Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Seto is a creation of s.p.r.
75 views
Skip to first unread message
Big Dog
Sep 27, 2012, 10:04:18 AM9/27/12
to
Seto, a very long time ago, came to s.p.r. asking questions about
relativity. Perhaps he felt he could learn about relativity by asking
questions here. Now, of course, he has no interest in learning anything.
It occurs to me that what he is today is (at least partially) a creation
of s.p.r.
He was not trained as a physics student is trained to think. That
inquisitiveness, analytical thinking, deep and looped comprehension of
fundamental concepts, application of practiced skills, and mastery of
prior literature -- those come with ten or more years of concentrated
practice and guidance.
Instead, Seto was trained here on s.p.r. where what gets practiced is
confrontation, shallow reading, avoidance of mathematical or
experimental skill application, loose terminology, no accountability on
basic concepts, and frequent and distracted and inaccurate blathering
about philosophy and history. And he's had ten or more years of training
in doing exactly that.
He's a successful product of s.p.r., exactly the outcome one would
expect from being on s.p.r. that long. He came to crank school and he's
learned how to be a crank from a long education here.
relativity. Perhaps he felt he could learn about relativity by asking
questions here. Now, of course, he has no interest in learning anything.
It occurs to me that what he is today is (at least partially) a creation
of s.p.r.
He was not trained as a physics student is trained to think. That
inquisitiveness, analytical thinking, deep and looped comprehension of
fundamental concepts, application of practiced skills, and mastery of
prior literature -- those come with ten or more years of concentrated
practice and guidance.
Instead, Seto was trained here on s.p.r. where what gets practiced is
confrontation, shallow reading, avoidance of mathematical or
experimental skill application, loose terminology, no accountability on
basic concepts, and frequent and distracted and inaccurate blathering
about philosophy and history. And he's had ten or more years of training
in doing exactly that.
He's a successful product of s.p.r., exactly the outcome one would
expect from being on s.p.r. that long. He came to crank school and he's
learned how to be a crank from a long education here.
kenseto
Sep 27, 2012, 10:29:38 AM9/27/12
to
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> Seto, a very long time ago, came to s.p.r. asking questions about
>
> relativity. Perhaps he felt he could learn about relativity by asking
>
> questions here. Now, of course, he has no interest in learning anything.
No idiot Dog shit..... I wrote and published a book on Model Mecahnics in 1992 befor I participate in this NG. I invented A NEW THEORY OF RELATIVITY CALLED IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. IRT includes SRT as a subset.
> Seto, a very long time ago, came to s.p.r. asking questions about
>
> relativity. Perhaps he felt he could learn about relativity by asking
>
> questions here. Now, of course, he has no interest in learning anything.
A paper on IRT and DTG is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
dlzc
Sep 27, 2012, 10:48:46 AM9/27/12
to
Dear Big Dog:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:03:58 AM UTC-7, Big Dog wrote:
...
David A. Smith
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:03:58 AM UTC-7, Big Dog wrote:
...
> He's a successful product of s.p.r., exactly the
> outcome one would expect from being on s.p.r.
> that long. He came to crank school and he's
> learned how to be a crank from a long education
> here.
I would submit that s.p.r. was created so that kenseto had a place to come, to reduce noise levels on s.p. So it seems to me, you have the cart before the horse.
> outcome one would expect from being on s.p.r.
> that long. He came to crank school and he's
> learned how to be a crank from a long education
> here.
David A. Smith
Big Dog
Sep 27, 2012, 11:09:12 AM9/27/12
to
On 9/27/2012 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> Seto, a very long time ago, came to s.p.r. asking questions about
>> relativity. Perhaps he felt he could learn about relativity by asking
>> questions here. Now, of course, he has no interest in learning anything.
>
> No idiot Dog shit..... I wrote and published a book on Model Mecahnics in 1992 befor I participate
> in this NG. I invented A NEW THEORY OF RELATIVITY CALLED IRT and a new theory of gravity called
> DTG. IRT includes SRT as a subset.
> A paper on IRT and DTG is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>
Then I was wrong in thinking that you came to s.p.r. in the hopes of
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> Seto, a very long time ago, came to s.p.r. asking questions about
>> relativity. Perhaps he felt he could learn about relativity by asking
>> questions here. Now, of course, he has no interest in learning anything.
>
> No idiot Dog shit..... I wrote and published a book on Model Mecahnics in 1992 befor I participate
> in this NG. I invented A NEW THEORY OF RELATIVITY CALLED IRT and a new theory of gravity called
> DTG. IRT includes SRT as a subset.
> A paper on IRT and DTG is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>
learning something about relativity.
Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
What did you study?
The only two things you've ever referred to are:
- a single chapter on relativity out of a freshman survey textbook by
Halliday and Resnick.
- Einstein's book for laypeople, attempting to describe basic concepts.
Is this really all you had to learn about relativity before you decided
to write a book? Don't you think that is a foolish way to proceed? Would
you recommend that to anyone in chemical engineering?
Big Dog
Sep 27, 2012, 11:10:09 AM9/27/12
to
of cranks?
Tom Roberts
Sep 27, 2012, 11:33:50 AM9/27/12
to
On 9/27/12 9/27/12 - 10:10 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> In other words, s.p.r. was created to be a crank school for the training of cranks?
No, that is a side effect. sci.physics.relativity was created to reduce the
> In other words, s.p.r. was created to be a crank school for the training of cranks?
noise level FROM the cranks, in other physics newsgroups. It has had limited
success in this. Most if not all of those original cranks no longer participate.
AFAICT I am the longest participant here; I first used newsgroups in the early
1980s, before s.p.r was created, and before the internet was "born" -- USENET
was transported via UUCP over telephone lines, and Bell Labs was by far the
largest set of nodes (I worked there back then).
I continue mostly out of nostalgia -- discussions on s.p.r were integral in
re-kindling my interest in physics in the 1990s, which resulted in my coming
back to High Energy Physics in 2002. The key question which did this was "How do
we know SR is correct [sic]?" -- answering that to my own satisfaction took a
long literature search which resulted in the FAQ page I now maintain.
Tom Roberts
Big Dog
Sep 27, 2012, 11:48:58 AM9/27/12
to
s.p.r. still active.
So since he was lured here to keep him away from generating noise on
other physics groups, it is still likely true that his long exile here
has influenced what he is today. The word used when that happens to
convicts is "institutionalized".
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 27, 2012, 11:59:38 AM9/27/12
to
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0e868491-eace-4741...@googlegroups.com...
============
Funny how you dumbfucks write more about people than
mathematics... or perhaps not, you don’t know any mathematics.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 27, 2012, 12:09:28 PM9/27/12
to
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:r9udnZPy1eR...@giganews.com...
In other words, s.p.r was created to be a crank
school for the training of cranks by the crank Roberts.
How do we know SR is idiotic
crap?
Because of this, which Roberts missed in his
“literature” search:
Big Dog
Sep 27, 2012, 12:14:29 PM9/27/12
to
On 9/27/2012 10:59 AM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> /============/
> /Funny how you dumbfucks write more about people than mathematics... or
> perhaps not, you don’t know any mathematics./
> //
> /-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway/
Funny how some people bitch about not finding discussions of mathematics
in a physics newsgroup. Funny how those people can't seem to find their
way to sci.math newsgroups. Maybe s.p.r. is a collection point for
people who can't find their asses with both hands.
> /============/
> /Funny how you dumbfucks write more about people than mathematics... or
> perhaps not, you don’t know any mathematics./
> //
> /-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway/
Funny how some people bitch about not finding discussions of mathematics
in a physics newsgroup. Funny how those people can't seem to find their
way to sci.math newsgroups. Maybe s.p.r. is a collection point for
people who can't find their asses with both hands.
dlzc
Sep 27, 2012, 12:30:25 PM9/27/12
to
Dear Big Dog:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:14:06 AM UTC-7, Big Dog wrote:
...
David A. Smith
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:14:06 AM UTC-7, Big Dog wrote:
...
> Funny how some people bitch about not finding
> discussions of mathematics in a physics
> newsgroup. Funny how those people can't seem to
> find their way to sci.math newsgroups. Maybe
> s.p.r. is a collection point for people who
> can't find their asses with both hands.
I don't know, he and Henri seem to go at it pretty regularly... so they seem to find each other's ass OK. Isn't it great when the handicapped help each other out?
> discussions of mathematics in a physics
> newsgroup. Funny how those people can't seem to
> find their way to sci.math newsgroups. Maybe
> s.p.r. is a collection point for people who
> can't find their asses with both hands.
David A. Smith
Big Dog
Sep 27, 2012, 1:39:18 PM9/27/12
to
computer simulations. Seems they both lost their way from a computing
newsgroup and are relieved to find each other.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 27, 2012, 1:38:31 PM9/27/12
to
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:50f34358-1ea9-4433...@googlegroups.com...
You two faggots are more concerned with arse than with
tB-tA = rAB/(c-v)
because buttfucking queers like you don’t read Einstein’s
algebra at all,
arse is all you know or care
about.
s.p.r. is a collection point for homosexuals
groping each other’s arses with
both hands and a
minority of individuals actually interested in physics.
Why not come right out and say you’re fairy, Queer Smiffy?
Pig Dog
will date you, he’s as bent as a three dollar
bill.
Dirk Van de moortel
Sep 27, 2012, 2:11:35 PM9/27/12
to
"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k422va$ad8$2...@speranza.aioe.org
And it looks like Tamhane has found *them*.
The beginning of a fruitful threesome ;-)
Dirk Vdm
news:k422va$ad8$2...@speranza.aioe.org
The beginning of a fruitful threesome ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 27, 2012, 2:14:50 PM9/27/12
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message
news:k424sp$ge4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
And the third faggot only interested in arse joins
in, Dork Van de faggot.
Big Dog
Sep 27, 2012, 2:32:45 PM9/27/12
to
On 9/27/2012 1:14 PM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>
> Dirk Vdm
> /And the third faggot only interested in arse joins in, Dork Van de faggot./
> ////////
> /-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway/
It's a pity that the Earl of Medway has declined upstairs far enough
that his once keen wit has been reduced to calling people faggots. It
won't be long now.
>
> Dirk Vdm
> /And the third faggot only interested in arse joins in, Dork Van de faggot./
> ////////
> /-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway/
It's a pity that the Earl of Medway has declined upstairs far enough
that his once keen wit has been reduced to calling people faggots. It
won't be long now.
xxein
Sep 27, 2012, 8:10:02 PM9/27/12
to
2nd postulate (SR) is illogical. And yet you will use it because it
seems to work for an observation. None of you can (nor Einstein) can
figure it out. It just is? What a cop-out for failing to investigate
it.
Name calling. That seems to work amongst bullies that don't even know
there's an illogic in it either. Just on the bandwagon, huh?
I don't and can't support such people. It's painfully obvious that no
one here has a clue of the real physic.
Investigate the illogical. There is a logical answer for this. It's
logic, not math to support the illogic.
And then there is the bending of a lightpath in gravity. No science.
Just a math to explain why it appears to bend doubly over the
Newtonian. And then over 50 years later we were designing a GPS
system that used that math, only to be wrong again in the math for
it. Carroll O. Alley pointed this out before deployment. I don't
know what he knew about it not being logical but he managed to
convince them and they heeded his advise.
We think we understand a science and get proved wrong over time every
time. No TOE can ever develop from this without logic. Hell, they
don't even know why (a physical and logical reason) light bends
doubly. But I do. It all traces back to Einstein's 2nd postulate
being wrong in gravity (as well as just being physically illogical in
the first place).
Enjoy that your ignorance is bliss.
Tom Roberts
Sep 28, 2012, 12:55:20 AM9/28/12
to
On 9/27/12 9/27/12 7:10 PM, xxein wrote:
> Einstein would be a crank here if you disagreed with him. His
> 2nd postulate (SR) is illogical.
But if he were writing today HE WOULD NOT NEED IT.
> Einstein would be a crank here if you disagreed with him. His
> 2nd postulate (SR) is illogical.
In 1905, in the milieu of his day, it was logical and easily accepted by his
readers.
Those readers were, of course, physicists. Not lay people.
Not cranks, fools, and idiots.
> And yet you will use it because it
> seems to work for an observation. None of you can (nor Einstein) can
> figure it out. It just is? What a cop-out for failing to investigate
> it.
the second postulate is not necessary, and KNOW that it is a direct consequence
of the first postulate and experimental evidence.
Remarkably this is NOT subject to the uncertainties in measurements,
because it is constrained by what is essentially a topological
choice: only three transformation groups obey the first postulate,
and only one of them agrees with experiments.
> Enjoy that your ignorance is bliss.
Tom Roberts
David Fuller
Sep 28, 2012, 6:30:15 AM9/28/12
to
Yes, time travel to the past may be possibly for information but not matter.
Manipulation of the past to give the present an advantage.
Cart before the donkey with the donkey chasing a carrot.
Manipulation of the past to give the present an advantage.
Cart before the donkey with the donkey chasing a carrot.
Tom Roberts
Sep 28, 2012, 10:11:56 AM9/28/12
to
On 9/28/12 9/28/12 5:30 AM, David Fuller wrote:
> Yes, time travel to the past may be possibly for information but not matter.
> Manipulation of the past to give the present an advantage.
In the context of General Relativity, any spacetime in which this is possible is
> Yes, time travel to the past may be possibly for information but not matter.
> Manipulation of the past to give the present an advantage.
not globally hyperbolic, which basically means there is no guarantee that the
field equations can be solved. That, in turn, means that GR cannot be used to
describe the evolution of the system. This is so strange that most experts
consider such manifolds unphysical, and therefore not worth thinking about.
This is not to say it cannot happen, it merely says it is inconsistent with the
best physical theories we have today. But certainly no observations to date
support your rather vague notion.
Tom Roberts
kenseto
Sep 28, 2012, 11:33:34 AM9/28/12
to
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 9/27/2012 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> Seto, a very long time ago, came to s.p.r. asking questions about
>
> >> relativity. Perhaps he felt he could learn about relativity by asking
>
> >> questions here. Now, of course, he has no interest in learning anything.
>
> >
>
> > No idiot Dog shit..... I wrote and published a book on Model Mecahnics in 1992 befor I participate
>
> > in this NG. I invented A NEW THEORY OF RELATIVITY CALLED IRT and a new theory of gravity called
>
> > DTG. IRT includes SRT as a subset.
>
> > A paper on IRT and DTG is available in the following link:
>
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>
> >
>
>
>
> Then I was wrong in thinking that you came to s.p.r. in the hopes of
>
> learning something about relativity.
>
>
>
> Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
>
> studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
>
> What did you study?
ROTFLOL....the original SR is a very simple theory to understand.
> On 9/27/2012 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> Seto, a very long time ago, came to s.p.r. asking questions about
>
> >> relativity. Perhaps he felt he could learn about relativity by asking
>
> >> questions here. Now, of course, he has no interest in learning anything.
>
> >
>
> > No idiot Dog shit..... I wrote and published a book on Model Mecahnics in 1992 befor I participate
>
> > in this NG. I invented A NEW THEORY OF RELATIVITY CALLED IRT and a new theory of gravity called
>
> > DTG. IRT includes SRT as a subset.
>
> > A paper on IRT and DTG is available in the following link:
>
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>
> >
>
>
>
> Then I was wrong in thinking that you came to s.p.r. in the hopes of
>
> learning something about relativity.
>
>
>
> Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
>
> studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
>
> What did you study?
Any person with average intelligent can understand it.
However, the vast amount of nonsense epicycles added
to it to make it fit observations are the reason why
SR in its current form is a nonsense theory.
I am here trying to educate you SRians that
SR needs modification. That's why I invented IRT.
IRT rejects the SR notion of reciprocity....this
allowed me to formulate a theory that eliminated
the need for the bogus epicycles such as using the speed
of light to define the speed of light and the bogus
concept of RoS.
A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
Big Dog
Sep 28, 2012, 11:59:44 AM9/28/12
to
On 9/28/2012 10:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
>> studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
>> What did you study?
>
> ROTFLOL....the original SR is a very simple theory to understand.
But you can't just understand it by seeing the words "special
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
>> studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
>> What did you study?
>
> ROTFLOL....the original SR is a very simple theory to understand.
relativity". You have to study some source material in order to even
know what it says. I asked you a simple question about what you read to
understand what it says. You haven't answered the question -- what is
the answer?
> However, the vast amount of nonsense epicycles added
> to it to make it fit observations are the reason why
> SR in its current form is a nonsense theory.
To show something has been added, point to your source material for what
you call "the original SR". Then point to something you think has been
added since then, and show that it is not in that source material for
"the original SR".
Furthermore, give an example of an *observation* (NOT a thought
experiment) that did not match "the original SR" and then what was added
to make SR agree with that *observation*.
I don't think you can do this. I'm pretty sure you don't have a single
example of this in mind. Therefore when you talk about the "vast amount
of nonsense epicycles added to it", you're just spouting a lie and
you've got no idea what you mean by that yourself.
>
> I am here trying to educate you SRians that
> SR needs modification.
cases from the outset, which is why it is called SPECIAL relativity.
Modifications were needed to apply relativity in general, which is where
we get GENERAL relativity.
> That's why I invented IRT.
> IRT rejects the SR notion of reciprocity.
Places you've cited where reciprocity is not exhibited are not expected
in SR either. You have this mistaken notion that if SR says something,
then it says it applies in all circumstances. But that notion doesn't
even apply in classical physics. Newton's first law does not apply in
all circumstances. Conservation of momentum and energy only apply in
closed systems. Ohm's law doesn't apply in non-ohmic systems.
xxein
Sep 28, 2012, 7:51:39 PM9/28/12
to
in gravity was doubled except for a measurement? No logic - just math
to fit an observational measurement?
"Modern physicists KNOW that the second postulate is not necessary".
And yet structure their philosophy around it just the same.
You have not studied the physic. You only parrot physicists with
their measurements. I know that Relativity theory and QM theory etc.
are not congruent (TOE). Which theory do you choose? Answer and you
lose.
This is not a math contest (I'd lose). This is the physic you define
as different than physics. Why is it different? Because you really
know it is. You are afraid to confront the physic because you don't
know it. So you like your math pillow.
You have not investigated the physic. Only a proferred math. Enjoy
your math prowess with your bliss. Don't blame me if it bites you in
the end.
What would have Newton have thought about double bending? "Well
there's a mathematical - observation measurement. I never knew
that". So now his structural concept of the physic has to change.
"I'll have to change my theory".
But you have only adopted theories. You are not a physicist. You
only comply with the math of your selected theories.
I can tell you exactly why light double bends over Newton. You seem
to be a profficient in math. Ask me if you think you want to know.
It's beyond just a math based on a theory.
Can you post with a question rather than a statement?
Pete Weber
Sep 29, 2012, 7:39:34 AM9/29/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:33:50 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/27/12 9/27/12 - 10:10 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>> In other words, s.p.r. was created to be a crank school for the
>> training of cranks?
>
> No, that is a side effect. sci.physics.relativity was created to reduce
> the noise level FROM the cranks, in other physics newsgroups. It has had
> limited success in this. Most if not all of those original cranks no
> longer participate.
> AFAICT I am the longest participant here; I first used newsgroups in the
> early 1980s, before s.p.r was created, and before the internet was
> "born" -- USENET was transported via UUCP over telephone lines, and Bell
> Labs was by far the largest set of nodes (I worked there back then).
This is nothing, much before that was BBS and Fidonet
> On 9/27/12 9/27/12 - 10:10 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>> In other words, s.p.r. was created to be a crank school for the
>> training of cranks?
>
> No, that is a side effect. sci.physics.relativity was created to reduce
> the noise level FROM the cranks, in other physics newsgroups. It has had
> limited success in this. Most if not all of those original cranks no
> longer participate.
> AFAICT I am the longest participant here; I first used newsgroups in the
> early 1980s, before s.p.r was created, and before the internet was
> "born" -- USENET was transported via UUCP over telephone lines, and Bell
> Labs was by far the largest set of nodes (I worked there back then).
>
> I continue mostly out of nostalgia -- discussions on s.p.r were integral
> in re-kindling my interest in physics in the 1990s, which resulted in my
> coming back to High Energy Physics in 2002. The key question which did
> this was "How do we know SR is correct [sic]?" -- answering that to my
> own satisfaction took a long literature search which resulted in the FAQ
> page I now maintain.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
right or wrong
Pete Weber
Sep 29, 2012, 7:43:12 AM9/29/12
to
comes and go, Seto is not a parrot
Vilas Tamhane
Sep 29, 2012, 9:29:55 AM9/29/12
to
jealous of Einstein, anti-semantic, noisy babblers and what not!
So who will give an ear to us? Astonishingly this was made possible by
internet that made a dent in the evil fiefdom of Einstein worshippers.
But possibly, according to you and Dirk, what we say is just bullshit.
No it is not bullshit, it is our shit and that is what we do, we
defecate on this newsgroup. Why? May be we can’t keep it inside us. So
as usual, your little non thinking brain had this question.
Question is not why Seto and others are here. Question is, why YOU are
here. Do you have some fatal attraction for something that, as you
say, is nothing but shit?
kenseto
Sep 29, 2012, 11:39:54 AM9/29/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:59:07 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 10:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
>
> >> studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
>
> >> What did you study?
>
> >
>
> > ROTFLOL....the original SR is a very simple theory to understand.
>
>
>
> But you can't just understand it by seeing the words "special
>
> relativity". You have to study some source material in order to even
>
> know what it says. I asked you a simple question about what you read to
>
> understand what it says. You haven't answered the question -- what is
>
> the answer?
>
>
>
> > However, the vast amount of nonsense epicycles added
>
> > to it to make it fit observations are the reason why
>
> > SR in its current form is a nonsense theory.
>
>
>
> What do you think has been added?
1. gemoetric projection.
> On 9/28/2012 10:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
>
> >> studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
>
> >> What did you study?
>
> >
>
> > ROTFLOL....the original SR is a very simple theory to understand.
>
>
>
> But you can't just understand it by seeing the words "special
>
> relativity". You have to study some source material in order to even
>
> know what it says. I asked you a simple question about what you read to
>
> understand what it says. You haven't answered the question -- what is
>
> the answer?
>
>
>
> > However, the vast amount of nonsense epicycles added
>
> > to it to make it fit observations are the reason why
>
> > SR in its current form is a nonsense theory.
>
>
>
> What do you think has been added?
2. speed of light is defined by the speed of light.
3. a longer pole can fit into a shorter barn with both doors close simultaneously and the same longer pole cannot fit into the shorter
barn with both doors close simultaneously.
4. one-way speed of neutrino is measurable but one-way speed
of light is not measurable (or refused to do such measurement.
Big Dog
Oct 1, 2012, 11:02:40 AM10/1/12
to
On 9/29/2012 8:29 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> What are we Big Dog? Crackpots, idiots, unlearned, lazy strollers,
> jealous of Einstein, anti-semantic, noisy babblers and what not!
> So who will give an ear to us?
I think the main question here is, WHY should anyone who is unversed in
>
> What are we Big Dog? Crackpots, idiots, unlearned, lazy strollers,
> jealous of Einstein, anti-semantic, noisy babblers and what not!
> So who will give an ear to us?
a subject and unwilling to become more versed in a subject be given an
ear on the subject? I mean this in all sincerity. Why would a plumber
who is keenly interested in internal medicine but wholly unversed in it,
be given an ear to his views on internal medicine? Why would an
industrial engineer who is keenly interested in international finance
but wholly unversed in it, be given an ear to his opinions or
impressions on international finance?
Why do you think that *interest* equates to having a position that
deserves an ear?
Big Dog
Oct 1, 2012, 11:06:46 AM10/1/12
to
On 9/29/2012 10:39 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:59:07 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 10:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>
>>>> Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
>>
>>>> studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
>>
>>>> What did you study?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> ROTFLOL....the original SR is a very simple theory to understand.
>>
>>
>>
>> But you can't just understand it by seeing the words "special
>>
>> relativity". You have to study some source material in order to even
>>
>> know what it says. I asked you a simple question about what you read to
>>
>> understand what it says. You haven't answered the question -- what is
>>
>> the answer?
>>
>>
>>
>>> However, the vast amount of nonsense epicycles added
>>
>>> to it to make it fit observations are the reason why
>>
>>> SR in its current form is a nonsense theory.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think has been added?
>
> 1. gemoetric projection.
That was there from the beginning. Why do you think it was not?
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:59:07 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 10:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>
>>>> Tell me, Seto, before you wrote your book on relativity, you must have
>>
>>>> studied something to know anything about what relativity says at all.
>>
>>>> What did you study?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> ROTFLOL....the original SR is a very simple theory to understand.
>>
>>
>>
>> But you can't just understand it by seeing the words "special
>>
>> relativity". You have to study some source material in order to even
>>
>> know what it says. I asked you a simple question about what you read to
>>
>> understand what it says. You haven't answered the question -- what is
>>
>> the answer?
>>
>>
>>
>>> However, the vast amount of nonsense epicycles added
>>
>>> to it to make it fit observations are the reason why
>>
>>> SR in its current form is a nonsense theory.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think has been added?
>
> 1. gemoetric projection.
> 2. speed of light is defined by the speed of light.
> 3. a longer pole can fit into a shorter barn with both doors close simultaneously and the same
> longer pole cannot fit into the shorter
> barn with both doors close simultaneously.
that's not what's claimed. If anyone has added it, it's you.
> 4. one-way speed of neutrino is measurable but one-way speed
> of light is not measurable (or refused to do such measurement.
been true, right from the outset. That is basic experimentation sense.
So, again, what's been added to SR?
Tom Roberts
Oct 3, 2012, 12:57:47 AM10/3/12
to
On 9/28/12 9/28/12 6:51 PM, xxein wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> xxein: Math again?
> On Sep 28, 12:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
Using math is one of the best ways we model the world.
> So you don't know why Newton's bending of light
> in gravity was doubled except for a measurement?
The doubling from Einstein's first estimate to his calculation in GR can be
traced to the curvature of space.
> No logic - just math
> to fit an observational measurement?
And there is UNDERSTANDING of the model on which to base it. I suppose that's
what you mean by "logic", though your personal, private language is not clear to me.
> "Modern physicists KNOW that the second postulate is not necessary".
> And yet structure their philosophy around it just the same.
The second postulate is a valid statement about the world we inhabit, within the
domain of SR. But it need not be the basis for SR any more -- we have learned
quite a lot since 1905.
> You have not studied the physic.
something like "the way the world really works", and that simply cannot be
studied by humans, because our minds are not able to do so -- we can only think
THOUGHTS, and thoughts are not "the way the world works", they are at best
MODELS of how it works.
As long as you cling to your personal, private language, communication will be
poor to impossible. There is a reason we have a technical vocabulary; you should
learn it and use it.
> You only parrot physicists with
> their measurements.
not "parroting", I am discussing from a position of UNDERSTANDING. Understanding
of the models, of course.
You seem to be projecting your own limitations onto me. It seems
you can only "parrot", rather than understand modern physics.
> I know that Relativity theory and QM theory etc.
> are not congruent (TOE). Which theory do you choose?
of our standard model of the weak, strong, and electromagnetic interactions. It
is GR (not "Relativity theory") that is incompatible with QM....
I choose both GR and QM, of course, each in its own appropriate domain.
I do not know a self-consistent theory that applies in both domains. Neither do
you. Until we find one, we have to make do with what we have. Fortunately it is
easy to show that the effects of either in the other's domain are completely
negligible for virtually all physical situations.
> This is the physic you define
> as different than physics.
_I_ certainly do not "define" any "physic [sic]" -- that is YOUR private
language, not mine. Until you learn to use the standard, technical vocabulary,
communication will be poor to impossible.
Tom Roberts
dlzc
Oct 3, 2012, 11:25:16 AM10/3/12
to
Dear tjrob137:
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:57:49 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
...
> I choose both GR and QM, of course, each in
> its own appropriate domain.
>
> I do not know a self-consistent theory that
> applies in both domains. Neither do you. Until
> we find one, we have to make do with what we
> have. Fortunately it is easy to show that the
> effects of either in the other's domain are
> completely negligible for virtually all
> physical situations.
Just curious, do you think a successful theory that covers both domains with acceptable errors, will give us anything we don't already have? In other words, what is *between* the two domains that both QM and GR do poorly on?
David A. Smith
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:57:49 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
...
> I choose both GR and QM, of course, each in
> its own appropriate domain.
>
> I do not know a self-consistent theory that
> applies in both domains. Neither do you. Until
> we find one, we have to make do with what we
> have. Fortunately it is easy to show that the
> effects of either in the other's domain are
> completely negligible for virtually all
> physical situations.
David A. Smith
Pete Weber
Oct 3, 2012, 1:56:28 PM10/3/12
to
It is not about the "domain of applicability", but it is
about that they are diametrically different theories!!
The one is about probabilities and other things, they
cannot apply to stars and planets, even if they could
Similarly, they cannot apply the other to atoms and such,
they dont even know what an atom is or look alike
dlzc
Oct 3, 2012, 3:20:21 PM10/3/12
to
Dear Pete Weber:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:56:33 AM UTC-7, Pete Weber wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:25:16 -0700, dlzc wrote:
>
> > Dear tjrob137:
> > On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:57:49 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > ...
> >> I choose both GR and QM, of course, each in its
> >> own appropriate domain.
>
> >> I do not know a self-consistent theory that
> >> applies in both domains. Neither do you.
> >> Until we find one, we have to make do with
> >> what we have. Fortunately it is easy to show
> >> that the effects of either in the other's
> >> domain are completely negligible for
> >> virtually all physical situations.
>
> > Just curious, do you think a successful
> > theory that covers both domains with acceptable
> > errors, will give us anything we don't already
> > have? In other words, what is *between* the
> > two domains that both QM and GR do poorly on?
>
>
> It is not about the "domain of applicability",
> but it is about that they are diametrically
> different theories!!
No, they talk about exactly the same stuff, they just ignore one another entirely. GR ignores quantum behaviors to use differential calculus. Quantum Mechanics averages the entire Universe to some finite local effect.
> The one is about probabilities and other things,
> they cannot apply to stars and planets, even if
> they could
They are both very much about statistics and averaging.
> Similarly, they cannot apply the other to atoms
> and such, they dont even know what an atom is
> or look alike
GR doesn't really have to, since it accepts all that "atoms and such" behavior as "laws of physics".
David A. Smith
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:56:33 AM UTC-7, Pete Weber wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:25:16 -0700, dlzc wrote:
>
> > Dear tjrob137:
> > On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:57:49 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > ...
> >> I choose both GR and QM, of course, each in its
> >> own appropriate domain.
>
> >> I do not know a self-consistent theory that
> >> applies in both domains. Neither do you.
> >> Until we find one, we have to make do with
> >> what we have. Fortunately it is easy to show
> >> that the effects of either in the other's
> >> domain are completely negligible for
> >> virtually all physical situations.
>
> > Just curious, do you think a successful
> > theory that covers both domains with acceptable
> > errors, will give us anything we don't already
> > have? In other words, what is *between* the
> > two domains that both QM and GR do poorly on?
>
>
> Wow, this is a really good question, and wrong
> as well
No question is wrong. Ask your own.
> as well
> It is not about the "domain of applicability",
> but it is about that they are diametrically
> different theories!!
> The one is about probabilities and other things,
> they cannot apply to stars and planets, even if
> they could
> Similarly, they cannot apply the other to atoms
> and such, they dont even know what an atom is
> or look alike
David A. Smith
Pete Weber
Oct 3, 2012, 3:36:38 PM10/3/12
to
Forget the domains, it is like putting genetic unmodified apples
and bananas together, they have nothing in common, not even the mathematics
and procedures
Tom Roberts
Oct 3, 2012, 4:48:19 PM10/3/12
to
I do not expect any measurable difference in the region "between" the domains of
QM and GR, meaning on length scales of nm to mm. Many people already work quite
successfully there.
But the hope and expectation is that a theory of quantum gravity will have a
domain that extends well below that of QM, presumably down to the Planck scale.
That, it is hoped, will permit understanding of the singularities that arise in
GR. Of course such a theory might not reach the Planck scale, and even if it
does, the Planck scale may not be small enough for that -- the history of
science shows that physical theories are layered, in both scale and
sophistication/complexity; there has always been another layer, and I have no
way to guess whether that will remain so once we have a theory of QG....
Tom Roberts
dlzc
Oct 3, 2012, 9:03:24 PM10/3/12
to
Dear tjrob137:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 1:48:20 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/3/12 10/3/12 - 10:25 AM, dlzc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:57:49 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> >> I choose both GR and QM, of course, each in its own
> >> appropriate domain.
>
> >> I do not know a self-consistent theory that applies
> >> in both domains. Neither do you. Until we find one,
> >> we have to make do with what we have. Fortunately
> >> it is easy to show that the effects of either in the
> >> other's domain are completely negligible for
> >> virtually all physical situations.
>
> > Just curious, do you think a successful theory that
> > covers both domains with acceptable errors, will
> > give us anything we don't already have? In other
> > words, what is *between* the two domains that both
> > QM and GR do poorly on?
>
> Good question, even though it calls for an opinion.
>
> I do not expect any measurable difference in the
> region "between" the domains of QM and GR, meaning
> on length scales of nm to mm. Many people already
> work quite successfully there.
Between the "abnormal psychology" of QM and the "sociology" of GR (just comparing disciplines), would be where I would expect the fundamentals of a warp drive to lay. Spacetime is emergent, it seems to me. Not from Planck units, but from summation of quantum events / interactions / _blank_.
> But the hope and expectation is that a theory of
> quantum gravity will have a domain that extends
> well below that of QM, presumably down to the
> Planck scale. That, it is hoped, will permit
> understanding of the singularities that arise in
> GR. Of course such a theory might not reach the
> Planck scale, and even if it does, the Planck
> scale may not be small enough for that -- the
> history of science shows that physical theories
> are layered, in both scale and sophistication /
> complexity; there has always been another layer,
> and I have no way to guess whether that will
> remain so once we have a theory of QG....
Thank you. I appreciate the vignette.
David A. Smith
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 1:48:20 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/3/12 10/3/12 - 10:25 AM, dlzc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:57:49 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> >> I choose both GR and QM, of course, each in its own
> >> appropriate domain.
>
> >> I do not know a self-consistent theory that applies
> >> in both domains. Neither do you. Until we find one,
> >> we have to make do with what we have. Fortunately
> >> it is easy to show that the effects of either in the
> >> other's domain are completely negligible for
> >> virtually all physical situations.
>
> > Just curious, do you think a successful theory that
> > covers both domains with acceptable errors, will
> > give us anything we don't already have? In other
> > words, what is *between* the two domains that both
> > QM and GR do poorly on?
>
> Good question, even though it calls for an opinion.
>
> I do not expect any measurable difference in the
> region "between" the domains of QM and GR, meaning
> on length scales of nm to mm. Many people already
> work quite successfully there.
> But the hope and expectation is that a theory of
> quantum gravity will have a domain that extends
> well below that of QM, presumably down to the
> Planck scale. That, it is hoped, will permit
> understanding of the singularities that arise in
> GR. Of course such a theory might not reach the
> Planck scale, and even if it does, the Planck
> scale may not be small enough for that -- the
> history of science shows that physical theories
> are layered, in both scale and sophistication /
> complexity; there has always been another layer,
> and I have no way to guess whether that will
> remain so once we have a theory of QG....
David A. Smith
Hyperbolic c squared
Oct 23, 2012, 9:44:03 AM10/23/12
to
1/256
Helmholtz pair
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/B_mag.helmholtz.contour.png
Contours showing the magnitude of the magnetic field near the coil
pair.
Inside the central 'octopus' the field is within 1% of its central
value B0.
The five contours are for field magnitudes of 0.5B0, 0.8B0, 0.9B0,
0.95B0, and 0.99B0
magnetar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGR_1806-20
the magnetic field would be so strong, that its energy density would
be around 1.6x10^28 Joules per cubic meter
Sound energy density
0 new messages