Re: gravity theory
hanson
via the forces in/of an **earth-quake** like the one that just
hit around noon-time to-day, July, 28th -08.
I'm visiting my communication center in SoCalifornia, about
10 miles from the epicenter. -- When it hit, it did not bang,
roar and rumble like a freight train, like I remember it do on
other occasions. This one was 5.8, gently swaying the building
in all 3-Dimensions for about 2 minutes. Little bit like the
building being a rubber ducky in the bath tub. Then after 15 min.
there were some after shocks. Was exciting. No damage.
When I called my Pretty Lady to check on her and I mentioned
that I wished I'd were in the saddle on here when it happened,
she called me a dirty old fart with a one-track mind instead...
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mypjk.219114$TT4.73919@attbi_s22...
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>
jedakiah wrote:
ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of
mass, but gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i
believe is logical and leaves no questions. Gravity is
exquisitely model ("explained" for many) by general relativity.
... familiarize yourself with it.
>
hanson wrote:
Yo, explain simply, in a new way, what and why there is
"Action at a Distance" and you'll have an exquisite model
of Gravity. But if you need to invoke GR to do so then you
are simply delivering a useless sermon like any other
village priest of the Einstein cult does... and you'll be in
line with and in the league of those Einstein Dingleberries
that are an unending source for laughs.... ahahaha....
>>>
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
>>
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Ahem...Sam, if there is a theory of General Relativity, please cite
the author and the journal in which it was published.
>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote > See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#References
including Einstein. [which is ...]
>
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote to Sam:
Realize that at the time of his death, Einstein never published his
theor of genral relativity, because there remained some issues
that he could not resolve.
Hence, there is no such thing as a Theory of General Relativity.
>
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote to Harry:
Lot's of good material, Harry.
Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
You make it sound GTR doesn't exist because it is a "work in progress"?
This is now, Harry, GTR is more mature and fruitful.
>>
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote to Sam:
It simply does not exist.
Harry C.
>>
hanson wrote:
Well, Chief Harry, ....
... rest will follow later....
hanson
he referred to GR as "allgemeine Relativitätstheorie" early
in his career, as can be seen from the link Sam gave you.
>
But Sam is a quintessential Einstein Dingleberry who does
worship Einstein & he proselytizes his notion as a teacher
in his school for the geriatric set. That is all commendable
as long as Sam teaches that SR/GR are nothing more than 1
of the fucking stories about nature, a fable, model or feeble'
description of nature.... good for mental masturbations only
BUT with NO practical value to/in the real world,
including GPS that NEVER needed nor used any SR nor GR.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dd09db9bcf2d1a72?hl=en
>
So, when elevating SR/GR to the Holy grail of Physics it is
equivalent to the mentation that is exhibited by the religious
fundamentalists of the Jews, Islamists or Evangelicals.
>
If you look at Einstein original 1905 paper on SR you'll see
clearly that he grudgingly published it , without any references,
under the nagging and the insistence of his 1st Xian wife
Mileva Maric, who composed and wrote the manuscript.
More here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3519d92d18984b8c?hl=en
>
The 1905 paper took off with the promos & backing of the then
very active Zionist movement in Germany. Albert got caught up in
that environment and was nudged into developing a general
theory (GR) which he was never comfy about/with, not from the
get-go, nor at any time during his career and he outright did
doubt GR's validity, grievously, at the end of his life... AND
he knew that playing that game was a despicable con. -- OTOH
his unrelated work, on the Photoelectric effect, for which he got
the Nobel price in 1921, he must be respected for.
>
Here is what Einstein said in the reference that Sam gave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#CITEREFEinstein1917
References:
Einstein, Albert (1916), "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie"
Annalen der Physik 49, <http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html>
which is written in the swollen genre of the 19th century German
Script with its many expressions of "manifold" meaning and
wherein Einstein, very uncharacteristically, gives credit to others
and says on:
>
286-Doc30-770: ..."all fundamentals for GR/GTR were already
known and invented by Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci
& Levi-Civita. -- I am grateful to my friend Grossman who
spared me from me having to learn the necessary math & me
doing the required literature search to get to the needed field
equations for GTR".
>
Einstein continues on
286-Doc30-771:... "Ernst Mach was the first one to recognize a
fundamental misconception & conceptual fault in the formulation
of the SR, my Special Theory of relativity"... [Einstein then bags
on Newton's Grav. shortcomings, but he hedges in the foot note:]...
"The new theoretical realizations may not be applicable to events
in physical reality if they are contra to other physical experiences."
>
286-Doc30-771:... wherein Einstein pontificates:
"The cause and source for Newton's Action-at-a-distance must
lay **outside** of the system of the 2 involved masses... & (by
assumption) there **ought to be** no preferential frame of reference".
>
286-Doc30-771:... wherein Einstein laments like a politician
about: ... "some Force field which one must assume to be
"justifiable" in systems at rest as well as when in movement
from which one can immediately conclude that... by simply
changing the coordinate systems one generates a Gravitational
Force field... in which one **sets** the speed of light to be
constant & one can easily see that a ray of light must be bent "...
>
291-Doc30-776:... wherein Einstein laments that:
"There is no other choice then to accept/believe that all imaginable
frames of reference/coordinate systems have to regarded as being
equally valid".. [but then he adds & hedges in the page's foot note]
"About certain limitations of the requirement for attribution and
steadiness we shall NOT talk about"....[ ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
and presumably he meant by that to admit & imply failure of his
GR because he was never able to get rid of Newton's "G" which is
required for any and all of GR's solutions... AHAHAHAHA.....]
>
hanson wrote:
Albert's hedging, cautioning, handwaving, and gauche credits
to others with his intent to absolve himself or at least spread any
possible blame for failure, is evident in the above introduction of
his 1st paper on GR ... ahahahaha.. .
>
If Albert would have written his shit today, and if he would not have
been promoted back then by the Zionist-infested academia of the
Weimar Republic, then any referee would taken Albert's manuscript
and a cigar to the toilet, smoked the cigar and wiped his ass with
Albert's paper... Albert was a fucking lucky crackpot... ahahaha...
>
GR has not matured, as Sam so lovingly advocates. Einstein's
relativity is a like an old toilet seat which normal people would
throw away because it stinks. --- But to the folks who harbor a
toilet seat fetish, like all Einstein Dingleberries do, REL has
become a cherished, albeit useless, relic that is worshiped and
still exhibited widely... ahahahaha....
>
The Dingleberry argument that GR predicts reality in many
experiments accurately is as shallow and UN-convincing as is
the plethora of the Miracles in the Torah/Bible or Koran that
too are predicting reality accurately to their disciples...
>
All these holy scriptures, including Albert's shit just show that
any highfaluting story/report or theory will always find examples
in the real world that "prove the theory right" to their believing
disciples.
>
Actually, Albert had his misgivings about his Relativity crap
from the start when he told his Dingleberries with/in his many
admonishments, ever since 1920....:
::AE:: .... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
::AE:: .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
>
....This is reflected in the real world, like here, where one can
see where Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh
about it:
= mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
= *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No shit"
= Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
= Jews defend it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
... and to boot Einstein was keenly aware of this and very lucidly
and finally confessed in 1954, just a year before Albert folded
his relativity tent, closes his umbrella, kicked the bucket & finally
puffed, but leaving behind vast hordes of his Einstein Dingleberries
(1 set of which resides in these NGs to stink up & retard the
intellectual level & quality of physics),
So, Einstein wrote a letter in 1954 to Besso in which he said:
>
::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ &
::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
>
:: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
:: who said
:: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th century
::: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>
:: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
:: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
:: associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
>
:: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
:: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
:: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
>
hanson worte:
ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys!
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
It's the numbers...
If you can't get the numbers right your new theory is a pile of shit.
A theory without numbers is less than shit.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
hanson
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>
jedakiah wrote:
ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of
mass, but gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i
believe is logical and leaves no questions.
>
Gravity is exquisitely model ("explained" for many) by general
relativity. ... familiarize yourself with it.
>
hanson wrote:
It's the numbers...
If you can't get the numbers right your new theory is a pile of shit.
A theory without numbers is less than shit.
>
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Ambiguous! Come again, Dirk.
AHAHAHA... Whose *new* theory and which numbers?
Are you talking about the above, initial snippet from/by
jedakiah jedakiah.2d3a852 at physicsbanter.com, in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/258edeaae727eaad?hl=en
who didn't present any numbers?
I have corrected an attribution above. The "familiarize"
came not from Jedakiah, but from Sam who is proselytizing
Einstein's shit with extreme prejudice and uncommon
fanaticism.... ahahahaha... So, to/for jedak's defense
consider that he is the reaction product, the victim, of the
incessant onslaught by the Dingleberries that Einstein
warned against ever since 1920...
... and see, Dirk, they even got to you now.... ahahaha...
ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude!
Relax, dude, all that Einstein shit is only a story that
doesn't even buy you a cup of coffee.Have fun with it!
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:p5%jk.405$Ht4.278@trnddc01...
Where's that Nobel Prize that Dork Brouhaha of Newpeace promised me?
Ah... as I suspected... the arsehole can only produce a little
pile of shit.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
They got to me in school where they showed that simply by assuming
c=const Pythagoras Theorem could deliver the main equations of SR.
As for the rest, it's no good whining on about Einstein being wrong if
the numbers turn out right. You have to show where his numbers (and by
'his' I mean modern physicists using SR/GTR) differ from experiment.
Anyone who tries to discredit Einstein's work by quoting something he
said about it 100years ago, and all the right numbers is just a
coincidence, is a moron.
hanson
hanson wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/6c8444a0451c9212?hl=en >
of which Dirk snipped the portin that answwer his worries below
and from which Dirk left this segment and finds issue with:
>
:: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
:: who said
:: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
:: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
:: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
:: associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
:: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
:: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
:: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
::
It's the numbers...
If you can't get the numbers right your new theory is a pile of shit.
A theory without numbers is less than shit.
>>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Ambiguous! Come again, Dirk.
AHAHAHA... Whose *new* theory and which numbers?
Are you talking about the above, initial snippet from/by
jedakiah jedakiah.2d3a852 at physicsbanter.com, in
who didn't present any numbers?
I have corrected an attribution above. The "familiarize"
came not from Jedakiah, but from Sam who is proselytizing
Einstein's shit with extreme prejudice and uncommon
fanaticism.... ahahahaha... So, to/for jedak's defense
consider that he is the reaction product, the victim, of the
incessant onslaught by the Dingleberries that Einstein
warned against ever since 1920...
>>
... and see, Dirk, they even got to you now.... ahahaha...
ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude!
Relax, dude, all that Einstein shit is only a story that
doesn't even buy you a cup of coffee.Have fun with it!
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
They got to me in school where they showed that simply
by assuming c=const Pythagoras Theorem could deliver
the main equations of SR.
As for the rest, it's no good whining on about Einstein
being wrong if the numbers turn out right. You have to show
where his numbers (and by 'his' I mean modern physicists
using SR/GTR) differ from experiment.
>
Anyone who tries to discredit Einstein's work by quoting
something he said about it 100years ago, and all the right
numbers is just a coincidence, is a moron.
>
ahahahaha... So, "they got to you" in school, meaning that you
didn't get it... ahahaha... This of course explains why you think
that you are smarter then Carver, Hayeck and Beckman AND
even Einstein himself who in the part that you've snipped from
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
himself said that SR/GR was a crock o'shit.... and wherein it
also says that all the experiments that deliver the "right" numbers
are... .. well, go read it again... & then after that you may announce
again, loud as you did twice already, that you are a very proud
Einstein Dingleberry which dangles and swings with great delight
and in worshipping awe from Einstein's Sphincter.... hahahaha...
>
-- I will give you all the kudos you want for that; for EDs are fun! --
Again, thanks for the laughs, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Read the google ref.
So? Einstein's opinion is of no interest to me.
It's the numbers.
Show me where the numbers are wrong. Not *why* you, or anyone else think
they're wrong. Quantitative, repeatable, experimental data that is
inexplicable by SR/GTR.
All that SR/GTR is are axioms and mathematics which can be applied to
explain/predict the results of experiments. Now, what axioms do you want
to scrap, and what proof can you offer that they do not match physical
reality?
Koobee Wublee
> They got to me in school where they showed that simply by assuming
> c=const Pythagoras Theorem could deliver the main equations of SR.
What else have ‘they’ mesmerized you with?
Assuming the constancy of light actually allows you to modify the
Galilean transform into something that will agree with the null
results of the MMX. There are an infinitely such transforms where the
Lorentz transform is one of these. <shrug>
> As for the rest, it's no good whining on about Einstein being wrong if
> the numbers turn out right.
There is no need to blame Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar for all the problems. The Lorentz transform was first derived by
Larmor not by Einstein, Lorentz, or Poincare. The analysis (also
known as SR) to the Lorentz transform was first performed by Poincare
not by Einstein. The postulates (Einstein’s attempt of plagiarism by
reverse-engineering the Lorentz transform) of SR were already done so
by Galileo in his principle of relativity and by Voigt in his
constancy in the speed of light. <shrug>
Just what is Einstein’s contribution?
> You have to show where his numbers (and by
> 'his' I mean modern physicists using SR/GTR) differ from experiment.
The numbers showed the results from relative simultaneity. The
observations seem to only agree with the numbers under absolute
simultaneity. You call that experimental confirmation?
> Anyone who tries to discredit Einstein's work by quoting something he
> said about it 100years ago, and all the right numbers is just a
> coincidence, is a moron.
That is correct. You can easily discredit Einstein by doing a
mathematical forensics. The history shows Einstein was nothing but a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liear.
Einstein the nitwit cannot discern that the Lorentz transform is
absolutely nonsense because of the twin’s paradox namely relative
simultaneity. Einstein the plagiarist tried to re-derive the Lorentz
transform by reverse-engineering it. The forensic evidence is in his
1905 paper on relativity. Einstein the lair tried to claim other’s
work as his own. Again, the forensic evidence is also lies in his
1905 paper.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Not interested.
Show me where the numbers differ from experimental results.
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/6c8444a0451c9212?hl=en
So? Einstein's opinion is of no interest to me.
>
... ahahaha... you read the ref?... ahahahaha.. did you really?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
Annalen der Physik 49, <http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html>
=== Original German version ** CP6Doc30_pp284-339[1].pdf ** ===
Obviously you didn't get what it says nor what it means...
ahahahaha... Hey no disrespect for you, Dirk. .. ahaha...
Show me where the numbers are wrong. Not *why* you, or
anyone else think they're wrong. Quantitative, repeatable,
experimental data that is inexplicable by SR/GTR.
All that SR/GTR is are axioms and mathematics which can
be applied to explain/predict the results of experiments.
Now, what axioms do you want to scrap, and what proof
can you offer that they do not match physical reality?
>
hanson wrote:
Forget your fetish about the "numbers". Measurements have
nothing to do with any theory, REL or otherwise. -- You have
it ass-backwards... Theory describes what is already known
and does not pre-dict anything. Theories are just stories by
which they describe a process, event or state observed
in nature.
If theses theories and in particular Einstein's crap are so
great then why don't we have those wonderful gismos and
gadgets that one sees in sci-fy, Starwars and Star trek?
>
If theories do deliver like you think they do, then why don't
you or any of those Einstein Dingleberries take a good
look at those wonderful equations & produce some of that
future technology... ahahaha... Do it and show me some
piece of new harware created by gawking at an eqaution
from Einstein's crap... ... ahahaha...
>
Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
have you applied the help I gave you for it in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Theories are quantitative data compression algorithms.
Without numbers all that is left is handwaving and nuts on sci.physics
ranting and tossing insults.
> If theses theories and in particular Einstein's crap are so
> great then why don't we have those wonderful gismos and
> gadgets that one sees in sci-fy, Starwars and Star trek?
> If theories do deliver like you think they do, then why don't
> you or any of those Einstein Dingleberries take a good
> look at those wonderful equations & produce some of that
> future technology... ahahaha... Do it and show me some
> piece of new harware created by gawking at an eqaution
> from Einstein's crap... ... ahahaha...
> Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
> in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
> have you applied the help I gave you for it in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
> Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
Well, we have have a kind of astronomical project lined up, but we will
announce it in due course. A kind of prediction/causation on a grand scale.
Androcles
Sources of GPS signal errors
Factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy include the
following:
a.. Ionosphere and troposphere delays — The satellite signal slows as it
passes through the atmosphere. The GPS system uses a built-in model that
calculates an average amount of delay to partially correct for this type of
error.
b.. Signal multipath — This occurs when the GPS signal is reflected off
objects such as tall buildings or large rock surfaces before it reaches the
receiver. This increases the travel time of the signal, thereby causing
errors.
c.. Receiver clock errors — A receiver's built-in clock is not as accurate
as the atomic clocks onboard the GPS satellites. Therefore, it may have very
slight timing errors.
d.. Orbital errors — Also known as ephemeris errors, these are
inaccuracies of the satellite's reported location.
e.. Number of satellites visible — The more satellites a GPS receiver can
"see," the better the accuracy. Buildings, terrain, electronic interference,
or sometimes even dense foliage can block signal reception, causing position
errors or possibly no position reading at all. GPS units typically will not
work indoors, underwater or underground.
f.. Satellite geometry/shading — This refers to the relative position of
the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when the
satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor geometry
results when the satellites are located in a line or in a tight grouping.
g.. Intentional degradation of the satellite signal — Selective
Availability (SA) is an intentional degradation of the signal once imposed
by the U.S. Department of Defense. SA was intended to prevent military
adversaries from using the highly accurate GPS signals. The government
turned off SA in May 2000, which significantly improved the accuracy of
civilian GPS receivers.
So the numbers are WRONG.
| Not *why* you, or
| anyone else think they're wrong. Quantitative, repeatable,
| experimental data that is inexplicable by SR/GTR.
The numbers are wrong.
| All that SR/GTR is are axioms and mathematics which can
| be applied to explain/predict the results of experiments.
| Now, what axioms do you want to scrap, and what proof
| can you offer that they do not match physical reality?
The numbers are WRONG.
| > Dirk
| >
| hanson wrote:
| Forget your fetish about the "numbers". Measurements have
| nothing to do with any theory, REL or otherwise. -- You have
| it ass-backwards... Theory describes what is already known
| and does not pre-dict anything. Theories are just stories by
| which they describe a process, event or state observed
| in nature.
| If theses theories and in particular Einstein's crap are so
| great then why don't we have those wonderful gismos and
| gadgets that one sees in sci-fy, Starwars and Star trek?
| >
| If theories do deliver like you think they do, then why don't
| you or any of those Einstein Dingleberries take a good
| look at those wonderful equations & produce some of that
| future technology... ahahaha... Do it and show me some
| piece of new harware created by gawking at an eqaution
| from Einstein's crap... ... ahahaha...
| >
| Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
| in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
| have you applied the help I gave you for it in
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
| Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
| ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
Einstein Dingleberries claim GPS is dependent on GR.
Garmin, who actually make GPS receivers, say their accuracy is 15 metres
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/
It is more like +/- 40 metres vertically but only airline pilots concern
themselves with landing 120 feet below the runway, which, considering
glideslope geometry, places the aircraft among the approach lights at
touchdown causing the light bulbs to break by gravity theory.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/496665511_f5e634fd2a.jpg?v=0
http://www.gebenus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/approach_lights.jpg
http://www.ae.ca/papersart/vanfig06.jpg
The numbers are WRONG. Dork Brouhaha is a fuckhead.
hanson
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/c4891132fee252c4?hl=en
Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
have you applied the help I gave you for it in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
>> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
but we will announce it in due course.
A kind of prediction/causation on a grand scale.
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
>
Well, you haven't answered my question , but that's ok.
Now are sure you meant "astronomical" and not
"astrological".. I hope?... If it's the former one, does it
have to do with the 2012 predictions?... In any event,
I'd be extremely interested how your line-up is caused
by Einstein... Einstein Rings, I guess, which is really really
REMOTE viewing... Keep me posted, by all means...
... ahahaha.. ahahaha... ahahahanson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Nothing to do with 2012.
Just something we will predict/cause one month ahead of time.
--
hanson
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:Y26kk.85818$3L5....@newsfe30.ams2...
It's the numbers.
Show me where the numbers are wrong.
>
********* So the numbers are WRONG. **************
repeatable, experimental data that is inexplicable by SR/GTR.
>
********* The numbers are wrong.*************
be applied to explain/predict the results of experiments.
Now, what axioms do you want to scrap, and what proof
can you offer that they do not match physical reality?
>
******** The numbers are WRONG. ***********
>
hanson wrote earlier:
If theories do deliver like you think they do, then why don't
you or any of those Einstein Dingleberries take a good
future technology... ahahaha... Do it and show me some
from Einstein's crap... ... ahahaha...
> | >
Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
have you applied the help I gave you for it in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
> |
Einstein Dingleberries claim GPS is dependent on GR.
Garmin, who actually make GPS receivers, say their accuracy is 15 metres
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/
>
It is more like +/- 40 metres vertically but only airline pilots concern
themselves with landing 120 feet below the runway, which, considering
glideslope geometry, places the aircraft among the approach lights at
touchdown causing the light bulbs to break by gravity theory.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/496665511_f5e634fd2a.jpg?v=0
http://www.gebenus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/approach_lights.jpg
http://www.ae.ca/papersart/vanfig06.jpg
>
>
hanson wrote:
Don't tell Dirk the bad news. He needs his ED conformal numbers
for his celestial lineup of (what I gather to be) the Einstein Rings.
>
Hey dudes, all of you who participated here in this portion of the
thread THANKS FOR ALL THE LAUGHS. You are good guys!
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Then I guess that without all those SR/GTR corrections satellite
positioning would be perfect.
UNLESS!!!! - all the errors cancel out (miraculously, yet again)
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
"The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks
on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the
ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small,
but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond
accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects
were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the
GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in
global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10
kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for
navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin
to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus,
Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and
having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about
5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit. "
IT'S THE NUMBERS
hanson
>
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fca65F...@mid.individual.net...
... Awe, how disappointing!... Only one month?...
Like when the girlfriend's gona be on the rag or
whether the job will be still here next month?.... ahahaha...
Or did it predict this conversion here on this lined
up celestial body-Earth?... Thanks for the fun, Dirk!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
Imagine this, though. Directly overhead is a GPS satellite,
so the signal has the least amount of atmosphere to penetrate
and the shortest distance, it is line-of-sight, no buildings in the way.
That takes out a) and b).
Now consider:
"The 24 satellites that make up the GPS space segment are orbiting the
earth about 12,000 miles above us. "
together with:
" Essentially, the GPS receiver compares the time a signal was
transmitted by a satellite with the time it was received. The time
difference tells the GPS receiver how far away the satellite is. "
Curious that just when the system should be at its most accurate,
given this perfect speed of light that the dingleberries claim, it turns
out to be at its least accurate. 12,000 miles of space, 60 miles of
atmosphere and only 40 metres accuracy. A signal from the horizon
goes through enough atmosphere to turn the sun red and refract
the rays, yet we have 15 metres horizontal accuracy.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
No, it will be something that the entire world will see.
--
hanson
>
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fcc81F...@mid.individual.net...
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... don't bring up that crap, again.. These 38 usec
are **calculated**, pitiful SR/GR explanations that took
Ashby and his Dingleberries-likes 39 equations to
arrive at 38u sec... a full decade AFTER GPS was
in operation. Its a fucking story by the Dingleberries in
their hope to get fame by association... ahahaha...
while see any decent engineer, l et alone a physicist,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e469ebe11d1d0a73
can quickly see... in ONE FELL SWOOP, thyat in hhis case
here all what matters in such an approximation is the mass of
\the earth, M_e, and the signal height traveled, h, to show in a
single line that
[1] (M_e /h ) * (2 G/c^2) * 86400 = 38 microsec
the daily time drift, wherein M_e = the earth's mass, h = the orbit
height over the surface, G = Newton, c = Lightspeed & the 86400
sec/day.... ahahahaha....
>
and then usually like you now did another Dingleberry does
Wabnigger by with his
"GPS carrier frequency: 1.023000000000 MHz
(theor. unaffected) and 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected) "
but who is not realizing that it's just another expression for
the same Newtonian 38 usec delay... which is not even
germane to the GS operation as Andro has explained...
or if you won't believe him then ask like I did here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/57ec86d591efba8c?hl=en
Sam, I asked about this before, in this post here on 3-Jan-08,:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a2a290997bafd30c >
== re: GPS World: Connectivity, Mobile Phones Will
Dominate Navigation ==,... wherein I asked you, Sam:
" Where is Einstein referred to for his contributions in your link here?
< http://lbs.gpsworld.com/gpslbs/content/printContentPopup.jsp?id=481835 >
Where do the GPS manufactures and operators like Nokia, Motorola,
LG, Samsung, TRG, Garmin or TomTom say that they could not have
achieved that level/success of technology were it not for Einstein and
his lunatic SR and GR? "...
>
They'll leave you dangle from Einstein's sphincter , Dirk,
like a Dingleberry ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Androcles
I drive my car at 30 mph. Each foot along the road passes
by me quite frequently, in fact 44 feet go by every second.
That's a frequency of 44 Hz. If I increase my speed to
90 mph the frequency increases to 132 Hz but the feet
do not change to yards. If they did I'd be back to 44 Hz.
Of course if time changed instead I could go faster and
still be travelling at 30 mph.
So let's pretend my time for a 30 mile journey is 20 minutes
and the road time for the same journey is 1 hour. I haven't
aged as much as you have standing still. I turn around and
drive back again, total journey time 40 mins for me, 2 hours
for you. Did the Red Sox win? The result is known for you
and the game s not over for me. If I listened on the radio
it would not tune, I'd be picking up 300 MHz on the FM
band from the Doppler effect outgoing and 33 MHz returning.
But wait.... then I'd know the result...
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > What else have ‘they’ mesmerized you with?
>
> > Assuming the constancy of light actually allows you to modify the
> > Galilean transform into something that will agree with the null
> > results of the MMX. There are an infinitely such transforms where the
> > Lorentz transform is one of these. <shrug>
>
> > There is no need to blame Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> > liar for all the problems. The Lorentz transform was first derived by
> > Larmor not by Einstein, Lorentz, or Poincare. The analysis (also
> > known as SR) to the Lorentz transform was first performed by Poincare
> > not by Einstein. The postulates (Einstein’s attempt of plagiarism by
> > reverse-engineering the Lorentz transform) of SR were already done so
> > by Galileo in his principle of relativity and by Voigt in his
> > constancy in the speed of light. <shrug>
>
> > Just what is Einstein’s contribution?
>
> > The numbers showed the results from relative simultaneity. The
> > observations seem to only agree with the numbers under absolute
> > simultaneity. You call that experimental confirmation?
>
> > You can easily discredit Einstein by doing a
> > mathematical forensics. The history shows Einstein was nothing but a
> > nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liear.
>
> > Einstein the nitwit cannot discern that the Lorentz transform is
> > absolutely nonsense because of the twin’s paradox namely relative
> > simultaneity. Einstein the plagiarist tried to re-derive the Lorentz
> > transform by reverse-engineering it. The forensic evidence is in his
> > 1905 paper on relativity. Einstein the lair tried to claim other’s
> > work as his own. Again, the forensic evidence is also lies in his
> > 1905 paper.
>
> Not interested.
Oh, well. We have another illiterate peasant. In this particular
case, he is from the good old England. <shrug>
> Show me where the numbers differ from experimental results.
There are so many. Please initiate such an experiment, and I will
engage in sincere discussions with you.
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:640655f6-d1d2-4db3...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Ok, Sagnac.
How does it work?
Or in you case, How does it work, liar?
hanson
>
news:6fcdnlF...@mid.individual.net...
>
31 days and counting down.. I shall be back at time zero
and re-inquire... hoping that your answer will not just be
"Full Moon" or "Sunrise" etc.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
cjcountess
My name is Conrad Countess
You are on the right track and I've used the same type analogy.
The whirlpool analogy is just an extension of the wave on lake
analogy. And we know that particles of water are formed by whirlpools
such as hurricanes and particles of matter are formed by whirlpools
such as spiral galaxies in their revolving density waves . But gravity
begins with waves and acquires rest mass when the speed and momentum
of the wave in 90 degree angular direction equals and balances speed
and momentum of waves in linear direction which is, (c x c) or (c^2)
and a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces to create the
speed of light in circular or spherical motion.
Once the rest mass particles are formed you get the attraction and
repelling forces of positive and negative charges modeled by objects
spinning in water, same and opposite directions resulting in
attracting and repelling forces pointed out by YPorat
Even in gravity description offered by Einstein which Sam Wormley
pointed out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
it states in Einstein's equation section :
Drawing further upon the analogy with geometric Newtonian gravity, it
is natural to assume that the field equation for gravity relates this
tensor and the Ricci tensor, which describes a particular class of
tidal effects: the change in volume for a small cloud of test
particles that are initially at rest, and then fall freely.
which contains a cloud and water particle analogy and equation
Hi jedakiah
My name is Conrad Countess
You are on the right track and I've used the same type analogy.
The whirlpool analogy is just an extension of the wave on lake
analogy. And we know that particles of water are formed by whirlpools
such as hurricanes and particles of matter are formed by whirlpools
such as spiral galaxies in their revolving density waves . But gravity
begins with waves and acquires rest mass when the speed and momentum
of the wave in 90 degree angular direction equals and balances speed
and momentum of waves in linear direction which is, (c x c) or (c^2)
and a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces to create the
speed of light in circular or spherical motion.
Once the rest mass particles are formed you get the attraction and
repelling forces of positive and negative charges modeled by objects
spinning in water, same and opposite directions resulting in
attracting and repelling forces pointed out by YPorat
Even in gravity description offered by Einstein which Sam Wormley
pointed out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
it states in Einsteins equation section :
Drawing further upon the analogy with geometric Newtonian gravity, it
is natural to assume that the field equation for gravity relates this
tensor and the Ricci tensor, which describes a particular class of
tidal effects: the change in volume for a small cloud of test
particles that are initially at rest, and then fall freely.
which contains a cloud and water particle analogy and equation
This is section from earlier site:
Quantum Gravity
Electromagnetism - Gravity Equivalence
My name is Conrad Countess
I am an Independent Researcher
I think that I can lay the foundation for Quantum Gravity in three
steps.
1.Assuming that energy is more basic than matter, if we start with a
field of energy in its ground state that is below detectable
frequency, this can be Dark Energy or the Higgs field.
2.Next, if we assume that this energy field permeates all of space or
is indistinguishable from space itself and moves at the velocity of c
we have set the stage.
3.Now, just add extra energy and this should give rise to waves of
frequency that increase according to Planck's constant in quantum
increments with increased energy . This extra energy may come from a
rotation sense the Universe as far as we can detect may be rotating as
everything in the perceivable Universe seems to be orbiting something
else on a larger scale. Just as a tub of water with a thin film of
soap that is turned will began to congeal swirls of soapy film in
concentrated regions, the Universe may begin to congeal swirls of
energy analogous to this. When the right angle frequency speed of this
congealed energy reaches c just as the speed along the light path this
is c x c or c2 resulting in something analogous to ?the speed of light
in uniform circular motion? in classical physics as in a=v2/r, but on
the quantum level. This results in rest mass because the centripetal
speed of the frequency should balance out the centrifugal speed of
light along the light path resulting in equally distributed energy,
mass, and momentum around a center of rotation as opposed to energy
being radiated outward from a center at a velocity of c as is the case
with normal electromagnetic radiation.
Beginning With Waves
It is well known that higher energy electromagnetic waves result in an
increase in frequency but no addition to the speed of c along the
light path. In the same sense any increase in energy to this
background Dark Energy or Higgs field that is already moving at c
causes waves to churn up within it out of an otherwise imperceptible
but not empty field like waves on a pond that is disturbed. And so
electromagnetic waves and rest mass particles arise from as well as
within the background energy field itself as a consequence of added
energy giving rise to frequency, increasing in quantum increments and
attaining rest mass at the frequency of c2.
These are current sites:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_209723wdc9
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
Just keep working on your theory and see what happens
Conrad Countess
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I do not know of any experiment.
Nor does anyone else.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Where is the derivation from first principles?
Anyone can do a dimensional analysis, throw in a constant and get
anything they like.
I'm waiting to hear that E=MC^2 is wrong and it's really E=MC^2+0.42
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
No, the clock hasn't started yet.
We still have to announce the specific event.
--
hanson
AHAHAHA... Easy, man, easy... Silence is Golden!
Save your palaver here for your radio show or your
"Remote viewing" classes... ahaha... ahahahaha...
It becomes apparent that you don't know what you
are talking about... ahahaha... and you are beginning
to sound funny... hahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
spudnik
it was done in the 19th CCE (PBUH .-)
um, what ever you guys were referring to,
in your cut&paste DJ mixtape.
anway, Haha, what floor was your office on?... eleven and
above is certainly very safe, if the building doesn't fail
monumentally.
> I do not know of any experiment.
thus:
I had my 4th virtual lesson in surfing in two days,
more or less, this one just watching the lone surferdood;
I didn't wait for him to stand up, since he was clearly
paddling-out in a minimax path to the correct wave.
4 axes would be a form of homogenous coordination,
not entirely amenable to quaternions, AFAICT,
for "the point," which would minimally be a tetrasteron, and
a sphere; how many points is that?... anyone work
on the lunes demonstration of pythag.spatial?
it's very tempting to just bum a board & go, but
I'm retaining my ideal of surfcamp Maui, or
some other island.
or, we'll just make a stop on the bipolar express --
it's the IPY!
hanson
>>>>>.
>>>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Nothing to do with 2012.
>>>>> Just something we will predict/cause one month ahead of time.
>>>>>
>>>> hanson wrote:
>>>> ... Awe, how disappointing!... Only one month?...
>>>> Like when the girlfriend's gona be on the rag or
>>>> whether the job will be still here next month?.... ahahaha...
>>>> Or did it predict this conversion here on this lined
>>>> up celestial body-Earth?... Thanks for the fun, Dirk!
>>>> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>>>>
>>> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> No, it will be something that the entire world will see.
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> 31 days and counting down.. I shall be back at time zero
>> and re-inquire... hoping that your answer will not just be
>> "Full Moon" or "Sunrise" etc.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote
> No, the clock hasn't started yet.
> We still have to announce the specific event.
>
... ahahaha.. AHAHAHA... I see. It's a "Remote event", huh...
Thanks for the laughs, Dirki... ahahaha... ahahahanson
The TimeLord
<dirk....@gmail.com> in 6fbtj5F...@mid.individual.net in
sci.physics.relativity:
[...]
> They got to me in school where they showed that simply by assuming
> c=const Pythagoras Theorem could deliver the main equations of SR. As
You must of had some serious liars teaching you in school. Either that or
the shop teacher. [wink]
[...]
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
hanson
news:c8b97f04-301a-48e3...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> [snipped the banal & empty content
[but this portion gave rise for concern]
>
> .. tetrasteron, and
> it's very tempting to just bum a board & go, but
> I'm retaining my ideal
>
hanson wrote:
"tetrasteron"?... Sorry to hear about your plight and
the gravity of your situation, Spuddy. Check here:
http://lekarstwo.ru/en/preparati/tetrasteronum.html
Take care, get well and enjoy your surfing
hanson
spudnik
be even more efficaciously longlasting ... except for the part
about "more Viagra, honey, and an icepack for the prostate!"
anyway, I was just refurbishing Bucky's neologism into pure greek,
his "tetravertexion" as the natural, dual label for the tetrahedron.
really,
this is an aspect of an umentioned key to Bucky's pedagogy.