether the > > light > > > source > > > > is moving > > > > or not (related to S').
> > > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
Dear Professor Rati Sharma, thank you, I hope, that Klaus Kern will be eductated in this respect. I allow for him to take one full year 2011. Best regards, Hartwig Thim -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> On 1/1/2011 9:45 PM, Roger Anderton wrote: > > Hartwig > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks "identical" > > and "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > Definition of /EQUAL/
> > 1 > > /a //(1)/ *:* of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as > > another /(2)/ *:* identical in mathematical value or logical > > denotation *:* equivalent > > <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivalent> > > So he's gone off into his own little world. > > Roger
> > > Klaus, > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you > > equate them > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > > potatoes is > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 > > potatoes is not > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² is > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from > > them thereby > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > > measuring light > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and > > O' if only > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig,
> > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement > in > > > > mathematics. > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > have > > > told > > > > you, > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > be).
> > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > wrong. > > > When > > > > you > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > division > > > by > > > > zero, > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > succeed.
> > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing > about the > > > > light source > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at > > x=y=z=0 and > > > > generates > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of > the > > > light > > > > source > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > you > > > don't > > > > even know > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's > telling > > > exactly > > > > one thing > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 > the > > > light > > > > source > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is > > known about > > > the > > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal > 0. > > > > Considering > > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > light > > > source > > > > is moving > > > > or not (related to S').
> > > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
Hartwig called me a dwarf: -------------------------
Roger, he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (...) being equal or identical to him. ------------------------- So I thought it's this type of language which is favored here. At least by Hartwig.
Klaus
PS.: Talking about language: What does it mean you are "infiltrated by Einstein believers"? Is this some sort of cult or sect here, which can be infiltrated? Aren't you interested in open discussions?
>An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> >Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 20:48:59 Uhr >Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
>Roger, >he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there >the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right >spelling) being equal or identical to him. >Hartwig >-------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 >> Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >> An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> >> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
>> Hartwig
>> I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks >>"identical" and >> "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
>> Definition of EQUAL >> 1 >> a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another >>(2) : >> identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
>> So he's gone off into his own little world.
>> Roger
>> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Hartwig Thim >> To: NPA Members Chat Email >> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM >> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
>> Roger, >> thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another >> example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that >>in school. >> Hartwig >> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 >> > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >> > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> >> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
>> > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
>> > with the following assumptions
>> > 0x1 = 0 >> > 0x2 =0
>> > the following must be true
>> > 0x1 = 0x2
>> > i.e 0=0
>> > then divide through by 0
>> > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
>> > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
>> > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to >>which >> is >> > the problem; as I have said.
>> > Klaus, >> > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you >>equate >> them >> > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 >>potatoes >> is >> > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 >>potatoes is >> not >> > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² >> is >> > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from >>them >> thereby >> > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer >>measuring >> light >> > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and >>O' if >> only >> > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is >>wrong.
>> > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true >>statement in >> > > mathematics. >> > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians >>which >> have >> > told >> > > you, >> > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this >>shall >> be).
>> > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general >>is >> wrong. >> > When >> > > you >> > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by >> division >> > by >> > > zero, >> > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not >> succeed.
>> > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about >> the >> > > light source >> > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at >>x=y=z=0 >> and >> > > generates >> > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of >>the >> > light >> > > source >> > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², >> you >> > don't >> > > even know >> > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
>> > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's >telling >> > exactly >> > > one thing >> > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 >>the >> > light >> > > source >> > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is >>known >> about >> > the >> > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not >>equal 0. >> > > Considering >> > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the >> light >> > source >> > > is moving >> > > or not (related to S').
>> > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
Santa Klaus, you have started using impolite words like:
> You must brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old > man.
Something like that always happens when no more good arguments are available. Klaus Kern is not looking for the truth, he is just a trouble maker of the kind, we do not like inside of NPA. Hartwig
> Datum: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 11:11:57 +0000 (GMT) > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com> > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1 > Prof. Dr. Rati Ram Sharma,
> Hartwig called me a dwarf: > -------------------------
> Roger, > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet > there > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (...) being equal or identical to him. > ------------------------- > So I thought it's this type of language which is favored here. At least by > Hartwig.
> Klaus
> PS.: Talking about language: What does it mean you are "infiltrated by > Einstein > believers"? Is this some sort of cult or sect here, which can be > infiltrated? > Aren't you interested in open discussions?
> >Roger, > >he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet > there > >the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the > right > >spelling) being equal or identical to him. > >Hartwig > >-------- Original-Nachricht -------- > >> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > >> Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > >> An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > >> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue > 1
> >> Hartwig
> >> I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > >>"identical" and > >> "equal" are different things. But as per on line > dictionary: > >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> >> Definition of EQUAL > >> 1 > >> a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as > another > >>(2) : > >> identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : > equivalent
> >> So he's gone off into his own little world.
> >> Roger
> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Hartwig Thim > >> To: NPA Members Chat Email > >> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM > >> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue > 1
> >> Roger, > >> thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is > another > >> example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have > heard that > >>in school. > >> Hartwig > >> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > >> > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 > >> > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > >> > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > >> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, > Issue 1
> >> > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
> >> > with the following assumptions
> >> > 0x1 = 0 > >> > 0x2 =0
> >> > the following must be true
> >> > 0x1 = 0x2
> >> > i.e 0=0
> >> > then divide through by 0
> >> > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
> >> > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
> >> > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it > leads to > >>which > >> is > >> > the problem; as I have said.
> >> > Klaus, > >> > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. > If you > >>equate > >> them > >> > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 > potatoes - 6 > >>potatoes > >> is > >> > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - > 6 > >>potatoes is > >> not > >> > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > >> is > >> > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are > following from > >>them > >> thereby > >> > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical > engineer > >>measuring > >> light > >> > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes > in O and > >>O' if > >> only > >> > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below > is > >>wrong.
> >> > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true > >>statement in > >> > > mathematics. > >> > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent > mathematicians > >>which > >> have > >> > told > >> > > you, > >> > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of > this > >>shall > >> be).
> >> > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in > general > >>is > >> wrong. > >> > When > >> > > you > >> > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been > derived > by > >> division > >> > by > >> > > zero, > >> > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you > will not > >> succeed.
> >> > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one > thing > about > >> the > >> > > light source > >> > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source > is at > >>x=y=z=0 > >> and > >> > > generates > >> > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial > position of > >>the > >> > light > >> > > source > >> > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only > x²+y²+z²=c²t², > >> you > >> > don't > >> > > even know > >> > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to > S).
> >> > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. > It's > >telling > >> > exactly > >> > > one thing > >> > > about the light source related to S': At the time > stamp t'=0 > >>the > >> > light > >> > > source > >> > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing > is > >>known > >> about > >> > the > >> > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' > not > >>equal 0. > >> > > Considering > >> > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know > whether the > >> light > >> > source > >> > > is moving > >> > > or not (related to S').
> >> > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
> >> > > Roger, > >> > > yes, that is the big mistake. Excellent > mathematicians have > >>told > >> me > >> > that > >> > > 0 = 0 must not be done, and then dividing by 0 is > yielding > >>the big > >> > > catastrophy, > >> > > called "Special Relativity". > >> > > Hartwig > >> > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > >> > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan
----- Original Message ----- From: Hartwig Thim To: NPA Members Chat Email Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Santa Klaus, you have started using impolite words like: > You must brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old > man. Something like that always happens when no more good arguments are available. Klaus Kern is not looking for the truth, he is just a trouble maker of the kind, we do not like inside of NPA. Hartwig
> Hartwig called me a dwarf: > -------------------------
> Roger, > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet > there > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (...) being equal or identical to him. > ------------------------- > So I thought it's this type of language which is favored here. At least by > Hartwig.
> Klaus
> PS.: Talking about language: What does it mean you are "infiltrated by > Einstein > believers"? Is this some sort of cult or sect here, which can be > infiltrated? > Aren't you interested in open discussions?
> >Roger, > >he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet > there > >the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the > right > >spelling) being equal or identical to him. > >Hartwig > >-------- Original-Nachricht -------- > >> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > >> Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > >> An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > >> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue > 1
> >> Hartwig
> >> I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > >>"identical" and > >> "equal" are different things. But as per on line > dictionary: > >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> >> Definition of EQUAL > >> 1 > >> a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as > another > >>(2) : > >> identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : > equivalent
> >> So he's gone off into his own little world.
> >> Roger
> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Hartwig Thim > >> To: NPA Members Chat Email > >> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM > >> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue > 1
> >> Roger, > >> thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is > another > >> example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have > heard that > >>in school. > >> Hartwig > >> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > >> > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 > >> > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > >> > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > >> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, > Issue 1
> >> > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
> >> > with the following assumptions
> >> > 0x1 = 0 > >> > 0x2 =0
> >> > the following must be true
> >> > 0x1 = 0x2
> >> > i.e 0=0
> >> > then divide through by 0
> >> > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
> >> > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
> >> > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it > leads to > >>which > >> is > >> > the problem; as I have said.
> >> > Klaus, > >> > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. > If you > >>equate > >> them > >> > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 > potatoes - 6 > >>potatoes > >> is > >> > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - > 6 > >>potatoes is > >> not > >> > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > >> is > >> > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are > following from > >>them > >> thereby > >> > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical > engineer > >>measuring > >> light > >> > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes > in O and > >>O' if > >> only > >> > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below > is > >>wrong.
> >> > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true > >>statement in > >> > > mathematics. > >> > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent > mathematicians > >>which > >> have > >> > told > >> > > you, > >> > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of > this > >>shall > >> be).
> >> > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in > general > >>is > >> wrong. > >> > When > >> > > you > >> > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been > derived > by > >> division > >> > by > >> > > zero, > >> > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you > will not > >> succeed.
> >> > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one > thing > about > >> the > >> > > light source > >> > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source > is at > >>x=y=z=0 > >> and > >> > > generates > >> > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial > position of > >>the > >> > light > >> > > source > >> > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only > x²+y²+z²=c²t², > >> you > >> > don't > >> > > even know > >> > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to > S).
> >> > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. > It's > >telling > >> > exactly > >> > > one thing > >> > > about the light source related to S': At the time > stamp t'=0 > >>the > >> > light > >> > > source > >> > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing > is > >>known > >> about > >> > the > >> > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' > not > >>equal 0. > >> > > Considering > >> > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know > whether the
> Roger, > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > Hartwig > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Hartwig
> > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > "identical" and > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > Definition of EQUAL > > 1 > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > (2) : > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > So he's gone off into his own little world.
> > Roger
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hartwig Thim > > To: NPA Members Chat Email > > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Roger, > > thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another > > example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that > in school. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
> > > with the following assumptions
> > > 0x1 = 0 > > > 0x2 =0
> > > the following must be true
> > > 0x1 = 0x2
> > > i.e 0=0
> > > then divide through by 0
> > > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
> > > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
> > > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to which > > is > > > the problem; as I have said.
> > > Klaus, > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > them > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > > is > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is > > not > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > is > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > thereby > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring > > light > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if > > only > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig,
> > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > mathematics. > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > have > > > told > > > > you, > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > be).
> > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > wrong. > > > When > > > > you > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > division > > > by > > > > zero, > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > succeed.
> > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > the > > > > light source > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > and > > > > generates > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > > light > > > > source > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > > you > > > don't > > > > even know > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > > exactly > > > > one thing > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > > light > > > > source > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > about > > > the > > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > > > Considering > > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > > light > > > source > > > > is moving > > > > or not (related to S').
> > > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
> Roger, > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > Hartwig > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Hartwig
> > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > "identical" and > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > Definition of EQUAL > > 1 > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > (2) : > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > So he's gone off into his own little world.
> > Roger
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hartwig Thim > > To: NPA Members Chat Email > > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Roger, > > thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another > > example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that > in school. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
> > > with the following assumptions
> > > 0x1 = 0 > > > 0x2 =0
> > > the following must be true
> > > 0x1 = 0x2
> > > i.e 0=0
> > > then divide through by 0
> > > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
> > > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
> > > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to which > > is > > > the problem; as I have said.
> > > Klaus, > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > them > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > > is > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is > > not > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > is > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > thereby > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring > > light > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if > > only > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig,
> > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > mathematics. > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > have > > > told > > > > you, > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > be).
> > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > wrong. > > > When > > > > you > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > division > > > by > > > > zero, > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > succeed.
> > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > the > > > > light source > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > and > > > > generates > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > > light > > > > source > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > > you > > > don't > > > > even know > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > > exactly > > > > one thing > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > > light > > > > source > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > about > > > the > > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > > > Considering > > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > > light > > > source > > > > is moving > > > > or not (related to S').
> > > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
> Roger, > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > Hartwig > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Hartwig
> > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > "identical" and > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > Definition of EQUAL > > 1 > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > (2) : > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > So he's gone off into his own little world.
> > Roger
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hartwig Thim > > To: NPA Members Chat Email > > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Roger, > > thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another > > example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that > in school. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Its the start of a Basic fallacy-
> > > with the following assumptions
> > > 0x1 = 0 > > > 0x2 =0
> > > the following must be true
> > > 0x1 = 0x2
> > > i.e 0=0
> > > then divide through by 0
> > > (0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2
> > > then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2
> > > So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to which > > is > > > the problem; as I have said.
> > > Klaus, > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > them > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > > is > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is > > not > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > is > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > thereby > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring > > light > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if > > only > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig,
> > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > mathematics. > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > have > > > told > > > > you, > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > be).
> > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > wrong. > > > When > > > > you > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > division > > > by > > > > zero, > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > succeed.
> > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > the > > > > light source > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > and > > > > generates > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > > light > > > > source > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > > you > > > don't > > > > even know > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > > exactly > > > > one thing > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > > light > > > > source > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > about > > > the > > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > > > Considering > > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > > light > > > source > > > > is moving > > > > or not (related to S').
> > > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
Dear friends, Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by earthquakes and soldiers? So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I appologize for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of luck and success! Warmest regards, Hartwig
> > Roger, > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Hartwig
> > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > "identical" and > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > Definition of EQUAL > > > 1 > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > > (2) : > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > > > Klaus, > > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > > them > > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > > is > > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > > > not > > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > > is > > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > > thereby > > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > measuring > > > light > > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' > if > > > only > > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > > Hartwig > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > > Hartwig,
> > > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > > mathematics. > > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > > have > > > > told > > > > > you, > > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > > be).
> > > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > > wrong. > > > > When > > > > > you > > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > > division > > > > by > > > > > zero, > > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > > succeed.
> > > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > > the > > > > > light source > > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > > and > > > > > generates > > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > > > light > > > > > source > > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > > > you > > > > don't > > > > > even know > > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > > > exactly > > > > > one thing > > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > > > light > > > > > source > > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > > about > > > > the > > > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > > > > Considering > > > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > > > light > > > > source > > > > > is moving > > > > > or not (related to S').
> > > > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
As far as I am concerned there was nothing that needed forgiving.
As far as Einstein's relativity is concerned -- it is absurd nonsense and cannot be taken seriously. That turns out to be its perfect defence mechanism -- it destroys all possibility of serious debate because of its silliness.
And the fact that it can be demonstrated as silly upsets the Einstein believers, who instead of realising it is silly (as anyone sensible and rational should realise) decide instead to take offence.
----- Original Message ----- From: Hartwig Thim To: NPA Members Chat Email Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Dear friends, Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by earthquakes and soldiers? So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I appologize for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of luck and success! Warmest regards, Hartwig
> > Roger, > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Hartwig
> > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > "identical" and > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > Definition of EQUAL > > > 1 > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > > (2) : > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > > > Klaus, > > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > > them > > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > > is > > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > > > not > > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > > is > > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > > thereby > > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > measuring > > > light > > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' > if > > > only > > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > > Hartwig > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > > Hartwig,
> > > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > > mathematics. > > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > > have > > > > told > > > > > you, > > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > > be).
> > > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > > wrong. > > > > When > > > > > you > > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > > division > > > > by > > > > > zero, > > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > > succeed.
> > > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > > the > > > > > light source > > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > > and > > > > > generates > > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > > > light > > > > > source > > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > > > you > > > > don't > > > > > even know > > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > > > exactly > > > > > one thing > > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > > > light > > > > > source
Roger, I am never sure whether I should forgive even myself for something I have done. So I am choosing the safe way and create peace for me by forgiving all, even myself.
As far as SR is concerned there is no doubt that it is completely wrong. So I will continue trying to save the world from being misguided. I am very thankful to you and to all other friends supporting this idea. It is a good feeling to act as a samariter. I enjoy it. And we will eventually succeed. Maybe already in 2011. Hartwig -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 16:32:31 -0000 > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1 > Happy New Year to you Hartwig and everyone else
> As far as I am concerned there was nothing that needed forgiving.
> As far as Einstein's relativity is concerned -- it is absurd nonsense and > cannot be taken seriously. That turns out to be its perfect defence > mechanism -- it destroys all possibility of serious debate because of its > silliness.
> And the fact that it can be demonstrated as silly upsets the Einstein > believers, who instead of realising it is silly (as anyone sensible and > rational should realise) decide instead to take offence.
> Roger > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hartwig Thim > To: NPA Members Chat Email > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Dear friends, > Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for > me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people > living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? > O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 > now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun > like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by > earthquakes and soldiers? > So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I > appologize > for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of > luck and success! Warmest regards, > Hartwig
> > Look at the mail history below and you will find, that Hartwig was the > > first > > using impolite words. Maybe you like to be called a dwarf. I don't.
> > So, why is everybody blaming me?
> > Klaus
> > ________________________________ > > Von: Stephan Gift <Stephan.G...@sta.uwi.edu> > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org>; > > membersc...@worldnpa.org > > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 2. Januar 2011, 13:57:10 Uhr > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > RE: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1 > > Klaus, > > I support Prof Sharma's request. > > Stephan Gift
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Dr.Rati Ram Sharma > > Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 2:50 AM > > To: membersc...@worldnpa.org > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Klaus Kern,
> > Please avoid such language. Thanks.
> > Prof. Rati Ram Sharma
> > On 1/2/2011 1:38 AM, Klaus Kern wrote: > > > Hartwig,
> > > that means, you don't know the basic maths, too. Bad for you. You > must > > > brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old man.
> > > Roger, > > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig
> > > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > > "identical" and > > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > > Definition of EQUAL > > > > 1 > > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as > another > > > (2) : > > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > > > So he's gone off into his own little world.
> > > > > Klaus, > > > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you > equate > > > > them > > > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > > potatoes > > > > is > > > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > is > > > > not > > > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > > > is > > > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from > them > > > > thereby > > > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > > measuring > > > > light > > > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and > O' > > if > > > > only > > > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is > wrong. > > > > > Hartwig > > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > > > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > > > Hartwig,
> > > > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement > in > > > > > > mathematics. > > > > > > As true as 1=1. Please
-----Original Message----- From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Hartwig Thim Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 12:08 PM To: NPA Members Chat Email Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Dear friends, Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by earthquakes and soldiers? So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I appologize for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of luck and success! Warmest regards, Hartwig
> > Roger, > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Hartwig
> > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > "identical" and > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > Definition of EQUAL > > > 1 > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > > (2) : > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > > > Klaus, > > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > > them > > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > > is > > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > > > not > > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > > is > > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > > thereby > > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > measuring > > > light > > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' > if > > > only > > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > > Hartwig > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > > Hartwig,
> > > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > > mathematics. > > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > > have > > > > told > > > > > you, > > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > > be).
> > > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > > wrong. > > > > When > > > > > you > > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > > division > > > > by > > > > > zero, > > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > > succeed.
> > > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > > the > > > > > light source > > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > > and > > > > > generates > > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > > > light > > > > > source > > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > > > you > > > > don't > > > > > even know > > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > > > exactly > > > > > one thing > > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > > > light > > > > > source > > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > > about > > > > the > > > > > spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. > > > > > Considering > > > > > only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the > > > light > > > > source > > > > > is moving > > > > > or not (related to S').
> > > > > So, where do you think the contradiction should be?
> > > > > Roger, > > > > > yes, that is the big mistake. Excellent mathematicians have told > > > me > > > > that > > > > > 0 = 0 must not be done, and then dividing by 0 is
Dear Roger, While I agree entirely that relativity is wrong, it is very unwise to not take it seriously. Since the entire (almost) scientific community does, if we are to succeed in our efforts in the npa to change the space-time paradigm, we must continue in our efforts to demonstrate the theory's invalidity both theoretically and experimentally. This is why I continue in these discussions; to try to arrive at consensus as to what is right and what is wrong. Open-minded debate is essential for this and this is what I hoipe for as we enter the new year. Regards Stephan
-----Original Message----- From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Roger Anderton Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 12:32 PM To: NPA Members Chat Email Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Happy New Year to you Hartwig and everyone else
As far as I am concerned there was nothing that needed forgiving.
As far as Einstein's relativity is concerned -- it is absurd nonsense and cannot be taken seriously. That turns out to be its perfect defence mechanism -- it destroys all possibility of serious debate because of its silliness.
And the fact that it can be demonstrated as silly upsets the Einstein believers, who instead of realising it is silly (as anyone sensible and rational should realise) decide instead to take offence.
Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: Hartwig Thim To: NPA Members Chat Email Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Dear friends, Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by earthquakes and soldiers? So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I appologize for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of luck and success! Warmest regards, Hartwig
> > Roger, > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Hartwig
> > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > "identical" and > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > Definition of EQUAL > > > 1 > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > > (2) : > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > > > Klaus, > > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > > them > > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > > is > > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > > > not > > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > > is > > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > > thereby > > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > measuring > > > light > > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' > if > > > only > > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > > Hartwig > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > > Hartwig,
> > > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > > mathematics. > > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > > have > > > > told > > > > > you, > > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > > be).
> > > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > > wrong. > > > > When > > > > > you > > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > > division > > > > by > > > > > zero, > > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > > succeed.
RE: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1>>>While I agree entirely that relativity is wrong, it is very unwise to not take it seriously. Since the entire (almost) scientific community does,
Historically it didn't. The scientific community could not reach an agreement on Einstein's relativity; there was a big split in opinions; proper debate to sort out differences of opinion was not allowed. The Nobel committee did not trust Einstein's relativity and did not award a prize for it.
Its all just been propaganda campaign for Einstein's Relativity -- and nothing to do with science; waiting for opponents to die; and indoctrinating new generations with propaganda and suppressing the historical fact of the controversy of not being able to understand what Einstein's relativity meant.
Bowing to the demands of the propaganda to take it seriously is just going along with the LIES. (When you watch an advert for a product on television; you don't believe it- I hope. Same for the advert for Einstein.)
Submit to the LIES and you are just allowing the Einstein believers - the High Ground - and you are not facing their understanding of Einstein's relativity; instead you are facing their numerous different misunderstandings of relativity. You are not facing a coherent theory despite what the advert says.
Nobody Understands, Nobody Even Claims to Understand
But relativity theory is very difficult, you say, and my brains are not sharp enough to make it possible to say anything sensible about this subject. Don't panic, you are in good company, because not even expert physicists claim to understand:
a.. Many people probably felt relieved when told that the true nature of the world could not be understood except by Einstein and a few other geniuses who were able to think in four dimensions. They had tried to understand science, but now it was evident that science was something to believe in, not something which should be understood. (Hannes Alfven Physics Nobel Laureate 1970) b.. The relativity of space and time is a startling conclusion. I have known it for more than 25 year, but even so, whenever I quietly sit and think it through, I am amazed... It is not the depth of mathematics that makes Einstein's relativity challenging. It is the degree to which the ideas are foreign and apparently inconsistent with our everyday experience. (Brian Greene in the Fabric of Cosmos) a.. People are applauding me because everybody understands what I say, and you because nobody understands what you say. (Chaplin to Einstein) b.. Why is it that nobody understands me, and everybody likes me? (Einstein in New York Times 1944) c.. ... the general theory of relativity. The name is repellent. Relativity? I have never been able to understand what the word means in this connection. I used to think that this was my fault, some flaw of my intelligence, but it is now apparent that nobody ever understood it, probably not even Einstein himself. (Synge) d.. I myself can hardly understand Laue's book. (Einstein about the first text book on special relativity 1914) a.. Thus we can sum up: general relativity can not be physical, and physical relativity is not general. (Fock) b.. Scientific American once ran a competition offering several thousand dollars for the best explanation of Einstein's general theory of relativity in three thousand words. "I am the only one in my entire circle of friends who is not entering," Einstein ruefully remarked. "I don't believe I could do it". c.. Einstein, my upset stomach hates your theory [of General Relativity]-it almost hates you yourself! How am I to' provide for my students? What am I to answer to the philosophers?!! (Paul Ehrenfest) d.. The general public looked upon relativity as indicative of the seemingly incomprehensible modern era, educated scientists despaired of ever understanding what Einstein had done, and political ideologues used the new theory to exploit public fears and anxieties-all of which opened a rift between science and the broader culture that continues to expand today. (David Cassidy) http://knol.google.com/k/did-einstein-not-understand-math#
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephan Gift To: NPA Members Chat Email ; NPA Members Chat Email Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Dear Roger, While I agree entirely that relativity is wrong, it is very unwise to not take it seriously. Since the entire (almost) scientific community does, if we are to succeed in our efforts in the npa to change the space-time paradigm, we must continue in our efforts to demonstrate the theory's invalidity both theoretically and experimentally. This is why I continue in these discussions; to try to arrive at consensus as to what is right and what is wrong. Open-minded debate is essential for this and this is what I hoipe for as we enter the new year. Regards Stephan
-----Original Message----- From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Roger Anderton Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 12:32 PM To: NPA Members Chat Email Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Happy New Year to you Hartwig and everyone else
As far as I am concerned there was nothing that needed forgiving.
As far as Einstein's relativity is concerned -- it is absurd nonsense and cannot be taken seriously. That turns out to be its perfect defence mechanism -- it destroys all possibility of serious debate because of its silliness.
And the fact that it can be demonstrated as silly upsets the Einstein believers, who instead of realising it is silly (as anyone sensible and rational should realise) decide instead to take offence.
Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: Hartwig Thim To: NPA Members Chat Email Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Dear friends, Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by earthquakes and soldiers? So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I appologize for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of luck and success! Warmest regards, Hartwig
> > Roger, > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Hartwig
> > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > "identical" and > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > Definition of EQUAL > > > 1 > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > > (2) : > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
Stephan, thank you for your wishes. Every year on January 1st, I am making the decision to make much better use of every second of the new year and get important things done. One of the things I will concentrate on in 2011 is the one-way speed of light measurement. SR is built on light speed isotropy in inertial frames, but many main stream physicists do not realize that there is no experimental proof of the isotropy. You have described this problem in many previous emails but it has been more or less ignored. So let's see whether advocates of SR can tell us the experiments which have prooven light speed isotropy. The Jupiter experiment of Roemer is one particularly interesting case in this respect. Hartwig -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 18:48:43 -0400 > Von: Stephan Gift <Stephan.G...@sta.uwi.edu> > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org>, NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1 > Happy new year to you too Hartwig and everyone. > Stephan
> -----Original Message----- > From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Hartwig Thim > Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 12:08 PM > To: NPA Members Chat Email > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Dear friends, > Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for me > as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people > living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? > O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 now > belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun > like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by > earthquakes and soldiers? > So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I > appologize > for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of > luck and success! Warmest regards, > Hartwig
> > Look at the mail history below and you will find, that Hartwig was the > > first > > using impolite words. Maybe you like to be called a dwarf. I don't.
> > So, why is everybody blaming me?
> > Klaus
> > ________________________________ > > Von: Stephan Gift <Stephan.G...@sta.uwi.edu> > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org>; > > membersc...@worldnpa.org > > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 2. Januar 2011, 13:57:10 Uhr > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > RE: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1 > > Klaus, > > I support Prof Sharma's request. > > Stephan Gift
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Dr.Rati Ram Sharma > > Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 2:50 AM > > To: membersc...@worldnpa.org > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Klaus Kern,
> > Please avoid such language. Thanks.
> > Prof. Rati Ram Sharma
> > On 1/2/2011 1:38 AM, Klaus Kern wrote: > > > Hartwig,
> > > that means, you don't know the basic maths, too. Bad for you. You must > > > brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old man.
> > > Roger, > > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig
> > > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > > "identical" and > > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > > Definition of EQUAL > > > > 1 > > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > > > (2) : > > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > > > So he's gone off into his own little world.
> > > > > Klaus, > > > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you > equate > > > > them > > > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > > potatoes > > > > is > > > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > is > > > > not > > > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > > > is > > > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from > them > > > > thereby > > > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > > measuring > > > > light > > > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' > > if > > > > only > > > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > > > Hartwig > > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > > > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > > > Hartwig,
> > > > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement > in > > > > > > mathematics. > > > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > > > have > > > > > told > > > > > > you, > > > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > > > be).
> > > > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > > > wrong. > > > > > When > > > > > > you > > > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > > > division > > > > > by > > > > > > zero, > > > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > > > succeed.
> > > > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing > about > > > > the > > > > > > light source > > > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at
Roger, yes, how right you are. We have to treat this problem very seriously. I always did, but occasionally a joke or a fairy tail such as snowwhite and the seven dwarfs came into my mind, but I will stop that from now on and certainly in the New Year 2011. In another email I wrote that I have made good plans for 2011 and concentrate on refuting SR more clearly. Hartwig -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 00:29:22 -0000 > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org> > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1 > RE: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1>>>While I agree > entirely that relativity is wrong, it is very unwise to not take it seriously. > Since the entire (almost) scientific community does,
> Historically it didn't. The scientific community could not reach an > agreement on Einstein's relativity; there was a big split in opinions; proper > debate to sort out differences of opinion was not allowed. The Nobel committee > did not trust Einstein's relativity and did not award a prize for it.
> Its all just been propaganda campaign for Einstein's Relativity -- and > nothing to do with science; waiting for opponents to die; and indoctrinating > new generations with propaganda and suppressing the historical fact of the > controversy of not being able to understand what Einstein's relativity > meant.
> Bowing to the demands of the propaganda to take it seriously is just going > along with the LIES. (When you watch an advert for a product on > television; you don't believe it- I hope. Same for the advert for Einstein.)
> Submit to the LIES and you are just allowing the Einstein believers - the > High Ground - and you are not facing their understanding of Einstein's > relativity; instead you are facing their numerous different misunderstandings > of relativity. You are not facing a coherent theory despite what the advert > says.
> Nobody Understands, Nobody Even Claims to Understand
> But relativity theory is very difficult, you say, and my brains are not > sharp enough to make it possible to say anything sensible about this > subject. Don't panic, you are in good company, because not even expert >physicists > claim to understand:
> a.. Many people probably felt relieved when told that the true nature of > the world could not be understood except by Einstein and a few other > geniuses who were able to think in four dimensions. They had tried to understand > science, but now it was evident that science was something to believe in, > not something which should be understood. (Hannes Alfven Physics Nobel > Laureate 1970) > b.. The relativity of space and time is a startling conclusion. I have > known it for more than 25 year, but even so, whenever I quietly sit and > think it through, I am amazed... It is not the depth of mathematics that makes > Einstein's relativity challenging. It is the degree to which the ideas are > foreign and apparently inconsistent with our everyday experience. (Brian > Greene in the Fabric of Cosmos) > a.. People are applauding me because everybody understands what I say, > and you because nobody understands what you say. (Chaplin to Einstein) > b.. Why is it that nobody understands me, and everybody likes me? > (Einstein in New York Times 1944) > c.. ... the general theory of relativity. The name is repellent. > Relativity? I have never been able to understand what the word means in this > connection. I used to think that this was my fault, some flaw of my > intelligence, but it is now apparent that nobody ever understood it, probably not even > Einstein himself. (Synge) > d.. I myself can hardly understand Laue's book. (Einstein about the > first text book on special relativity 1914) > a.. Thus we can sum up: general relativity can not be physical, and > physical relativity is not general. (Fock) > b.. Scientific American once ran a competition offering several thousand > dollars for the best explanation of Einstein's general theory of > relativity in three thousand words. "I am the only one in my entire circle of > friends who is not entering," Einstein ruefully remarked. "I don't believe I > could do it". > c.. Einstein, my upset stomach hates your theory [of General > Relativity]-it almost hates you yourself! How am I to' provide for my students? What > am I to answer to the philosophers?!! (Paul Ehrenfest) > d.. The general public looked upon relativity as indicative of the > seemingly incomprehensible modern era, educated scientists despaired of ever > understanding what Einstein had done, and political ideologues used the new > theory to exploit public fears and anxieties-all of which opened a rift > between science and the broader culture that continues to expand today. (David > Cassidy) > http://knol.google.com/k/did-einstein-not-understand-math#
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stephan Gift > To: NPA Members Chat Email ; NPA Members Chat Email > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 10:55 PM > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Dear Roger, > While I agree entirely that relativity is wrong, it is very unwise to > not take it seriously. Since the entire (almost) scientific community does, > if we are to succeed in our efforts in the npa to change the space-time > paradigm, we must continue in our efforts to demonstrate the theory's > invalidity both theoretically and experimentally. This is why I continue in these > discussions; to try to arrive at consensus as to what is right and what is > wrong. Open-minded debate is essential for this and this is what I hoipe for > as we enter the new year. > Regards > Stephan
> -----Original Message----- > From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Roger Anderton > Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 12:32 PM > To: NPA Members Chat Email > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Happy New Year to you Hartwig and everyone else
> As far as I am concerned there was nothing that needed forgiving.
> As far as Einstein's relativity is concerned -- it is absurd nonsense > and cannot be taken seriously. That turns out to be its perfect defence > mechanism -- it destroys all possibility of serious debate because of its > silliness.
> And the fact that it can be demonstrated as silly upsets the Einstein > believers, who instead of realising it is silly (as anyone sensible and > rational should realise) decide instead to take offence.
> Roger > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hartwig Thim > To: NPA Members Chat Email > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Dear friends, > Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment > for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling > people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? > O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 > now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have > fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed > by earthquakes and soldiers? > So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I > appologize > for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's > of luck and success! Warmest regards, > Hartwig
> > Look at the mail history below and you will find, that Hartwig was > the > > first > > using impolite words. Maybe you like to be called a dwarf. I don't.
> > So, why is everybody blaming me?
> > Klaus
> > ________________________________ > > Von: Stephan Gift <Stephan.G...@sta.uwi.edu> > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org>; > > membersc...@worldnpa.org > > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 2. Januar 2011, 13:57:10 Uhr > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > RE: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1 > > Klaus, > > I support Prof Sharma's request. > > Stephan Gift
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Dr.Rati Ram > Sharma > > Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 2:50 AM > > To: membersc...@worldnpa.org > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Klaus Kern,
> > Please avoid such language. Thanks.
> > Prof. Rati Ram Sharma
> > On 1/2/2011 1:38 AM, Klaus Kern wrote: > > > Hartwig,
> > > that means, you don't know the basic maths, too. Bad for you. You > must > > > brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old man.
> > > Roger, > > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet > there > > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > > spelling)
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephan Gift To: NPA Members Chat Email ; NPA Members Chat Email Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Happy new year to you too Hartwig and everyone. Stephan
-----Original Message----- From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Hartwig Thim Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 12:08 PM To: NPA Members Chat Email Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
Dear friends, Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs? O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by earthquakes and soldiers? So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I appologize for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of luck and success! Warmest regards, Hartwig
> > Roger, > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > Hartwig > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > Hartwig
> > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > "identical" and > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > Definition of EQUAL > > > 1 > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > > (2) : > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > > > Klaus, > > > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate > > > them > > > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 > potatoes > > > is > > > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes > is > > > not > > > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = > x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² > > > is > > > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them > > > thereby > > > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer > measuring > > > light > > > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' > if > > > only > > > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong. > > > > Hartwig > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT) > > > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com > > <mailto:fb557ec2107eb...@googlemail.com>> > > > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > > Hartwig,
> > > > > what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in > > > > > mathematics. > > > > > As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which > > > have > > > > told > > > > > you, > > > > > that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall > > > be).
> > > > > Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is > > > wrong. > > > > When > > > > > you > > > > > are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by > > > division > > > > by > > > > > zero, > > > > > you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not > > > succeed.
> > > > > x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about > > > the > > > > > light source > > > > > related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 > > > and > > > > > generates > > > > > a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the > > > > light > > > > > source > > > > > at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², > > > you > > > > don't > > > > > even know > > > > > whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).
> > > > > Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling > > > > exactly > > > > > one thing > > > > > about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the > > > > light > > > > > source > > > > > is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known > > > about > > > > the
Dear Roger, Stephan, Klaus and other friends at NPA-Chat,
I agree with Roger that SR is wrong, I also agree with Stephan that we should take SR seriously and prove it wrong to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community. I have been working on these lines since 1990 when I published my fist book UNIFIED PHYSICAL THEORY (COSMO, New Delhi). It was updated in the 2002-book: Realistic Foundations of PHYSICS & COSMOLOGY (Abhishek, Chandigarh), the 2010-book THE UNIFIED THEORY, A complete paradigm shift in PHYSICS & COSMOLOGY (Lulu, USA/UK), the paper :Unified Theory Replaces Relativity Theories, published in the Proceedings of the NPA-17 Conference and the paper : Unified Theory & Relativity Imbroglio submitted to the NPA-18 conference.
Klaus may please note that variability (K. Scharnhorst, /Phys.Lett./B *286* (1990)**354), nay even superluminality (L. J. Wang, A. Kuzmich & A. Dogariu, /Nature/ *406 *(2000) 277) of light velocity have been experimentally established.
I request all NPA friends to refer to my latest paper for NPA-18 conference. Thanks & regards from Prof Rati Ram Sharma.
*UNIFIED THEORY & RELATIVITY IMBROGLIO ABSTRACT: *Light wave exists in, and is composed by, its propagating medium. In Unified Theory it is the all-composing and all-pervading 'sharmon medium' composed by the new particle 'sharmon'. Einstein erred by discarding the physical medium for light-wave.Space and time are NOT substantive entities but abstract concepts evolving from our life-long perceptions of successive 'there, here, there' and 'then, now, then' all arising from the successive motions and changes in the surrounding objects. The abstract concepts of space and time cannot fuse into any tangible concrete 'spacetime' continuum. All multi-dimensional spacetime continua are mathematical constructs bereft of physical existence. Einstein further erred by introducing the non-existent 4-dimensional spacetime continuum to propagate light and gravitation. 'Origin' of light wave is not the source but sharmon-medium's first 0-spin sharmon which receives energy quantum from the source and rises to its 1-spin state. Similarly, 'terminus' of light wave is not the target but the last 1-spin sharmon which transfers energy quantum to the target and itself returns to 0-spin state. Creative beginning at the origin and vanishing end at the terminus makes velocity of light-wave invariant to the motions of source and target. From origin to terminus light moves as a /wave-quantum unity/ via 1-spin sharmons which do not physically move. Actually observed light velocity is not only constant c = (e_o .�_o )^-1/2 and invariant to the velocities of the source and/or the target relative to the sharmon medium but also /locally/ variable, nay superluminal, which invalidate the two founding postulates of Special Relativity but are explained by Unified Theory. Propagation of light is an absolute motion as it is not relative even to the motions of the source and target; and sharmon medium is an absolute reference frame. The light velocity c becomes (c -/+ v) for the observer moving at a velocity (+/-v) relative to the sharmon medium, ruling out constancy of light velocity c over the /inertial frames/.Since the velocity of a body cannot vary (like v) with and be invariant (like c) to, the source-target velocity at the same time, the Lorentz transforms do not describe any real motion in Nature. Thence deduced 'contraction of space' and 'dilation of time' are unrealistic demands on Nature to change to fit their mathematics. Bending of light in a gravitational field follows in Unified Theory with photon having mass as in General Relativity without curving the 4-D spacetime.
> Dear Roger, > While I agree entirely that relativity is wrong, it is very unwise to > not take it seriously. Since the entire (almost) scientific community > does, if we are to succeed in our efforts in the npa to change the > space-time paradigm, we must continue in our efforts to demonstrate > the theory's invalidity both theoretically and experimentally. This is > why I continue in these discussions; to try to arrive at consensus as > to what is right and what is wrong. Open-minded debate is essential > for this and this is what I hoipe for as we enter the new year. > Regards > Stephan
> -----Original Message----- > From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Roger Anderton > Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 12:32 PM > To: NPA Members Chat Email > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Happy New Year to you Hartwig and everyone else
> As far as I am concerned there was nothing that needed forgiving.
> As far as Einstein's relativity is concerned -- it is absurd nonsense > and cannot be taken seriously. That turns out to be its perfect > defence mechanism -- it destroys all possibility of serious debate > because of its silliness.
> And the fact that it can be demonstrated as silly upsets the Einstein > believers, who instead of realising it is silly (as anyone sensible > and rational should realise) decide instead to take offence.
> Roger > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hartwig Thim > To: NPA Members Chat Email > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> Dear friends, > Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment > for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, > calling people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) > dwarfs? > O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of > 2010 now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we > can have fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when > people are killed by earthquakes and soldiers? > So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I > appologize > for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, > lot's of luck and success! Warmest regards, > Hartwig
> > Look at the mail history below and you will find, that Hartwig was the > > first > > using impolite words. Maybe you like to be called a dwarf. I don't.
> > So, why is everybody blaming me?
> > Klaus
> > ________________________________ > > Von: Stephan Gift <Stephan.G...@sta.uwi.edu> > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membersc...@worldnpa.org>; > > membersc...@worldnpa.org > > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 2. Januar 2011, 13:57:10 Uhr > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > RE: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1 > > Klaus, > > I support Prof Sharma's request. > > Stephan Gift
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: memberschat-boun...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Dr.Rati Ram Sharma > > Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 2:50 AM > > To: membersc...@worldnpa.org > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > Klaus Kern,
> > Please avoid such language. Thanks.
> > Prof. Rati Ram Sharma
> > On 1/2/2011 1:38 AM, Klaus Kern wrote: > > > Hartwig,
> > > that means, you don't know the basic maths, too. Bad for you. You must > > > brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old man.
> > > Roger, > > > he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there > > > the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right > > > spelling) being equal or identical to him. > > > Hartwig > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000 > > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com > > > <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> > > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org > > > <mailto:membersc...@worldnpa.org>> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > Hartwig
> > > > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks > > > "identical" and > > > > "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: > > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> > > > Definition of EQUAL > > > > 1 > > > > a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another > > > (2) : > > > > identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> > > > So he's gone off into his own little world.
